Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:green? (Score 1) 271

Perhaps you should read the links you post, or read more than one single link?
The majourity of coal ash is not radioactive as it does not contain anything that is radioactive.

For the rest of your post, write more clearly ... no idea why you disguise as you claim an pro solar power post into an anti solar power post.

And I don't really care about what you are pro or cons when simple stuff like radioactive emissions in the air, or ashes: are wrong.

One: wrong, because PV systems don't use rare earths.
Who told you that? They lied to you, and now you're being a stupid fuck.

Care to point out one PV cell that does, and explain why? Good luck ...

PV cells work exactly like transistors in a computer. Made from the same stuff. No rare earths in them. And even if there where, who cares: THEY ARE NOT RARE!

Comment Re:windturbines are not the solution (Score 1) 184

Why should I post links? Why should I search links that are worded in a simple way that you understand and contain common knowledge? Ever realized how hard it is to find links with common knowledge? People learn that stuff in school, from books. Hardly anyone is writing articles in the web about it. Hence, if you are interested in wind power, it is much better you google for your self :D

One of the links was to a scientific paper, btw, clearly indicating the weather is a stochastic phenomenon.
Certainly not on a level where it is relevant for wind power. And: no idea if you typoed: does the paper talk about weather or wind? Hu? Slight but important difference.

Or "aw, it's 10 years old, it's SO passé". Really? Yes. That link was already _wrong_ when it contents was written. And the reality we have right now clearly proves it: so we have a ten year old article/link with a prognosis for our time and: our time does not match that prognosis, not even close. Hence: the content or the conclusions made in that article are wrong. So my argument: that link is outdated by 10 years is a perfect valid argument. And even worse: you hanging on that link and thinking what is mentioned in it is in any way relevant shows: you are not interested in learning anything.

"No I did not. As I likely know more about the stuff as you can find links." ---%gt; appeal to authority.
No it is not. It perhaps was badly worded.
Are you a scientist with expertise on stochastic systems? No I'm not ;D pffft. Why should I be? Learn to read? I'm a computer scientist who worked 10 years for power companies, mainly in renewables and prognosis software and plant (fleet) planning/scheduling and grid schedules. Oh: and I'm a sailor. And oh: 1/4th of sailing education is weather! Oh: and basic weather stuff you learn in school, oooooops! So it is pretty clear: wind is not stochastic. At least not on a level that is relevant for power production. So: I know how to predict wind, I know how power plant operators schedule their plants around wind plants. I know wind plants, their behaviour etc. Do you know anything of those three topics? No! But you feel qualified to quote links about which you have no education to judge if they are relevant or not?!?

You provided nothing to back your claims up, nor did you deliver any proof of your expertise.
Learn to read: I gave you dozens of concrete physically explanations where you were wrong. You simply ignored them all. You could have checked them ... and hence realized: I'm an expert on this topic.

The "appeal to authority" fallacy is only a fallacy if the authority in question: a) does not exist, b) is an authority about something else, c) the person claimed to be one (might the speaker or someone else) is none.

Simply pointing out that you have the "knowledge" and that you "are an authority" does not make it a fallacy. Or do you doubt a judge in court has the authority to convict you, just because some speaker in the court says: "all raise for his Honour Judge Smith?"? Or do you doubt he has that authority when he introduces him as Mr. Smith and after some talks you tell him about your job and then he tells you abut his job?

Regarding stochastic and weather/wind ... perhaps you meant to write "chaotic"? What the difference between stochastic and chaotic is, is left for you to figure ;D

Comment Re: Energy in? (Score 1) 154

can explain how something that is by definition a thermodynamic quantity could have nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics
That is easy: simply read up the laws of thermodynamics.
Joule is a measure for energy. It does not matter what kind of energy.

The enthalpy you get is for the whole "mass" participating in the reaction, not for single bonds. If you want to calculate the enthalpy per bond, that does not make the single bond a thing which is covered by thermodynamics.

