Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Slashdot: News for Haters (Score 1) 407

You are arguing that France is wasting money on the project, itself, but it seems you should be arguing that France wastes orders of magnitude more of that every year on PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS! What idiots! Instead of paying professionals, they could have just come to /. and had a bunch of free (in cost and time) smart asses do all the HARD SCIENCE to confirm whether or not the project is feasible ('cause, you DO have actual data supporting your points above and not just a soar asshole from rigorous "fact" extraction to show for your post, right!?)!

Comment Re:Slashdot: News for Haters (Score 1) 407

As with many things, comparing anything else but cost and generation output between the two projects results in a pretty absurd comparison. . .

ITER is planned to produce net 450MW output at, so far, 14B USD cost. Keep in mind, that is ALL or NOTHING. That is a pretty low bar for the roadway to beat. . . AND, the roadway can be stopped at any time (10km not performing as expected. . . uhm. . . guess we'll stop here. . . ), so the opportunity cost is massively different.

That is the great thing about tech like solar and wind. You can do absurd things on the cheap in an industry used to throwing away ten of BILLIONS at a time! There is absolutely no comparison. This is like cell phones kicking the ass of landlines. The economics of the industry have changed and so swiftly that the armchair experts are still arguing yesterday's talking points. . .

Comment Re:Slashdot: News for Haters (Score 1) 407

Humanity also could build a carriages being polled by ants and us that instead cars. Jus it doesn't mean it's a good idea, or should be done . . .

Unlike the absurdity you posted, building-integrated photovoltaics is a legitimate technology with obvious advantages. If power generation could be easily and cheaply combined with conventional construction technologies, the reduced costs and ecological impacts would be immense. Your treating this technology like some kind of absurd magic reveals nothing but your unabated ignorance of said technology.

. . . , especially from everyone's public money.

How the hell do you expect to be able to modify public roads without public money? The very nature of such a project requires it to be public. Maybe you are against public roads?

Comment Re:Slashdot: News for Haters (Score 1) 407

Sorry, Anon. . . TLDR; . . . Except for the first sentence. . . go create an account and I might read the rest of your post one day.

This money could be better spent researching THE MATERIALS

Oh, just like how the conventional solar industry has started booming because everyone focused 100% on material research alone instead of economies of scale? Except that is exactly what did NOT happen!? It was the economies of scale that created the virtuous cycle of innovation and up scaling we are seeing today. NOT the Ivory Tower. . .

Solar power is incredibly cheap, decentralized, and easy to access. Treating it like another Ivory Tower technology like fusion is exactly the WRONG approach. It is SOOOO much cheaper than other energy projects that trying all sorts of crazy, bold things with it is exactly what is and should be happening.

Comment Slashdot: News for Haters (Score 4, Insightful) 407

Seriously, of all the things to be bitching about in the world, this project seems like it should be low on the list, yet /.ers are foaming at the mouths by the look of the top comments right now. Even if this project is destined to failure, do you actually believe humanity will never, ever be able to capture solar energy from roads? Well, if you admit it might be possible one day, then guess what? It is going to take projects like this one failing to eventually get there (or did you think technological progress hatches like a magic egg if you wait long enough?).

A project like this is NOTHING compared to the money spent on fusion so far. Is it actually any more of a long shot than fusion? Seems like people who have trouble prioritizing their bitching list should not be so critical of how others are prioritizing their long shot energy projects. Besides, this has nothing to do with the project, and you are just blowing off steam because it is Sunday, and you couldn't get a date on Saturday night, AGAIN, right?

If only people could get rich off of pissing all over someone else's idea. . . /.ers could finally move out of their parents' basements and stop being such bitter a-holes. . .

Comment Re:Rebound effect. . . (Score 1) 338

Well, in the first scenario you are only using 21% of the original amount of electricity for the same amount of light. In the second scenario, you are only using using ~24.8% (5.2/21) of the electricity used with the previous technology for the same amount of light. That is a comparable impact.

If you had read my link on the "Rebound Effect," you would know that the fear I am addressing is that lighting technology that uses less electricity will just increase the overall use of electricity used for lighting because now people will use a lot more of it (> 5x more). My argument is that even if that happened by their prediction date of 2030 (so lighting use would be 5x the use of today), we could reduce it again to roughly ~1/5. So though the savings per bulb is a lot less, the assumption is that there are 5x more bulbs existing at that point.

Of course, there are other arguments against the LED rebound effect. For instance, since I switched to LEDs I have installed almost 2 dozen yard lights and several security lights. However, each one is solar powered, so even though my lighting use has increased dramatically due to LEDs, my additional use has had not increased my demand on electricity at all.

Comment Rebound effect. . . (Score 1) 338

This is why I have trouble giving much weight to those warning about an LED rebound effect. I read somewhere that the authors of a paper on the LED rebound effect had to push out their prediction date (from 2015 to 2030).

The thing is, in 15 years we will be replacing old LEDs (which get around ~80 lumens/watt) with new LED technology (theoretically, ~300 lumens/watt). The impact will probably be comparable to replacing incandescent bulbs with LEDs today.

I suppose in 30 years we will just have engineered our eyes to work flawlessly without any artificial lighting . . . :p

Comment Re:It's economics, stupid (Score 1) 645

Yes, another great example.

In addition to cost effectiveness, decentralized technologies are having the opposite impact as the Resource Curse in Africa.

Centralized systems lead to power and wealth concentrations which sabotage the economic development of the overall population. Decentralized systems result in more competition, lower costs, fairer wealth distribution, faster technological progress. . . basically the types of things you would want to inject into a region in great need of economic development.

Slashdot Top Deals

The bigger the theory the better.