Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:100% BULLSHIT (Score 1) 244

Germany will produce all its base load in 15 years by wind.
No idea how you come to the brain dead idea that base load is produced by dispatch able plants. It is not.
Base load is produced by plants that never change their output (because historically, that was the cheapest plant thinkable). In future you use wind for that. The load following plants don't care if they follow the changing demand (with fixed load nuclear/brown coal plants) or changing base load wind plants or both. It is the same 'problem'.
With enough wind plants distributed over the whole country and the use of forecasts/prognosis there is no additional problem involved.
However, perhaps you live in a different universe and your /. comment came into ours via a worm hole or a tunnel effect?
Pfft ... learn som physics and get a clue.

Comment Re:This is easy to evaluate (Score 1) 244

This will be ridiculously easy to evaluate.
Indeed it is. ... then it will attract private investment money and a lot of it. Investments in wind will far outpace investments in other kinds of power generation (coal, nat gas, nuke, etc).
That is happening since 30 years now ... or did you think the wind power installed was gifted to Germany by aliens?

Comment Re:Cost per kwh in Germany is 5.3x higher than our (Score 1) 244

You are mixing up the 'well known' prices for citizens/households with those for the industry.
Do you really believe a german steel mill pays 28cents per kWh? You cant be so dumb, can you?
I bet the prices for industrial consumers in the USA and Europe are more or less the same.

Comment Re: Time to drop the prices? (Score 1) 244

Perhaps it is not predictable for you, as you obviously never really dug into the matter.
My prediction for germany next year is: same amount of wind as this year (+/- 5%), my bet for solar is: same amount as this year (+/- 10%).
What is your bet for your country?
That you have this year a value of X and next year +/- 100%? 50%? 25%?

For all practical means of power production renewables are quite perfectly predictable.

Comment Re:Show us the data (Score 1) 244

Well, it is your parents fault, but this is wrong:Well, but then you have to add the cost of the gas power plant to the cost of the wind power plant in order to calculate the actual cost of wind power.

No you have not.
You treat both plants separately. Or do you want to add the costs of the wind plant to the gas plant, too?
Whether you want two plants, is your business decision.
If you want to compete with your self, only selling wind power when you have lots of wind (and no gas power then) or if you want to sell gas power when there is no wind, is up too you.
In the end of the year you will have sold SUM power. X% of that SUM will be produced by wind. SUM - X% will be produced by gas. For the first one you calculate the price per produced kW/h, the same you do for the second.
There is no: we need to to assess the second to get the real price for the first.
I for my part would only build up wind pants. If you want to compete with either wind, or gas or both: that is your business decision.
I don't have to take into account how you do run your business, nor have you to take mine into account, except: when I produce power, you can't beat my price. But that is a simple business decision for you. Can you at a certain time in the year (or day or month) produce power and make money? Fair and simple.

Comment Re:Not the total cost! (Score 1) 244

Sigh ... how many dams has the Mississippi?
So, how can the "good ones" be all built?

In river flow plants, the height of the dam is not relevant, the water flowing below the dam is used to drive a turbine.

The height of the dam only determines water pressure and the size of the 'reservior' behind he dam.

The US have utilized far less than one promille of its potential for river power plants.

Comment Re:Not the total cost! (Score 1) 244

More to the point, how many could sustain a turbine that would generate more power in their lifetimes than that required to deliver the turbine to the point of use?

Well, perhaps you google ;D
River power plants are very common in germany, many are over 100 years old. They have regenerated their "construction costs" in energy plentifull.

Our country, and our rivers, are not very big!
You don't need a big river.

My answer was aimed to the US anyway.

Comment Re:Give me a raise (Score 4, Insightful) 175

An enlightened perspective, and I think you're right.

I see too many managers just deciding it's an authoritarian chain: you do what I say because I said it.

This will never be fixed until managers are paid and treated the same as the people they are managing. As long as they are compensated and treated as figures of elevated status, they will tend to act in authoritarian ways.

Comment Re:From TFA (Score 1) 244

The capacity factor of a load following coal plant in Germany is also only 40% or less (hint: it is only running between 6:00 and 21:00)

Same for a french load following nuclear plant, as France has a higher base load than Germany their load following plants are perhaps at 60% CF.

As long as you don't knwo what a CF actually expresses it is pretty pointless to use it in arguments.

Comment Re:Not the total cost! (Score 1) 244

Hydro capacity is closed to maxed out -
That is a /. myth.

Every river could have every 10miles or so a power plant.

However it would cost money, and you would need locks for the ships, costing more money and you ould slow down ships ...

Most people always think a hydro plant would need a valey and a dam ... that is not he case.

There are also buoy, which you can simply let swim in a river that produce power.

Here an example, unfortunately only in german:

Comment Re:Not the total cost! (Score 0) 244

I never pretended to be an "electrical engineer", especially as this is punishable by laaw, you idiot.
I'm a Software engineer who worked nealry a decade for energy companies.

You can make up for that lack by looking at a weather map and trying to identify a day when there is no wind at all over a region large enough to be covered by a national grid
No need for that: this is physically impossible ... at least for Germany. Perhaps you could find a very small country somewhere where this is possible.

If you had an education you would stop insulting others on the net, and you likely would know a bit more about how weather and wind works.

Perhaps you want to read something about it?

Feel free to link us some sattelite photos and explain to us where you think there is no wind :D

Comment History says otherwise (Score 1) 244

Wind and solar have minuscule costs over the long term (just maintenance on the machines and lines).

Please then explain the massive fields of dead turbines in California and the southern tip of Hawaii.

Long term history teaches us that wind power plants shut down after just a decade or two. Why is that? If the long term cost is minuscule why would they have been decommissioned?

Of course there's tremendous cost to birds also but fuck wildlife, right?

Comment Re:Not the total cost! (Score 1) 244

overlooks the cost of managing the intermittancy and unreliability of wind is not complete. That cost grows as wind becomes a greater percentage of the generation portfolio.
First of all, that cost is very likely included and not overlooked.
Secondly the cost grows analog to the installment base, and not over proportional. So there s no disadvantage if teh percentage of wind grows.
Also: you have the same planning overhead for any other power source ;D (I wrote, was involved in writing, the planning software for

Be careful when a loop exits to the same place from side and bottom.