Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
It's also not clear if Intel can succeed in making x86 chips save power. At least they're really trying now, which is more than they were doing before. But all that x86 instruction set baggage really bites them. It's something they can ignore in the server arena, but low-power is a different beast. Now I'm not saying they can't do it; Intel has great people and they do great things when they really try. But it will be hard.
I avoid all non-free software from BSA member organizations. If the BSA comes knocking, they get the door slammed on them until they come back with a court-issued warrant.
You will fail. I never said wind was worthless. Even a computer could do this. Hint: Ctrl-F.
I never even said anything that could be interpreted as equivalent to saying wind was worthless. Again, if you think otherwise, quote me. Go ahead.
Wind power today is 4% of global electricity production. This amount is worthwhile, but NOT A COMPLETE SOLUTION, and whether or not wind can go much beyond present production remains unproven. What part of this complex sentence do you not understand?
Since you can read French, I direct your attention to page 9 from the 2006 report.
Production totale brute d’électricité (2006): 450.2 TWh (Nucléaire)
Total: 574.5 TWh
In percentage terms: 78.4%
Stop it with the outright falsehoods. I am right.
1. I can read French very well, thank you very much. Lie.
2. I have no idea what Party you keep referring to. I do not live in Russia. I do not live in the USA. I do not live in Europe. I cannot debate straw men. Identify "The Party" to which you refer if you want me to comment intelligently on this bogeyman.
3. I am no longer committing any deceptions, yet you still have not rebutted in any way the fundamental argument that nuclear power has a far higher output ceiling than wind, all the meanwhile accusing me of lying. Stop grasping at past straw men.
4. "As for the name calling, you've been doing either all of it or pretty damned close to all of it." Direct quote from you. Blatant lie, and you got called out on it hard. Note: arguing that your name-calling was justified does not mean your name-calling never happened.
5. "I very much doubt 75% is the case apart from a absolute yearly maximum" Direct quote from you, which you have still not yet unambiguously repudiated.
Stop attacking me and give me a good reason why we should not pursue nuclear power more than wind power. All I hear is crickets so far.