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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Excess (Score 1) 281

Most of what I said is platform-agnostic.

And that's why nearly everything you said is wrong.

You said power generation at point of use frees us from infrastructure needs.

No, I didn't. This is where adult-level reading comprehension really comes into play. What I said was: "you eliminate the cost of building and maintaining the vast majority of infrastructure that would be required for a central plant."

That does not mean you would not need infrastructure. If you build a central power plant you will need to connect it to the grid, and possibly augment the grid to deliver that power.

On the other hand, solar PV installed at the point of use piggybacks on existing infrastructure, and actually reduces the peak loads which reduces maintenance costs.

I hope you can appreciate the distinction.

Comment Re:Excess (Score 1) 281

Okay, you seem to have a few problems going on here.

For one, I'm talking about Photovoltaics and you seem to be alternating between PV and solar-thermal. This should have been evident because the very first thing I typed was "Solar PV..."

I don't think I'm the one with a reading comprehension problem here. I suppose it's also possible that you simply don't know anything and can't tell the difference.

Comment Re:Excess (Score 1) 281

Wide-spread management incurs higher total cost.

Solar PV has essentially zero maintenance cost once installed.

Plus, with the benefit of the power being produced where it is actually used, you eliminate the cost of building and maintaining the vast majority of infrastructure that would be required for a central plant.

On top of that, the people who install the systems reap direct financial benefits through lower utility bills.

Up-front costs are higher in total, due to the need to shuffle electricians around

I get the impression that you have no idea what you're talking about...

The problems with deploying in wide area are large. Land use is inefficient

Wrong. The land in question is already being used for something else: housing. In essence there is zero additional land use. It doesn't get more efficient than that.

Transmission to point-of-use incurs more loss

You're producing *at* the point of use. There is essentially no transmission required.

That's another way of saying, "You close your eyes and pretend it's not there."

No, that's explaining the difference between pissing in your cornflakes and pissing in the ocean.

Do you want to cut down 5 million acres of forest or 5 million acres of forest?

No, and I just explained why we wouldn't have to. I get the impression that you're either have no actual experience with solar power or you're being deliberately obtuse.

Comment Re:Excess (Score 1) 281

You could handily generate all of the electricity we in the US need just by putting solar panels on roofs of private residences, and not even ALL of them.

When people like you do these kinds of calculations, they seem to get stuck on the idea that it needs to be homogenous. Saying "5.3 times the land area of Rhode Island" might be technically correct, but it's meaningless: That's *0.2%* of the entire area of the contiguous United States. When you spread it out - as is the optimal arrangement for solar power anyway - it virtually vanishes.

Comment Re: I welcome our new robotic overlords' produce (Score 1) 161

So...if this starts becoming predominant in the US, I wonder how many Mexican workers will return home after being displaced by the robots?

None, because if it was viable to remain in Mexico they would not have risked so much coming here in the first place.

Comment Re:Background (Score 1) 313

Sanders running as an independant would only result in President Trump.

Unless the GOP nominates someone else, by means fair or foul.

Worst case if that happens, Trump drops out and we get GOP candidate X vs a split democratic party.

Best case if that happens, Trump runs as an Independent and we end up with BOTH parties split and a four-way election with two major parties and two independents with strong followings. That would be quiet exciting, to be honest.

That's assuming Bernie runs as an Independent if he doesn't get the DNC nomination, which I hope he does if only to send a message.

Comment Re:A legal hypothetical (Score 1) 347

Alice wants something done and pays Bob to do it. Bob subcontract to Carol, who subcontracts to David. David doesn't do it or botches it. Alice is upset and sues Bob. Bob says "It isn't my fault, sue Carol instead". What happens?

Alice still takes Bob to court. Bob may or may not sue Carol, too (and Carol suing David), but Alice's contract was with Bob and it was Bob's responsibility to fulfill that contract.

That's exactly how it works in the construction industry, which has this kind of scenario fairly often (layers of subcontractors). The prime contractor is on the hook with the client, and it's not the client's problem if one of the prime's subcontractors fucks up.

Comment Re:And? (Score 1) 317

Maybe not suddenly, but if it tastes good enough, there are nutritional reasons (lower fats, for example) and most importantly the price is right, then I could easily see artificial meat sitting in the grocery store and being offered on menus.

There will always be a huge market for real meat, of course, but if alternatives are available then alternatives will always be taken by somebody.

Comment Re:Cooling towers (Score 1) 118

Air conditioning. You have a heat pump that removes heat from the occupied space and that removed heat is taken away by the water. The cooling tower then cool that water.

The alternative is to remove the rejected heat directly using air. That's what "in-window" air conditioners use, as well as many smaller AC units. In large buildings, however, it's often very difficult to cool the machines directly with air.

Comment Re:That's what Nokia, Moto, and Microsoft said (Score 1) 535

Except that a smartphone is not significantly removed from any other computing device. Apple had been in the electronic engineering business - including portable devices - for decades before the iPhone. All they had to do was take a PDA and a cell phone and stuff them into the same case.

A car is something entirely different. They have no prior experience with the engineering non understanding of the regulatory frameworks. They have no established supply chains to provide the materials and parts. They will have to throw money at the problem to get the required talent and climb that learning curve.

And it will probably end up an overpriced but pretty-looking lump of shit just like everything else Apple makes.

Comment Re:23% of the company (Score 1) 471

Race car engines are designed to run they way they do all the time, but they also suffer so much wear and tear in doing so that they are rebuilt or replaced for every event.

The most reliable and long-lasting engines run slow and steady; That's merely a fact that no amount of additional engineering can really change. Someone, somewhere, determined that a few hundred or thousand hours of service life lost out of tens of thousands was worth the trade. All engineering is compromise, after all.

Slashdot Top Deals

"For the man who has everything... Penicillin." -- F. Borquin