Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale Extended! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 20% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY20". ×

Comment Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands (Score 1) 240

You can use fossil fuel to mechanize and automate farming. You can use coal to generate electricity to pump water up hill to irrigate crops. You can use electricity to clean river water to make it safe to drink. You can use diesel equipment to create dams and walls for flood-control.

Yes, and that, as I already stated twice now, is the plan. Better hope they can do it fast enough. Better hope that their neighbours can do it fast enough as well so they don't start getting huge numbers of refugees. Better hope that it isn't too severe to cope with (because developed countries never flood, right?)

And they should. Regardless of whether it's bad of the Marshal Islands.

Then logically we should attack India to prevent the climate change they will cause harming us or costing us money.

Comment Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands (Score 1) 240

People who live in the western world don't die by the millions (or even the thousands) from flooding or crop failure or extreme weather. If cheap energy allows India to begin to prosper like it has allowed the west to prosper, then India can expect to begin to achieve the resiliency that westerners have in the face of bad weather.

Right, that's exactly what I just said. Their hope is that they can reach that level before climate change becomes too severe, but if they can't they are screwed.

If India is deprived of their opportunity for progress, they can expect to remain as much at risk from bad weather as they've always been.

Who is suggesting denying them progress? Not I, I'm saying we need to make progress cleaner, not stop it.

Why would there be wars over resources when fossil fuels are cheap? What resources? The water that's "flooding" them?

Because you can't eat coal. You can't drink sea water or untreated river water full of fossil derived pollutants. A diesel tractor isn't going to help if your farm is under 1m of salt water.

Because they've never had a poverty problem? Because people never migrated in the past? But cheap energy and an improved lifestyle will cause extreme poverty.

Because when parts of the country become uninhabitable people will be forced to migrate in large numbers. Isn't that obvious? Why do you think lots of people are leaving Syria right now, did they get a brochure in the mail advertising the glamorous European lifestyle or did they leave when making a long and dangerous journey away from their homes was the only option?

Indians will industrialize using whatever the cheapest technology is, like we did. They will be short sighted about it, like we were. The only way to prevent this disaster is to make clean energy cheaper than dirty energy, which has the added benefit of accelerating the rise out of poverty for a couple of billion people.

Comment Re: Refugees? Not so much. (Score 1) 240

It has already happened. Parts of their islands flooded, and the sea level is rising and floods becoming more common, along with extreme weather events. FTA elaborates that change is now seen as inevitable, and eventually enough people will be forced to move that there won't be a viable economy or society left for the rest and they will all have to move.

Comment Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands (Score 0) 240

The people of India and the Far East are not some sort of subhuman animals who can't be held accountable for their actions and it's not on the West to take responsibility for fixing everybody else's problems. I absolutely abhor PC finger-wagging, but that is some of the most bigoted tripe I've read today, even if it was couched in platitudes for our Western saviors.

Sorry, that's complete bullshit. If it wasn't clear, I never even implied that some people are "subhuman animals", quite the opposite in fact.

The west generated a lot of pollution when it industrialized, and benefited greatly from it. It would be unfair and bigoted to suggest that India now accept the extra burden of having to develop cleaner technology too. In any case we can't stop them, they are mining vast quantities of coal and building many, many new coal power stations.

In other words, I expect them to be just like us. Our equals in being short sighted and cheap.

We have a moral responsibility to take the benefit we gained from industrializing the dirty way, and using it to develop a cleaner way of living so that everyone can have our quality of life. It's as much for us as it is for them, because if we don't they will just do what we did and then everyone will be screwed.

Comment Re:He should get his day in court... (Score 1) 430

What maths in particular were you looking for but didn't find?

The stuff on nuclear is based on what is reasonably expected to be available in the next 30 years. If you hadn't noticed, most new plants are gen III+, often AP1000s, and there is a big effort to keep existing gen II ones online. I don't think anyone is building commercial gen IV reactors.

They included all the manufacturing issues with PV, it's all well documented, they just use more realistic numbers. I think the 7 year number comes from a very old study using pre-2004 panels. A more recent but still old (2008) study suggests 250kW/m2, which would require around 2.5 years in the dreary UK or under a year in California to generate. The amount of rare or toxic materials used is basically negligible now too, with the inverter hard often having more. Their study is pessimistic and doesn't assume very much improvement either.

Comment Re:India vs. the Marshall Islands (Score 2) 240

It won't be just for a few thousand people in the Marshall Islands, it will be for themselves too. Their country and their lives are at severe risk from climate change. They are basically betting that they can develop fast enough to mitigate a lot of the problems, by industrializing and building defences before millions of them die.

Anyway, it's not really on most of them to fix it. It's on us in the west, and those in the far east to develop clean energy so that it is cheaper than coal anyway, at which point they will switch to it. We are already well on the way, we just need to speed the process up.

Comment Re:He should get his day in court... (Score 1) 430

Greenpeace have done just that. Fully costed, realistic and achievable plans. It's actually cheaper than ignoring the problem, but of course most people don't think that far ahead or assume is to far enough down the road that someone else will pay for it.


Comment Re:Yes, exactly. (Score 1) 196

For comparison a Nissan Leaf has an 80kW motor, with the maximum draw on the batteries being about 90kW when you include all the accessories (heating, lighting etc.) The battery is 24kWh, or 30kWh in the new model.

A 90kW motor is said to be equivalent to a 130HP petrol engine, but I find it's actually a fair bit quicker off the mark due to the instant torque right from zero. The car actually has to hold back to stop the wheels spinning - even if you disable traction control, it will only give you about 60-70% maximum power below 10 KPH.

Comment Re: Summary is so broken (Score 1) 135

A CPU core is a cheap way to do it, and most games are GPU bound anyway... But the other issue is that it's not a real core either. It's an AMD "half core", a bit like Intel's Hyperthreading but with fewer shared resources. So not having it isn't like losing 1/8th of the available processing power, it's more like 1/16th or less because the DRM tends not to saturate the core at all.

They made quite a few compromises on performance this generation. Both consoles constantly record gameplay by encoding the video on the GPU, costing around 5% of the available processing power, plus some CPU, memory and disk.

Comment Re:Sakura Battery (Score 1) 196

How to Succeed in Journalism: Write hundreds of shitty articles about things that will probably not happen (revolutionary new tech, financial disasters, potential industrial accidents etc.) and when one of them eventually does claim to be a visionary genius who got the story first by recognizing its brilliance.

Do it enough and eventually you will get to work for a content mill or crystal ball gazers like Gartner.

Comment Re:Von Braun Screwed Up (Score 1) 214

When JFK set his target to land on the moon he was probably thinking of cooperating with the USSR on the project. He had a good relationship with the Russian's top politicians which really helped during the missile crisis. If he had not been assassinated Apollo 11 could well have been a joint US/USSR mission, and cost a great deal less and had a longer lasting legacy.

Comment Re:Don't hold your breath (Score 1) 214

The CPUs used in space have to be radiation hardened and extremely reliable. They can't use the latest manufacturing processes that let you buy a mass produced 3GHz CPU for a few tens of dollars, they have to have them specially designed and made out of different materials on a difference process and then extensively tested.

1000 pains = 1 Megahertz