Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Deliberate (Score 1) 541

by Chas (#48462851) Attached to: Two Google Engineers Say Renewables Can't Cure Climate Change

The problem is, solar still doesn't have the energy density of nuclear, or fossil fuel plants. Which means, for the same generation capacity, you have to grow your plant size.

And you may want to refer to personal solar. Which is nice and all, but is NOT for everyone. Plus the fact that over-subscription to home solar where the power company's forced to subsidize, can destroy a grid runner's ability to effectively operate.

Again, Hawaii is great, fine and wonderful. As a universal template for implementation of renewables in the continental 48? It's not.

Actually no. My plan isn't calling for 1/4 of what yours is. Mine is looking at roughly a 3-4-fold increase across the board. What you're looking at is closer to a 500-fold increase for solar and 100-fold increase for wind.

Renewable biomass will expand (the largest portion of current non-Hydro renewables).
Geothermal will expand.
Wind will expand.
Solar will expand.

Even if we limited biomass power and pushed the others, you're still looking at a 4-6-fold increase total (were percentages to stay stable).

So it's a difference of extreme scale.

Basically, trebling to sextupling solar, wind and geothermal in the next 10 years is ambitious, but doable.

Kicking it up by a factor of 500 (not 500%) is an engineering and social no-go.

Comment: Re:Empty article.. (Score 1) 355

by Chas (#48462157) Attached to: How Intel and Micron May Finally Kill the Hard Disk Drive

Also incorrect assertion that drives don't go faster than 7200 (there are 15k drives, just they are pointless for most with SSD caching strategies available).

That isn't what was asserted.

They asserted there's no REAL market for 10K/15K hard drives, as the performance increase isn't helpful, the cost to manufacture and test skyrockets, and the additional physical and thermal stresses shorten the drive's lifespan and make them unsuitable for some applications (laptops).

Comment: Re:Deliberate (Score 1) 541

by Chas (#48462033) Attached to: Two Google Engineers Say Renewables Can't Cure Climate Change

That being said, my 'ideal' non-fossil fuel electric grid ratio is roughly 40% nuclear, 20% solar, 20% wind, 20% 'other'. Nuclear provides baseload, solar covers the extra power demand of the day, 20% wind is about what we can support without extensive modification. Though the way things are going 30-10 in favor of solar might be more likely. Other includes hydro, geothermal, tidal, biomass, and such. It's most of your peaking power outside of the extra solar online during the day.

Honestly, expecting 20% solar and 20% wind is...well...crazy.

Right now, solar power in the US accounts for 0.39% of ALL power generated by the country (or 3% of total renewable energy generation).
Right now, wind power in the US accounts for 2.08% of ALL power generated by the country (or about 16% of total renewable energy generation).

Expecting a 500-fold uptake on solar and a 100-fold uptake on wind?

Wind MIGHT be doable. But the tech to do it isn't quite there yet. And trying to sell a five-hundred-fold increase in land-based wind farms is going to be VERY tough.

Solar would have to become several orders of magnitude more efficient than it already is to even have a hope of being viable at 20%.

More realistically, what I'd like to see is Nuclear power at 75% (with some division between fusion and fission at some point when fusion becomes a reality). And all renewables would comprise the other 25%.

Seeing as most major Hydro is a done deal in this country, that would leave some fairly big room for expansion in Wind, Solar and Geothermal (Basically doubling total renewable generation but 90-100% of the expansion would be non-Hydro.

While it's not some pie-in-the-sky "all renewable" plan. It's fairly ambitious and the renewables industries would need to get off their asses and execute HARD to meet those kinds of quotas.

Comment: Re:Turn off the electricity to the dorms (Score 1) 203

by Chas (#48439371) Attached to: Harvard Students Move Fossil Fuel Stock Fight To Court

The problem is, Hydro in the US is pretty much peaked. There are some small hydro projects that can be worked. But Big Hydro in the US is done. And the environmental lobby won't let that go.