The fact that you either have to add heat (endothermic) or gain heat (exothermic) does not make anything covered by "laws of thermodynamics", just because the dreaded term "thermo" is in it.

That wasn't a pun. If you can find something that forms polymers without having to have energy added to the system in any way, shape, Who said this? I did not. I only said: this is not thermodynamics. Which it is not.

and give me a citation from a peer-reviewed journal to verify it, I'll be impressed. I am not, however, going to do the search for you. search your self, no one claimed such nonsense.

It's not anywhere near the area of chemistry I chose to specialize in. No problem: thermodynamics is pure physics (not chemistry) and has nothing to do below or above of molecule level of idealized gases, oops! It has nothing to do with breaking up any molecules, or the forming of any, oops again!

The laws of thermodynamics come into account e.g. if you burn gasoline in an engine. The enthalpy of the reaction results in heated H2O and CO2 (this was chemistry) and unburned nitrogen and oxygen. The total _heat_ produced will _expand_ the gas mixture, or in other words, in the confined chamber of the engine, the heat of the gas mixture will correspond to a certain _pressure_, which will lead to expansion and pushing the piston (this was physics): this is what thermodynamics is about: heat, pressure, volume of gases and the usefulness of either of them in heat engines.

A bond consists in its simplest cases of electron pairs (or simply an ionic bond): they neither have heat, nor pressure nor any conceivable volume, hence: they are not covered by "the laws of thermodynamics".

Comment Re:green? (Score 1) 271

Burning coal puts nuclear material into the atmosphere, including tons of fissile uranium per year.
One: no it does not, the uranium/thorium is in the ashes.
Two: no it does not in general. Only coal that is mined from mines that have that particular "contamination" obviously can set free uranium/thorium. Or were the trees from which the coal formed made from uranium? I don't think so.

The environmental cost of solar, especially non-PV systems or modern PV systems which use ever-vanishing quantities of rare earths or even organic materials, is minuscule compared to any fossil fuel.
One: wrong, because PV systems don't use rare earths.
Two: wrong still, as rare earths are not "vanishing". They are very abundant on the planet, they are misnamed because of some issues when they got "discovered".
Three: wrong, organic materials are a non issue if you use them for PV or other electronics.

Bottom line the "environmental costs" depend on your legislation, not on the fact that you create PV cells.

Comment Re:Your numbers are wrong (Score 1) 271

The difference is easy explained, with a valve and a pipe of water.
GW (or W or MW): the amount you have opened the valve. Open the valve just a little bit, low "watt" (gallons/liters) production/consumption, open the valve more: high production.

GWh: At the end of the day (or after an hour) you look how many gallons/litters you have in the tub.

The "consumption" of current (electric power) is measured in GWh ... the production capacity (hence: how think is the pipe of water and how far can you open the valve) is measured in GW, just like your cars peak production is measured in HP.

Comment Re:Math (Score 1) 271

Morocco's average seems to be about 850 kWh/yr, which suggests their expected capacity factor is substantially lower than 33%.
No, it suggests that you stop using metrics you don't grasp.
What has the average solar input of 850 kWh/yr for a whole country to do with the spot at which the plant is built? Obviously: nothing.
I for my part find the list of numbers you gave completely meaningless. Who cares how much kWh/yr the US gets? What exactly is that supposed to mean? The important information: "per square meter" or "square feet" is missing.

The plant will be running with about 520MW peak production from roughly 10:00 in the morning till roughly 16:00 in the evening. It will ramp up from sunrise till 10:00 a little bit faster than linear (sinus curve), it will ramp down from 16:00 to sunset to roughly 50% of its production, more or less linear. It will run from sunset till more or less 4:00 in the morning from the heat stored in the salt at somewhere between 30% and 50%. In other words: the plant produces power more or less in synch with the daily demand curve.

Now lets replace that plant with a coal plant: powering up around sunset, slowly going to peak till 10:00 and holding peak till 16:00 and slowly going down over 50% down to 30% / 40% at deep night till the morning sunrise: surprisingly this coal plant has the exact same CF than the solar plant above.

