I, for one, hail our Russian Mooning Overlords!
I, for one, hail our Russian Mooning Overlords!
I'm sorry, but that's just BS.
Did you even READ the links I gave you?
And the weather CAN NOT be predicted precisely. There is no forecasts that can accurately predict with 100% certainty where and how much and at what time the wind will blow. It's absurd to even suggest otherwise, and hints that you really do not understand what you're talking about. In fact, it demonstrate you didn't even do the trouble of reading the links I gave, which substantiate what I say.
If you want to keep claiming the opposite, please provide me with a link where it is substantiated that one can do such a thing. You can't, period. And that's because it's impossible, BECAUSE it's stochastic in nature. Whether forecasts are ALWAYS approximations; they are the best (in a statistical way) predictions computer-simulations can offer. It's a reliance on statistics, thus (and now look again on the definition of stochastic). Here you have another link: http://www.uvm.edu/~cdanfort/r...
Please educate yourself. It's embarrassing to look at arguments that miss even the most basic of knowledge on the subject.
Also... about the gas/coal backups for windmill-parks: this was not a suggestion or prediction, it is simply a fact: there ARE gas/coal backups for all those windmills, just *because* they are stochastic and unpredictable. Again: did you even bother to read the pages I linked to? It's explicitly mentioned there. Whether you like it or want it or not, it IS done that way. Here, I'll give you another link: http://www.aweo.org/windbackup... . What, exactly, do you not understand about it? Or are you being wilfully obtuse?
"That is a matter of math, or not? Either you fix the wrong name plate, or you fix the place where you place them. I mean: if a wind turbine is rated to yield 8MW power at a wind speed of 30feet/sec but you put it on a place where that speed is rarely reached or exceeded, it can't be the wind mills fault."
Apparently, it happens often enough. One can put the blame on everyone else, the fact remains that the actual energy most windmills deliver are de facto a lot less than promised. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
note that the situation won't improve, since the first windmill-parks are obviously going to be build in the best wind-covered places. Additional ones will get *less* good spots, since the best ones are already taken. So, it's not that they can't technically possibly get to their vaunted maximum, it's that they just don't, in practise. This relates to the stochastic nature of wind.
Changing the 'nameplate' to a more realistic output would indeed solve that part...well: why, then, do green sites/blogs/groups never do that? Note that this would also mean that, when they compare 100 windmills of 8MW to a nuclear plant of 800 MW, they're actually NOT using an adequate comparison, since they would need, in fact, *300* windmills for that, thus, with triple the price - and still being stochastic in nature. It's math, yes. So why does the pro-camp not apply it correctly?
"The costs are calculated quite different than you think. A guy pacing a wind farm somewhere surely knows how much energy he can expect over the year and if an investment makes sense."
Wrong. You may not be aware of this, but wind-energy is *heavily* subsidies by the state, in most countries. This, in turn, means the actually efficiency DOES NOT (or at least, far less) matter, since they don't earn directly from the cost/benefit that it delivers, but by being subsidized. As long as you can make profit with the subsidies, it doesn't really matter *how* efficient it is. The taxpayers pays for it anyway. And that's also the reason why, in countries that stop with all those huge subsidies, a lot of those wind-mill companies close doors and can't survive. In short, the whole wind-energy industrial complex is a heavily subsidised one, which only survives thanks to those subsidies (aka, money that was first derived FROM the economy, thus).
"That is wrong. If that was the case you would need for every classical plant a classical back up plant, too."
What ARE you talking about? A gas-powered plant does not need a backup, because it's not stochastic in nature. It has a constant, well-defined amount of energy (gas) that it can use. It can do load-balancing. Thus, it can level out the peaks and valleys of demand and supply (of energy) on short notice.
The fact you say is wrong, simply indicates you are totally unaware of the facts. They do. It's not surprising you don't know, because many like you just don't research things, but repeat what others (greens) say (and of course, they'll always ommit things that speak unfavourable of it). Here, let me give you a link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/je...
Please read up before claiming something is wrong out of hand.
"Obviously, because of the continent wide grids, wind plants can back up each other just as classical plants back up each other."
No, they can't. Because every windfarm is stochastic in nature, not just your own. This means you're basically playing statistical roulette, and *hope* it will *ALWAYS* be enough. And: WHAT 'continent wide grid'? Do you have any idea what trillions that would cost?