Increasing solar/wind/geothermal is admirable. But due to land use and appropriateness, I seriously doubt we going to see as massive an increase in these as would be needed to negate the need for coal/oil.

Nuclear, honestly, is what I'd prefer to see stepping up to fill the gap. Unfortunately, the "nuclear = bombs, bombs = bad" FUD brigade is going to fight tooth and nail to keep nuclear from ever being a choice. Which is too bad. Considering the fact that we haven't actually built NEW capacity in HOW long? Yet nuclear power's energy output has continued to rise over the last 40 years.

Comment: Re:So you want people living in caves? YOU GO FIRS (Score 1) 203

by Chas (#48437105) Attached to: Harvard Students Move Fossil Fuel Stock Fight To Court

You want people swear off coal and oil right now when it makes up over 85% of the total power generated in this country? That's basically asking them to go back to living in caves. To having their kids die of preventable diseases. To going hungry if their crops fail or hunting sucks.

We don't have to. Let's say we pass a few reforms.

Oh Goodie! REFORMS!

Things like house the homeless($10k annually vs $40k to leave them on the street)

So, back to Cabrini Green? I'd also like to know where you get your numbers from.

reform sentences and prisons(1/2 the prison sentence AND less likely to come back?)

Half the sentence? Okay. Less likely to come back? You can't guarantee something like that. You just can't. And dumping recidivist offenders back on the street just allows them to prey on people again.

Now, half a death sentence? If you can figure that one out, I'd be interested to hear...

and healthcare

Which everyone else pays for.

The fed.gov already spends 90% of what it would take to provide single-payer UHC if we were paying the median for industrialized nations.

Sure, but I don't trust the government with a wooden nickle.

Or did you NOT notice that the country's multi-TRILLION dollar debt load.

The individual states more than pick up the remaining 10%.

Oh. That's cute. Expecting the state governments to kick in money out of the goodness of their hearts.

Sorry, unless someone's pockets are being lined at every step of the way, don't expect it to EVER get done.

We currently spend ~$6.7k vs $2.9k. So fixing this ONE problem would enable states to put more money towards other important things without going into debt, help with the federal deficit, AND dump about a grand more into every family's pocket a month.

What does $3k a year, per person, pay for? A hell of a lot of solar panels and other sources of renewable power. We can improve our lives in a lot of other ways.

You're assuming that the politicians don't load down such measures with pork projects. You're also expecting 100% participation, no recidivism, and nobody abusing the system.

I simply don't have that much faith in people.

Comment: Re:Turn off the electricity to the dorms (Score 3, Insightful) 203

by Chas (#48431801) Attached to: Harvard Students Move Fossil Fuel Stock Fight To Court

Okay, fossil fuel power makes up the bulk of the generation capacity in the US.

Nuclear power accounts for just under 20% of total power generation in the country.
Fossil fuel power accounts for just over 65% of total power generation in the country.

Renewables?

TOTAL renewable energy in this country comes out at about 13% of total generation capacity.

Hydro being about 66% of that 13% (or 8.58% of total capacity).
Solar? 3% of that 13% (or .0039% of total capacity).

I don't think the country is ready to have two thirds slashed out of its power budget.

Comment: So you want people living in caves? YOU GO FIRST! (Score 2) 203

by Chas (#48431781) Attached to: Harvard Students Move Fossil Fuel Stock Fight To Court

Seriously.

There's one reason this country enjoys the standard of living it has now.

Energy.

You want people swear off coal and oil right now when it makes up over 85% of the total power generated in this country? That's basically asking them to go back to living in caves. To having their kids die of preventable diseases. To going hungry if their crops fail or hunting sucks.

If you think THAT standard of living is so great, YOU GO FIRST. Once you've spent 10 years in your cave and proven it viable for the other 8 billion people on the planet, then, maybe, someone will follow your lead.

Until then, you need to shut the fuck up instead of flapping your gums on a subject you obviously know jack shit about.

"Morality is one thing. Ratings are everything." - A Network 23 executive on "Max Headroom"

Working...