Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:One sentence stands out as most interesting (Score 1) 97

Triggering crystallisation of a planet's core is left as an exercise for the reader, and would be incredibly difficult, but it's a lot more plausible than trying to supply enough heat to start convection by any other means.

interesting questions might be

  1. How much nuclear waste would have to be dumped down a borehole on Mars to remelt the planetary core; ( I know it's an insane amount, but how insane)?
  2. How long would it take to melt?
  3. How deep would the borehole have to be, at some point the waste would melt and go into "China Syndrome mode" and melt it's way down?
  4. Should we crash some icy asteroids into the planet to get some potential oxygen from water before or after we restart the core?
  5. How many rocky/metallic asteroids should we crash into Mars to get the gravity up?
  6. Would it just be easier to build a ring-world?
  7. Could we harvest gasses for atmosphere from Jupiter?

Comment Re:This is basic planetary physics.. (Score 2) 97

The way I understand it the lost of the magnetosphere allows the solar wind to push the ozone back to the nightside and some off into space, this thins ozone lets the UV disassociate more water vapor (that's lighter than air) into hydrogen and oxygen, the hydrogen is lost to space because it's so light and the oxygen that doesn't get blown off into space oxidises any methane or carbon monoxide in the atmosphere on the way back down to the surface. This causes the atmospheric pressure to decrease, which cause the water to boil at a lower temperature, putting more water vapor into the air to be dissociated and lost, in an accelerating death spiral.

Comment Re:sigh (Score 1) 127

"decimated nearly half the population in the Mediterranean"

So unless it really killed 1/10 of half the population of the Med basin, you don't know what 'decimated' means?

It's ok, it's not like this stuff is edited.

So it didn't decimate but semimated the Europeans, not to be confused with inseminated.

Comment Re:Decentralized power (Score 1) 367

That's good for a few hundred watts, but something for a more normal household that needs KW's and a tower higher than the tree tops for clean wind. These towers look more like a commercial radio tower and the average bloke isn't going to climb one to grease the bearings or change the diodes in the alternator, the pads on the speed-break or the brushes in the the commutator. The guy that's seriously living off the grid is likely to be able to handle it, the guy that's doing it to be "green" or to "stick it to the man" isn't likely to be able to handle it.

Comment Re:Time to drop the prices? (Score 1) 367

So my electricity bill's going to go down now? No, I didn't think so either.

No, because part of the reason wind/solar is more competitive is because the more wind/solar you have, the more expensive fossil fuel power becomes. It is explained in TFA.

No TFA said

t’s a self-reinforcing cycle. As more renewables are installed, coal and natural gas plants are used less. As coal and gas are used less, the cost of using them to generate electricity goes up. As the cost of coal and gas power rises, more renewables will be installed.

What the article did say is the marginal costs of Renewables are zero, where legacy systems have their marginal cost tied to fuel expenses, the article didn't address fixed costs i.e. how much it costs to make no electricity and that is considerable cost in both cases. A lot of expenses have been subsidised for renewables,
1. they didn't have to pay for offline backup power sources,
2. they didn't have to pay for transmission infrastructure
3. people pretended they had no negative environmental impacts
4. construction costs were subsidized
5. there were no decommissioning funds
When all of that gets added back into the cost of renewables, plus the cost of the green subsidies, people are going to talk fondly of the "Good 'Ol Days" when you didn't have to plan your day around whether the sun was shining or the wind was blowing.

Comment Re:Show us the data (Score 1) 367

The hard evidence, the data is in the stocks of the big four (EnBW, E.ON, RWE, Vattenfall) being in free fall for years now, while them desperately searching buyers for their outdated, in deficit fossil plants. Recently they even tried moving them into bad-bank-style shell corps.

That's actually the trend everywhere, companies are spinning off their "Carbon Intense" assets into separate operating units or even whole new companies. The old "Carbon Intense" assets can't compete with the renewables when the conditions are favorable, and renewables can't compete when conditions are unfavorable. This way the utilities get to externalize the cost of base load and peaking to their legacy systems which drives up their expenses and the regulators have to allow rate increases to return them to their allowed 15% profitability, the legacy systems can not be allowed to fail or we lose backup. The renewables will never have their rates cut no matter how much they are making because it "saves the planet" and all of that!

Comment Re:Some skepticism (Score 1) 46

It does seem like the antivirals are having an effect in a small group of patients, the question is whether the effect holds up in studies designed to study the effect and are statistically rigorous, and if it isn't significant is that because the population had undiscovered factors complicating the study.

Retirement means that when someone says "Have a nice day", you actually have a shot at it.