"I stop here with debunking your bullshit."
No, please continue, since we were just coming to the good part. As you can see - I've provided links this time - it's YOU who are - wittingly or (as it appears) - unwittingly spouting BS. You haven't debunked anything at all. I've provided clear counter-arguments to any of your own arguments, AND provided links to substantiate them. You didn't refute anything at all. In fact, most of your arguments were outright wrong.
Now, even using 'the smart grid', you didn't even touch on the inherent problems that I pointed out. How, if a broad weather front(s) arrives that makes it wind-poor at half your continent, are you going to provide energy to it? By the half that does get enough wind? but - think about this - this means that that half doesn't only need enough windmills for enough energy of themselves, but need DOUBLE as much windmills, in case the other half needs it. And vice versa. Thus DOUBLING the total price (and even make it tenfold with the smart net). But - as said, but which you ignored - it's even worse: if 80% of the time it DOES blow strong enough in the whole continent, this means half of the windmills are not needed, and are basically running idle. That is economic suicide: half your investment isn't worth anything 80% of the time! This could only work with eternal and massive subsidies from the state and thus taxpayers, which would drive up the price even more to outright craziness.
"Perhaps you should simply read about the stuff instead of leaning back on your couch"
May I suggest you do the same? You seem to be in more need for it than I. Basically every statement - and now you can see for yourself - was right, and you didn't debunk nor refute any of them with valid arguments.
"That are nice alternatives."
They're better, seen from a stable-energy delivery standpoint. But they have their problems too. And most impôrtantly: not all countries can use them, let alone use them in an economic viable way.
"Solar and wind are not stochastic. Or weather reports would be greatly unreliable."
Huh? You *really* don't know what stochastic means, do you? Here:
randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.
You seem to be behind the times: http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.0868... . And that windmills, who rely on the weather are stochastic in nature, isn't even contested anymore: https://books.google.be/books?...
The fact you do not realise that a weather report is *never* 100% reliable, but is, in stead, a statistical analysis of the weather patterns, with a certain degree of likelihood (which drastically falls down the longer one wants to predict), indicates you have no firm grip on the concept of a stochastic phenomenon.
Again, follow your own adevice and do some research first, and you'll see it IS stochastic in nature. Use the correct definition of the term, for starters, of course.
"So, wou want to tell me someone is so idiotic that he is placing a wind plant (not a single wind mill, if we talk about plants we mean a few hundred) at a place where he can expect no wind for a week or longer?"
You're just not getting it. It's a matter of probability. Large weather fronts can occur, that span vast area's, and give wind-poor conditions for days on end. In my own country, about 20 days a year are wind-still (even more than wind-poor, thus). Since it's due to a weather front, it can take several days in a row. WHAT are you going to do, then? Saying to the factories and companies they're just out of luck. and do note it's always a matter of probability: even if you had storage for 1-2 days, which you could abridge... sooner or later a 3 or 4 day wind-low will pop up. Even if you had a week that you could cover: it's only a matter of likelihood; if once in ten years a 2 weeks wind-low happens, you're AGAIN with the same difficulty. You can *never* assure a stable energy delivery, always, all of the time. And no, as I said numerous times (and you didn't touch): a smart grid doesn't solve this. And even if one would try, it would be hugely expensive an economic disaster if done by private firms (without subsidies).
Green-eyed people sometimes say: "ah, but far-off-shore plants have more wind". Which is true. But the same inherent problem remains: it STILL remains a probabilistic matter. And that's because it's a stochastic system. I'm not understanding why you guys don't get that.
The ONLY way to remedy this, is storage-devices which would capture and hold the energy for weeks on end, and being able to deliver it when asked. But think about this: for providing the world with that sort of energy, it would take millions upon millions of windmills, all located far off-shore, distributed all over the planet, all connected by a electricity low-resistant smart-grids, and all with huge, massive and expensive batteries... It would cost trillions. And you *still* would need to subsidise it to remain economically viable. It's pure madness. I don't get why greens imagine this to be an ideal concept. Some even promote it in their paper. It's nonsensical. And it's certainly economically absurd.
You could get the same amount of energy, far more stable and reliably, with a fraction of the cost, in other ways, like with 3gen nuclear plants and later on with LFTR-plants.
Really, it just makes no sense, if you look at it rationally.
If I had mod-points left, I would give some to this post.
