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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

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).


Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1) 325

by K. S. Kyosuke (#49188309) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills
I have no idea what the CRU has to do with that. I accepted global warming as a fact a quarter century ago. The reason was that the research of many people at that time and before that said it was happening. There was no reason to think otherwise. There isn't any reason to think otherwise now, and there hasn't been any reason in between the two points in time. How anything that happened at one scientific institution at one point in time - beyond some ground-breaking discovery (which didn't happen, naturally) explaining how and why everyone else was wrong - could have invalidated the work of many different scientists from countries all over the world eludes me. Not to mention that to my knowledge, nothing significantly improper was demonstrated to have happened in the institution you mentioned, despite multiple investigations.

Comment: Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1) 325

by K. S. Kyosuke (#49188005) Attached to: White House Threatens Veto Over EPA "Secret Science" Bills

Lets not be silly just to push a narritive. You will come up with a completely different data set if you spend ten years recollecting data.

What I had in mind is what silly conditions will be pushed by people in power who don't like the conclusions of some studies.

How much of the global warming debate would exist today if everything was open at the time instead of refusals to disclose data and so on

At what time? What refusals? What are you talking about? Arrhenius predicted global warming in 1896! Publically, of course. You're saying that somebody has been hiding some data for a century?

Comment: Re:Cape Wind Will Die (Score 1) 236

I think you missed the part where PV cells, being solid-state devices, kind of tend to be maintenance-free. When a Swedish insular PV plant from the mid-80's was recently decommissioned, they found that one (1!) of the twenty panels provided degraded output because of a failure of one of its cells, and the remaining nineteen provided their factory-rated output (!) 25 years (!!) after having been put in place. And those were ancient modules, not the modern ones. Back then, they didn't even have a 25 years warranty like today, only had a 10 year one or something like that. At that point, who the hell cares if you lose 60% in stored energy? Especially if only a part of the output gets stored and the rest is simply used as is. If you don't have to pamper them the way mechanical parts need to be pampered, just use twice as many panels and stop caring. Duh!

Comment: Re:Cape Wind Will Die (Score 1) 236

Why would you go for fuel cells when there's an entire industry running on methane? Domestic appliances, gas turbine plants, CNG vehicles, huge natural gas storage tanks... Germany alone has 250 TWh worth of gas storage. Sounds like a pretty large "chemical battery" to me. And they already have it.

Comment: Re:Cape Wind Will Die (Score 1) 236

What are you talking about? 80% waste is highly unlikely. Electrolysis efficiency is solidly 60%+, often more. And it's pointless to argue about waste if we're talking about power peaks that you have to offload somewhere. Solar cells are "crazy inefficient", but that doesn't matter because sunlight comes for free. Immediate electricity peaks with no outlets are of much lower value than storable hydrocarbons, so some level of waste is acceptable (just like electricity is of higher value than the coal being burned in the boiler, that's why we're burning the coal in an expensive power plant instead of in a cheap stove in the first place!). All that assuming that technology progresses and Swanson's law holds at least for the next two decades, but there isn't any reason why it shouldn't.

Breadth-first search is the bulldozer of science. -- Randy Goebel