CFs are meaningless for planning and observing the performance of a power plant if you don't know what it actually means!!! And you obviously don't.

What is the difference in CF between a 200 HP car running twice a day for 2h to work and back? And a 100 HP car used by a cap driver running 18h a day by 3 drivers and idle-ing 6h a day for the same drivers? Oh, you would not know how to calculate a CF from that? Me neither ... So one comes up and tells us the first car has a CF of 5% and the second one of 45% ... why would anyone buy the first car? What could we calculate from this CF? The only thing we in fact could vaguely calculate is the fuel consumed per day for each car. And even that would be much easier to estimate with some intelligent guesses then via a CF.

Back to the solar plant: on average over the year you have 8h of sun, per day. Varying from roughly 6.1h in January to 9.8 in July and going down to 5.9 in December.

Oh, and the pros use a simple to look up number: total hours of sunshine per year, which is in the better parts of the sahara 4300h/yr. At the plant location likely a bit less, lets say 4200h/yr. Considering a non leap year has 8760 hours, we have sunshine nearly 50% of the year.

So regardless what bullshit you tried to do with the CF calculation, the CF is far above 50% (because the plant stores up to 8h of production time as heat) ;D why don't you wait till 2018 and lets see how much power the plant actually is producing over a course of a year? Because that will be the base for planning new plants, not a meaningless CF.

Comment Re:Math (Score 1) 271

Na, the problem is that "per person calculations" are meaningless.

A household would make more sense (or lets say: it is less meaningless). A typical household would be perhaps 2 parents, plus 3 or 4 children and plus 1 or 2 grand parents. So something in the range of 5 to 8. So we have a usage of 2500W to 4000W which is quite a lot for a single household.

Rest assured: nearly everyone who lives in a house (and not in a tent), has a fridge, and a TV, and most an AC and/or water plays, electric light ... stoves are usually gas, but plenty use electricity. Oh, and in case you wonder: they in fact have internet in Morocco.

Comment Re:Excess (Score 1) 271

You say that as if they were two unrelated things. Hint: they aren't.
Of course they are.

Learn how grids work and you see ... no idea why you think there is a relation between the need of stabilization and power imports versus costs.

Hint: importet power can not be used to "stabilize" anything. It does not react on supply and demand as it gets fed in into a national grid via transport grids, and not via distribution grids.

Comment Re:Excess (Score 1) 271

Your argumentation makes no sense.
Wide-spread management incurs higher total cost What kind of "wide-spread" and what kind of "management" do you think you need on roofs?
Interference with roof operations (e.g. repair) increases total cost.
Total cost in relation to what? Placing the same installation not on a roof, but on a "thing"?

Up-front costs are placed on consumers, instead of amortized through service from a generation facility (i.e. poor folk can't install solar panels; rich folk can, and *extremely* rich folk can front the money for installation of solar panels to supply poor folk). How is that different from building a coal plant (ignoring the fact, you have already enough coal plants and want to decomission one and replace it with solar power.

Regulations to minimize roof space exist because solar panels provide a serious hazard when firefighters try to vent heat and toxic gases via a cut on the roof.
Never heard about such a fire fighting technique.

Transmission to point-of-use incurs more loss.
No it does not. The line is already there. Or how does the roof, on which you place the plant, got its power so far? And the loss is the same, regardless if you draw power from that transmission line or if you feed in power into that line. Why is one acceptable for you and the other not?

No idea what you want to tell us with your insulation example. Obviously an insulation made that way would never get approval in Germany.

Comment Re:Environmental concerns (Score 0) 271

Plus, Morocco can't just decide to build a nuclear plant.
Morocco is an arabic country.
If they build an atomic plant they probably get bombed by Israel just like Iran was.

And: to run such a plant you need engineers, no corruption, lots of relatively high skilled workers etc. p.p.

Slashdot Top Deals

We can found no scientific discipline, nor a healthy profession on the technical mistakes of the Department of Defense and IBM. -- Edsger Dijkstra