You know, all this is strange. It's not that I'm against alternatives *per sé*, it's just that, merely looking at it from a rational standpoint, one simply can not note the vast and inherent difficulties of trying to provide a stable energy production with systems that are stochastic by nature. I've pointed all the major criticism out there, with clear argument,s and yet, it STILL doesn't get through. It all gets rejected out of hand, and, as you say, the main and principle reason for it, is because I'm NOT going with the political-and-ecological-correct story, and even 'dare' to suggest nuclear is a more viable option. Suddenly I'm a shill, or some undercover agent of the nuclear lobby, or whatever. Ermm...no... I'm just pointing out the inherent flaws of the one system compared to the other. IF one wants to go 'alternative', one would be better of with geothermal and other less-stochastic systems. The problem there is that not every country or place can do it (and certainly not economically) - and no, a smart grid spanning the globe will not help there neither, since the same problem with it remains.
But, instead of discussing it, it' just: modding it down, claiming I'm a shill, or other non sequitur arguments. Or, like the other poster, saying: "You're actively doing damage with that shit, so fuck you and the horse that rode in on you." Well, it's either true or not, if it's not, one give counterarguments, and if it is, then, if it 'does damage', than the problem lays with the unrealistic claims being made in the first place. It's ironic, but it's actually the reverse: it's this over-optimistic, PC-correct 'green policy' story of windmills and solarpanels where were basically wasting our money on (if the goal is stable energy deliverance) that is actually damaging. Not only to the acceptance and implementation of other systems, but to modern society as a whole, in the long run. I just don't understand people who'd rather believe in a pipedream than looking at the facts, and then complain their dream is being damaged by it.
Contrary to their anti-nuclear dogmatic reaction, I have nothing against green alternatives on themselves... but you MUST look at it objectively and see what it actually delivers. There is no way anyone with a rational mind looking at this objectively, that will not note such low-energy-yielding stochastic systems can never be a good idea for delivering stable energy.
I'm actually giving several arguments, none of which you refuted. That it's your opinion it is FUD is all good and well, but that remains your opinion (which clearly was not substantiated by any arguments), and if you can't debate in a sensible way but always feel the need to flamebait and use personal insults, it's rather clear WHO is being disingenuous.
You gave no counterarguments whatsoever - unless saying "we've been installing it en masse" is meant to be a compelling argument - but just assert (from authority?) that you are right and I am wrong. You're a typical example of a person with ideologically coloured glasses of which I spoke: nothing sensible comes out, except being derisive of all arguments against it, coupled with some personal attacks or insults. Way to go.
I primarily blame the education-system, though. No where in the world are there countries that oblige schools to teach and train critical and rational thought. "Historical criticism" is the closest thing I ever saw, and it was in a university. They should expand and make similar courses compulsory, starting from the lower grades. It would make people more than gullible sheep, willing to believe any politician or nonsensical emotionally driven claim.
There is a great shortage of ratio and logic being promoted in ourr societies, and that's a real shame.
No, they do not, if you mean the average windmill being able to provide there vaunted maximum energy-output. Look it up: with most it's 30%.
If you mean total demand can 'mostly' be provided, than that's only true if you take the averages. And also: being stochastic means you'll never be sure of that. Even if you can say there is a 90% chance it will always be enough, you can't go to a factory or company and say: "sorry, today no electricity, it's one of those 10% days."
And a smart grid has inherent economic problems, as I've already explained in my original post.
That's exactly what I already commented on: you're using the 'smart grid' argument. I already pointed the drawbacks of it. In short, it's economically unsustainable IF you want to make sure one part of your country/continent always gets enough electricity from the other side of your country/continent, if the need appears.
Also, the only really solution to it (using windturbines as a stable energy source) is in your last part: energy storage. However, as I said in my original post, you would need systems that could store vast quantities and that for weeks (to abridge) for it to be reliable enough to become virtually 'non-stochastic'. That's far, far future music - if ever.
Temper, temper. Not agreeing with someone is no reason to loose your manners.
Your counterargument that storage is improving is lacking, seen the fact that I clearly said it would need to store massive amounts of electricity, and that for at least three weeks. The best today is something that deals with 1/100th of that power, being able to bridge a mere 2 hours. *As said* thus, it's only a possibility in a far away future, and even when made, it still would need to prove it could be made economically viable (batteries are prohibitively expensive). So my reasons weren't 'shit' at all, as one might have understood, if one was reading my post comprehensively. And you didn't actually give any counter-arguments to any of the rest I pointed out.
