Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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:Politicians will be stupid but scientists/techn (Score 2) 356

by TheTurtlesMoves (#49248047) Attached to: New Solar Capacity Beats Coal and Wind, Again
Actually its not. The TFA makes the same comparison so many do with solar. That is per watt installed. Which is total bullshit. That watt of installed power will only produce 1 watt, for about 30min on just one perfectly fine day in the summer, if its in space. I like to call them brochure watts. Since real installations are probably never ever going to get that claimed watt in any real life conditions.

The average power you get out of 1GW of solar panels is at best 32% of the peak (in practice it is quite a bit lower, like 25%), and only in summer. It is much lower in the winter months, and you will often need to "time shift" all that energy.

Comment: Re:It's a model (Score 2) 230

When someone says i can give you a working toyota gearbox, i would expect it to be well a working toyota gearbox i can fit into my toyota. If they said *model* or *scale replica* then perhaps i would expect the the toy they did make with the *help* of 3d printing. You do know that car enthusiast have and do make real gear boxes without jumping on the 3d printing bandwaggon.

These 3d printer nut jobs are going around saying things like "you will be able to just print that soon" and post articles like this. It gets tiresome. 3d printing is 20 years old and it can't even print the metal case to a iPhone (its forged to get the correct micro structure). It is useful for some parts and prototyping, but stop with "printed a real working gearbox" bullshit already.

Comment: Re: A giant lagoon dam (Score 1) 197

by TheTurtlesMoves (#49213213) Attached to: World's First Lagoon Power Plants Unveiled In UK
I approximated the bay as a triangle so its half the volume. 2.5m of height is 1000kg*g*h for a potental energy of 24500J per m3. That is far less than .272kWh. 1kWh is 3.6MJ. So you over estimated the potential energy of a m3 of water by a very large factor. Also where did 100 million come from?

Comment: Re: A giant lagoon dam (Score 1) 197

by TheTurtlesMoves (#49171083) Attached to: World's First Lagoon Power Plants Unveiled In UK
Those numbers seem off. Lets assume you not cutting it off right out at the sea, but a bit closer in, for the simple reason that a dam 50km in length is well probably not going to work in the deeper areas, ecologically or economically. Closer however we can assume a triangle shape and lets be optimistic and assume 20km wide and somehow the greenies sign off on that (seriously ecologically this is a really hard sell). That 20km wide 20km long with a 5m head. This is very unrealistic, we are assuming we can empty and fill the lagoon instantly at peak head: 20kmx20km/2*5=1Billion m3. Potential energy with a 5m drop, rise x2 drop x2 is 1e11J. Or 27MWh per day. This is no where near 25% UKs power needs. Wiki claims average consumption of 840GWh per day.

Comment: Re: A giant lagoon dam (Score 2) 197

by TheTurtlesMoves (#49170845) Attached to: World's First Lagoon Power Plants Unveiled In UK
Ships cost a bit to buy. But cost far more to run. Running costs is everything. A crew of 50, boom just salaries are costing a lot and charge out rates need to cover the costs when the ship is not in use, and for technical ships crews are typically larger, highly skilled and well paid. It would easily be 100k + per day and wouldn't take much to get it into the 1M per day.

Comment: Re:Are we looking through the center... (Score 1) 157

by TheTurtlesMoves (#49170569) Attached to: Astronomers Find an Old-Looking Galaxy In the Early Universe
Or perhaps there mega stars theory is correct (whatever its called). It has more metal that expected. There are many things that could account for this. But early on massive stars may have been possible and would burn out very fast into huge supernovae, populating a very young universe with metals earlier than expected.

If you can't understand it, it is intuitively obvious.

Working...