Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Wow (Score 3, Informative) 304

"On a sunny summer afternoon, the facility could provide more than 5% of the city’s power needs at a price—$50 per megawatt hour—considerably below other solar projects. In July, Austin Energy announced bids for a new round of solar construction that were below $40 a megawatt hour."

That's 4 cents per kWh.

Wow.

Comment Wow, such BS (Score 1) 100

" offer solar energy that's cheaper than diesel."

Diesel is an extremely expensive fuel. Comparing yourself to that, when conventional PV is 2 to 3 times cheaper already, seems very fishy indeed.

http://www.lazard.com/media/1777/levelized_cost_of_energy_-_version_80.pdf

Comment That, or... (Score 1) 519

"It makes apps, it approves apps, and it profits from apps. But, for its plan to work, the company will need those entertainers and publishers to funnel their content to where Apple wants it to be. "

I recently went to a page where the JS begged me to turn off AdBlock. So I did. I was rewarded with a page that was 3/5th ads, with the content squished into the center. Turning it back on produced a single column of readable text. I can't wait for AB on iOS.

When Apple refused to support Flash and told everyone it was because Flash sucked, the interwebs came alive with conspiracy theories about how Apple was trying to force people onto QT and apps. The thing is, Flash did suck, and all the other platforms turned it off too. And today, the conspiracy theory is no longer mentioned.

So here we are with plug-ins. Is Apple making a plug-in system, or trying to force everyone to use apps? I suspect the later, and have a feeling this story arc will play out the same way as Flash over the next six months.

Comment Re:In other news... (Score 1) 484

> hmmm... I can only speak to what I've heard of the US grid

Which is, apparently, "nothing whatsoever".

> You have to use oil if you do that ::rolleyes::

Hydro has the fastest ramp time of any power source, followed by the *infantismal* amount of ICE engines, followed by natural gas turbines.

> Yes you know it will be a sunny day or there might be wind but you really don't know how much.

We know within something like 20% what will be going on in an hour to four. This has been the case for the better part of a decade now (I was doing tech analisys on energy systems when this stuff went mainstream). There is more than enough warning, what MAY be lacking is the NG peakers to offset it. At current levels, however, this is a total non-problem.

> Login and make your point or remain an ignorable AC troll. ;)

Says the guy with an alias.

Comment Re:What are they going to replace with? (Score 1) 484

> Without drastic reduction on the demand side

I lived in Ireland for a while. One day in October when it was nasty outside I was inside shivering and then noticed why... the drapes were blowing around. So I got up to close the window.

The window *was* closed.

This was in a home built in the 1970s.

In contrast, I am now living in a typical Canadian home built in 1972. It is completely insulated, plastic wrapped and has reasonably high-quality double-pane windows throughout. The only thing that's changed since is to use more insulation overall and to also cover the outside of the basement walls, which they didn't really start doing around here until the 90s.

Even still, it uses much more energy than it has to. I've already replaced all the lights with LED and put in reasonably new appliances, so my daily electricity is down to about 10 to 11 kWh, about half the national average. Most of the energy I use is heating, and I could cut that by 1/2 to 1/3rd by using a georeturn heat pump.

Cutting total energy use in half in the western world is not impossible. Just expensive. But we're talking "about the same as that craptastic Wolf stove and terribly inefficient Sub-Zero fridge" expensive.

Comment Twaddle (Score 1) 160

The summary here on /. reads

"After taking control of the car's entertainment system it was possible to gain control of vital car systems such as the brakes"

Actually reading the article you find nothing of the sort happened. The article merely states

"Once an infotainment system had been compromised, he said, an attacker could potentially use it as a way to control more critical systems, including steering and braking."

This hack consisted solely of causing text like "LOLZ I RULZ" appear on the radio display.

Thank you samzenpus for giving this topic the attention it most certainly does not deserve.

Comment Re: BD-5 (Score 1) 28

> Bede's certificated plane, the American Aviation AA-1 Yankee

The original BD-1 never matured as Bede lost interest in finishing the design and spent his time on the network of dealerships he was going to build to sell them.

The investors had to fire him and give the design to someone else to complete. They had to do pretty much a complete redesign on it.

This is a recurring theme, Bede was clearly an "ideas guy".

Comment Re:You are confusing two different aircraft (Score 3, Insightful) 28

> The BD-5 is a propeller-driven plane with an internal combustion engine, which Bede derived from a sailplane version he never sold

Incorrect.

The BD-5 design was copied, deliberately and publicly, from a Schweizer glider. The goal was, always, to produce a powered light aircraft. The B model, the glider, was an offshoot of the A model. As it turned out, the A model wings were substantially under-designed, and an intermediate length was substituted on most models. All of the designs initially made considerable use of fibreglass, but the entire series was moved to aluminum as the orders poured it.

The design was flawed from conception to construction. It fails due to a well-known issue in aircraft design, as it is "close coupled". The short length of the aircraft means that there is limited distance between the various force points like the CoG and CoF and the control surfaces. Exasperating this is the rear mounted engine, which means there's only, literally, inches between the heaviest part of the aircraft and the control surfaces. That means the controls have to be made larger so they have enough force to operate at low speeds. However, this also means that they are dramatically overpowered at higher speeds. There's no way around this, its basic physics. The "solution" for more expensive designs is powered controls and artificial feel.

Worse, in terms of the length of the aircraft, moving the pilot's seat a few inches is more of a relative shift than it is in, say, a Cessna. This means the aircraft is extremely sensitive to changes in W&B. Even something as minor as burning off fuel will require constant trimming, and that trim point will, for the reasons outlined above, change with speed.

So all of this conspires to make the aircraft difficult to fly on approach. As the aircraft slows the trim keeps changing. Combine that with high approach speeds and ever-more-sensitive controls. And finally, put the thrust line above the aircraft, so if you goose the engine it pushes the nose down, precisely the opposite of what you want it to do.

There is a reason a Cessna looks like it does. It is, for the vast majority of cases, the proper layout for an aircraft. Canard and other layouts have well known advantages in particular situations, but these are generally offset by their disadvantages which is why they are used only in edge cases like fighters.

The BD-10 was a joke from start to finish. Bede had no idea what he was doing, which is not surprising because he never really did any of the design on any of "his" projects - the actual design was left to young engineers typically fresh out of university. In the case of the -10, it was designed using a piece of Mac software known as MacFlow which had a number of bugs in both the software and the models. They initially predicted supersonic performance, but this was due to a bug in the model, From that point on the performance of the aircraft continued to degrade as drag and weight increased continually.

Building a transonic aircraft from pop-rivets? Yeah, that will work...

Comment Ok, and? (Score 3, Interesting) 143

"Conservative cost estimates for building a single Hyperloop track from Los Angeles to San Francisco come in at US$6 billion."

Is that supposed to sound expensive?

SFO's two terminals cost well over $1 billion each in inflation adjusted dollars. The new tower was $350 million. I can't find numbers on the physical plants, like the runways, but I suspect they're similar. I think $5 billion for the entire airport is not unreasonable. LAX is significantly larger and more expensive; they're spending $270 on elevator repairs alone.

A six-lane highway costs between $10 and $26 million per mile. It's 380 miles from LA to SF, so that's $3.8 to $9 billion.

The F-35 program is one trillion and counting.

Sorry, but this number seems fine to me.

Real Programs don't use shared text. Otherwise, how can they use functions for scratch space after they are finished calling them?

Working...