Every economy in the world is slowing down now, because the economy is lowing down. It would be foolhardy to think this will remain so. Sooner or later, the driving motor (currently primarily China) of the world economy will start again. India will be next. When you look at it as a total picture - ignoring temporary economic dips thus - you will see that in our human history, the energy requirements of society have ALWAYS gone up, viewed as a whole. While 'unending' growth is not possible while remaining on Earth, it's far from finished for the time being. Moreover, if we're out of room for expansion, it becomes even more necessary to go for compact, high-yield energy sources - which windmills are not. And lastly, efficiency is all good and well, and one certainly has to aspire for the greatest efficiency in any device... but it can only bring you that far. There is no way even the most efficient electrical device will be able to work *without* electricity, after all. So, in the long run, even with high efficiency, you'll need more energy, as long as people are using immer more electrical devices. And they do. I know it's a recurrent thought of the greens that people will go 'back to nature' as some sort of idealistic environment, but that is untrue, and is nowhere substantiated by the facts around us. People do not cut back on electric and other appliances, they *augment* their use of it. Look at yourself. You're using a personal computer, and probably a smartphone too: things that didn't even exist, 30 years ago.
The reason greens fail to note this, is because, again, of ideological reasons. They fail to realise their ideal is NOT being pursued by the vast majority of people (most of the greens themselves don't actually follow as low a footprint as they could, in fact). That's because, in the end, people want comfort. The more comfort they can get, the more comfort they will seek out. That comfort uses energy. It's that simple.
So my prediction is, efficiency will be strived for, but won't hold back the requirement for more energy. And people will cheer on further efficiency, but not to the point it gets more uncomfortable for themselves. Now, one may deplore this or not, but the point is: all people, inherently, strive for an as big as possible comfort to live and work in. You can't say to an Chinese he can't have a fridge or a car or a PC or the fanciest new thingy on the market, after all, while having it yourself. EVERYONE (weirdos excluded) wants the best and the most comfort for themselves and their family. that's a human thing.
Thus, instead of thinking everyone will suddenly drop back in their use of devices and give up comfort, I think it makes more sense to look at ways where you can get that comfort (and thus energy-requirements). And, indeed, you can't do that would low-yield energy producing devices. But you could do it, at least for the next 10000 years, with LFTR kind of thorium nuclear plants. And, btw, massive adoption of it would starkly reduce the CO2 output in the climate too, AND get rid of the nuclear waste of old nuclear plants. As said...one would expect the greens to be *a bit* more forthcoming, thus...
I'm always amazed that wind and solar get all that starry-eyed looking fans every time it pops up in the news. It never seems to dawn on those people that wind and solar are *inherently stochastic*, and thus, can NEVER replace more stable forms of energy-delivery. Some little know facts: when the power of a windturbine is mentioned, it does NOT mean that it actually delivers that power. For instance, if it says "This is a 8MW windmill that can support 100000 households...that is simply a lie, in a de facto way. The vast majority only deliver ONE THIRD of their pretended maximum power (a lot even less). Thus, you need *3 times* as many just to provide the same power of an actual coal/gas/nuclear plant of 8 MW. It would be reasonable to compare the costs with the ACTUAL power being delivered, thus... but you *never* see that happen on any pro-green website or fancamp.
Apart from that, stochastic systems are inherently bad for giving you a stable energy source. That's why - another little detail most of the pro-camp seem to forget - is that for every windmill park, there NEEDS to be a classical plant (on gas, oil or coal) to provide backup, for all those times the demand and what's been asked for is not in accordance with eachother. (aka, to level out the peaks and valleys of energy-demand and delivery). THIS in turn means, such plants need to be always on (since wind and solar are inherently stochastic) with all the consequences of CO2 pollution, since those plants pollute. Even worse: they pollute *more* than they usually do, because they're running inefficiently most of the time: they always have to keep 'running', because they need to be able to shift gears and provide energy on short notice, but at times when the wind is giving enough, they're just running idle, which gives very bad combustion/burning up, and thus their CO2 emissions are far worse than when they're burning at full power. That's also why research has demonstrated the actual gains of reducing CO2 thanks to windmills is *far* less than what is claimed, if one looks at reality, instead of theoretical computations that act as if these backups aren't there. And they never seem to be there in any calculation of claim I've seen on a green site.
Now, it's not that I have inherently something against 'green solutions', but only if they're viable and make economical sense, and DO give us stable energy which is needed for a modern society. You can't well say to companies in your country: "ah, sorry, wind is a bit down today, so no electricity". And yes, I know the theory the greens always come up with, aka the super-smart all-encompassing grid, where every windmill is connected to everything else, and electricity flows from one end of the continent to the other. But frankly, that's just a pipedream. And it also makes no economic sense, since it would mean that, if, say, a major part of Europe needed energy but the wind wasn't blowing strong enough, it would need to get the electricity from the other half of the EU where is *was* blowing. However, that would mean you'd need DOUBLE as much windmills, since you always need to be able to safeguard energy delivery for the other part of the EU, then. But most of the time, that would mean you have a HUGE surplus (when the wind is blowing hard enough in about the whole of the EU). So that means half of your windmill park would have to stand by idle (or at least, electricity would have to be sold very, very cheap) most of the time. That's economic suicide.
All those things, you never see mentioned anywhere in the pro-camp, and that's what I find the most annoying. It's not a realistic picture one portrays, but an ideologically coloured one, where reality has to step aside for dogmatic reasoning. I find it highly annoying. How can one make an informed decision, if one actually hides, ignores or outright lies about all these aspects?
The truth is, if one REALLY wants to get a stable alternative, one is better off with geothermal and water(dam) and maybe tidal-wave derived energy sources. At least they are not as much stochastic in nature. Solar and wind will NEVER be able to fill that hole, unless one can store all the electricity for at least several weeks worth (so that even long periods of shortages don't need any backup anymore). This might be possible in the far future, but not now - and even then, one would have to see how economical it still would be. In mean time, it's far better to go with the above alternatives (if/when possible and needed), or better still go for nuclear. Contrary to all the negative fuzz and derision it gets from the 'alternative' side, it's actually a stable energy source. And while pointing out Chernobyl and Fukushima, they often forget that, if there hadn't been such a negative reaction oto 'nuclear' since Chernobil, and new, far more modern nuclear plants had been allowed to be build and replace the old ones, Fukushima would never have happened in the first place. Modern nuclear plants are FAR more reliable and safe than second-generation ones. And yes, there is the problem of nuclear waste, granted. But even there, in the long run, there is a solution for, namely a LFTR-type thorium based nuclear plant. This reduces the waste with 95%, AND that which remains, only needs to be kept safe for 300 years (instead of the 100000 years now). A clear and very welcome advantage, one would think, and one where the greens would jump for as well, one might presume, since it means one can also reduce all the waste of older nuclear plants, which now have to kept in stock for hundredthousands of years. One would assume they would be all for it. alas, most are not. Because it has the word 'nuclear' in it.
That's why I say it's ideologically coloured. If the greens were really serious and concerned about the nuclear waste, they would actually welcome any system that shows great promise in reducing it. But they just can't. Because they've made such a major ideological point about anything 'nuclear', they can't just 'turn back' or even be more nuanced about it. It's a sad thing, but nothing to be surprised about on itself: in most cases, ideology in any group - and which is pretty strong with the greens - always supersedes any rational thinking and approach on the matter.
As many have pointed out; it's 12.523,- EUR, not 12,523 EUR.
But that aside, it remains correct to doubt whether such a person should be considered 'the most wanted' on a list of Europol. By any standard, he shouldn't be on there, if one looks at it objectively. Alas, no doubt there was some political pressure or a behind-the-doors-deal or whatever, so he got on there - while persons or companies making a million+ fraud don't, apparently.
It's a pity, because it undermines the very essence of a 'most wanted' list, namely a warning and look-out for the most dangerous and vile criminals. Nothing with mere fraud should be on there. Not because fraud isn't criminal, but, compared to things that ACTUALLY are life-threatening - say, terrorists killing dozens of civilians - you want to set your priorities right. After all, stealing some bread is also a criminal act: is one going to put that to on the 'most wanted' list? It's diluting the purpose for what it is meant.
Yes, I know what you're argumenting. But, on itself, that has little to do with wasting money on overhead and mismanagement. The problem with what you say is, that, even when taken at face value, it's indeterminable *in any case*. So, while it might be true, it has no argumentative value (in determining the best course of action).
Let me make this clear: you basically say, well, the 8 billion might be worth it, since you never know what you will get out off it. Very well, but for 2 billion you could have made a set of smaller mirrors and used interferometry, and you ALSO could not predict what you would get out of it. Seen the potential, one might even assume *more* (foreseen) science would come out of it, as for the unforeseen...well, since it can't be determined in front, anything is as good as the next.
So, even in that case, it *still* makes more sense to go for what you may reasonably assume will give you the most 'foreseen' science, and as for the unforeseen benefits: well, everything has as much chance, since you can't predict it.
This is still the most reasonable thing to do, thus, otherwise one could spend the whole budget of NASA into something like the EMdrive, and simply hope for the one-in-a-trillion chance that something useful will come of it. I...think we can do better and spend it a bit more rationally...
Thus, even when one would take what you say at face value, it's still no way to conduct science (or at least, spend a budget on it) in the best way. Scientific projects are primarily done for the predicted and foreseen scientific benefits it will bring - this is the case even for non-commercial, academic science - and all the rest is a bonus. A bonus you can never be sure of anyhow, so it's not like wasting more money on a certain project will give you any more certainty of getting anything worthwhile in the far future we can not predict today.
So saying one can not fathom what that telescope might bring, might be true, but you also can't fathom what 1)a set of telescopes with interferometry + 2)an overwhelmingly large telescope on earth, + 3) two to three other projects could have brought, for the same money. It's still no reason to put up with overruns and just keep pouring money into it, in the off-chance it could maybe be beneficial in the future in ways we don't know. It might. so might everything else one could have done with the same amount of money. So it isn't an argument on itself in defence of spending so much money.
However, it's reasonable to ask oneself what the best bang for the bucks is. While the purpose might not be making a profit, budgets are never infinite, thus one can not deny cost IS important. The bang, in this case, is indeed not profit, but it is scientific return. But the same principle remains: couldn't one have gotten more scientific value out of the 8,8 billion that one poured into it? Since a lot is due to mismanagement, one can reasonably argue a lot of the budget was wasted. And whether that is a 'primary' concern or not, it still is a concern, exactly because the budget IS limited. A dime can not be spend two times, and what goes one way, isn't available for something else.
That said, my argument is not 'we spend so much on it, so we must finish it', but rather "we spend so much on it, it's now nearly finished, and the money one would save by stopping it today would be peanuts, and wouldn't compensate the loss of scientific value of scrapping it now."
I think this is the most logical rationale. It's all good and well to say science drives revolutionary technologies, but that doesn't mean one still can't spend it better, on more science, even in the domain of science where 'one can't see any application'. On the other hand, at some point, the cost/benefit has a turning point. I would say it exceeds it when only half the project is done and yet one is already half over ones' budget. At the other hand, when 90% is finished, and no great cost-overruns will occur anymore, *at that point* it makes sense to finish it, because, then, *that* is where one gets the most (scientific) bang for the bucks, since the sunken cost of it has already happened, and thus the total amount of money wasted is already there, it means one has to look at the possible savings in regard to the science one will get from it being allowed, or it being scrapped and something else started with the money saved.
This is a purely pragmatic stance. Each project, like that for the F-35, would need to be judged on those merits. But the real problem is letting it go on far too long with cost-overruns, not letting it go on when it's almost finished when the cost-overruns already happened.
And look, I'm all for science. But if they had stopped it when the estimate went from 1 billion to 1,8 billion in one year time, we'd saved 7,8 billion dollar. With that money, you could make far cheaper (2 or 3) space-telescope(s) of 2 meter diameter, and use interferometry to achieve the same (and actually a lot more) science than one can with the JWST, and still have enough left for other science too.
So I think you're in error, here. The 'profit' here is science, but the value-for-money principle still holds up. And it always will, unless you have unlimited budgets - which isn't the case of NASA.
It's a well know fact for everyone who has had any curiosity in this regard and bothered to look it up.
Yet, people still say whatever nonsense comes up in their mind and then proclaim it as a fact.
Ah, well, that's slashdot for ya.
No, they measured it with a fancy new laser-device, and based themselves on that to sharpen the mirror. And not on the two measurements of the old focus-determining device, which showed a discrepancy with it.
Alas, turned out tit was their fancy new toy that was calibrated wrongly, and not the other ones they always used. And THAT was why it went wrong.
"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan