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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Great at finding bugs with a caveat (Score 1) 92

" And AI whipped it up in a few hours of me going back and forth with it."

This is the key. You are no doubt, a capable programmer, and you used this tool to do more work. Which is what most good tools do. Woodworkers don't buy chair making machines, etc. So many are touting that you can just say, "I want an app that does..." and get that app. Or that a junior programmer can suddenly be far better.

I see a weird future where junior programmers are going to be lured into a very bad place, some senior reject the new tech and become comparatively useless, and some seniors become fantastically productive.

Comment Re:We used to mine these materials in the US (Score 1) 140

Yes, because suddenly everyone in the mineral extraction industry started listening to Greenpeace all of a sudden, but only on this one sector of minerals.

Or, and just hear me out for a second: the minerals that could be bought from China were cheaper than the minerals we were extracting and refining here in the US, and economics made the decision like it always does.

Which is more likely?

Moron.

Comment Re:I agree (Score 1) 182

One problem I have with Windows has been the ongoing obfuscation of controls. Replacing Control Panel with Settings is something I suppose needed to happen eventually. I personally dislike the style of Settings over Control Panel. However it appears to me Settings is just a front end to actual controls and Windows can lie/hide things from the user. Before Control Panel showed the actual settings.

For example, Add/remove programs appears to remove optional Windows components but in reality it does not. For example in the latest build, Weather and News apps are still present and running despite "uninstalling" them in Add/remove programs. The user can go to Personalization and add them as apps to the Lock Screen. So they are not really "uninstalled"; they were just hidden from the user. Also both appear to ignore the privacy settings regarding Location. They know exactly where the user is are even if Location is turned "off”.

Comment Re:Streaming Apps (Score 1) 182

I think part of the issue is priority. Netflix started out physically distributing content then switched to online. Their entire business relies on making sure their online distribution system is stable. That includes apps on multiple platforms. The content companies like Disney are only now switching to apps, but they still have other channels of distribution and revenue. I would guess that part of the problem is some executive is getting a huge bonus for maintaining online distribution for as little cost as possible.

Comment Re:Hydrogen as fuel? but water considered dangerou (Score 1) 129

I also believed that the reader would understand that coal power needed machines to produce power in that the reader would not be a child and so would have had enough experience of the world around them to know that to get electricity from coal we'd need coal fired power plants. Must I spell out everything?

No the problem is your need to quibble basic facts. Collecting solar energy is indeed free. It costs money to acquire the technology to collect solar power, but so does every other form of energy. Trying to contest that argument with deceptive points does not win your case. It makes your arguments appear dishonest.

It takes an "interesting" interpretation of my statements to believe I'm claiming that we can get energy from coal without a power plant.

It is "interesting" that you chose to fight against a statement that is true by leaving out facts.

I didn't make any claim that coal was better, only that solar is like coal in that neither are free. Energy from the sun isn't free, in fact it costs more than energy from coal. That doesn't necessarily make coal better or worse than solar, only that if we are to define solar energy as "free" then that same definition applies to coal.

This is a classic strawman argument on your part. Collecting solar energy is free once the equipment is acquired. No one said 100% of solar is free.

You are really, really, trying to paint me as defending coal with a comment on comparing solar and coal.

So you didn't use only 1 factor in your argument that coal is better? No, you did. You still are using only 1 factor: EROI.

I chose to compare solar with coal because I believed everyone reading would understand that coal requires supply chains and produces pollution. You do understand that solar energy also requires supply chains?

Zero part of EROI takes that into account. You seem not to understand this point.

And produces pollution? Are you ignoring those facts?

Zero part of EROI takes that into account. Again your reliance on 1 factor weakens your argument.

When I make a long post in an attempt to anticipate every possible counter argument I'm mocked for being verbose.

I am pointing out you presented none of these arguments before but someone expect everyone to have known them as if we know your inner monologue.

When I try to keep things short and to the point I'm accused of ignoring some vital detail. There's no winning here. I'm getting the impression that Slashdot is full of children, most of the adults have left for more sane places.

Pointing out your arguments do not present the whole picture is the situation. But that makes everyone "children". No it makes you easily offended when people point out the flaws in your arguments.

Huh? I don't follow. It seems you are reaching for an excuse to be upset with my comment.

Sigh. When you leave out obvious facts in your arguments to make a case, it weakens your case. But your problem is not that you did that. Your problem is that I'm "upset" when I point them out. How about the acceptance that your argument was weak?

The studies on the Wikipedia page I linked to. Most of the data on EROEI came from Germany.

The point here is you made arguments relying on those links before you presented the links as if everyone knows what is in your mind.

I'm relying on as much of a single factor as the person I was replying to. If the reason to use solar power is because it is "free" is ignoring the cost of building the machines to collect, convert, and distribute energy.

Again: No one said solar is 100% free. No one. You misinterpreted that or using a strawman argument. The point is collecting solar is free after (obviously) acquiring solar generating equipment. Television shows and movies are free with OTA broadcasts. Music is free if people buy radios. Basically your argument is that content is not free because people have to buy electronics.

If we are going to focus on the single factor of solar power being "free" then even a minimal amount of research will prove that false. Solar energy is quite expensive when compared to other options. Many of those options also produce less CO2 than solar, and if the goal is lowering CO2 emissions then that is another factor against solar.

Buddy, you are tilting at windmills. You created a fight and do not see how

The cost of coal compared to other options has been highly influenced by government policy, it's hardly a level playing field. It's the policies that have been favoring solar power in spite of the bad EROEI that's been making better options like onshore wind, hydro, and nuclear fission less profitable.

Buddy, in red states with private companies, coal is being abandoned due to higher operating. This is not due to "policies" despite what you make think. As I stated earlier EROI does not factor in things like transportation, maintenance, and capital costs. When factoring transportation costs alone, coal is far more expensive to operate than natural gas. When factoring maintenance and capital costs, many red states like Texas find it easier and cheaper to install wind and solar. I repeat: Texas through private companies has installed wind and solar over coal. You seem fixated one a single number that does not begin to portray the real world.

That money comes from government subsidies.

So oil, coal, and gas has no government subsidies?

That's my entire point, solar power is not "free" and it bothers me greatly to see people make such claims. Solar power is just as free as coal, both are there for the taking.

No they are not: all forms of energy generation require capital and have operating costs. The fact remains that collecting wind or solar energy is free compared to coal, gas, oil, or nuclear. Your denial of the difference in cost of collecting those resources when they are not the same is the problem.

Do you see a problem with calling solar power "free"?

I'll say it again: When people say solar power is "free" they specifically said COLLECTINGsolar energy is free. Your misinterpretation and quibbling with that makes you appear to be a denialist.

If we use that singular factor of "free" to explain why we'd want to use solar power then that's ignoring the costs of building all the devices to collect that solar energy and make it do useful things for us. If we scratch the surface of what it means to be "free" then we find things like LCOE and EROEI to prove solar power is far from free, and measures up poorly to other options. If you want to take pollution and CO2 emissions into account then we still find solar not measuring up well with other options like hydro, onshore wind, geothermal, and nuclear fission.

Your argument that "We should take all factors into account . . " is undermined by your "Based on this single EROI factor . . " argument.

Comment Re:Will California stop importing electricity? (Score 1) 129

When I used to live in Glendale, California, I noted from reports from the Glendale DWP that most of the power used by the city--and by the state--was imported from places like Utah. Power would be generated in Utah, then shipped by power transmission lines to Glendale.

I live in Utah... I wonder what effect this will have on my power prices.

Comment Re: Hydrogen as fuel? but water considered dangero (Score 1) 129

You are, assuming, there _is_ excess energy from solar (which only happens during the day)... and we have huge racks of batteries nearby to store the "excess"

Using excess solar for electrolysis of water is one possibility of energy storage. While batteries are an option too, the disposal of battery technologies like lithium-ion, lead acid, and nickel-cadmium present their own problems. Sodium-ion seems to be a better possibility in the future as well but they have only recently been available..

Comment Re:Full Context == Backfire (Score 1) 129

1 - The drop in Russia fossil fuel dependence isn’t voluntary

In your earlier post, you said: "Europe has massively INCREASED dependence on Russian energy". Did you lie?

Germany’s zero fuel production is a misleading stat - there are very significant natural gas reserves in nearby European nations,

When I say Germany for example has zero oil and gas production I mean the country of Germany. Your claim that it is misleading because countries near Germany has production is basically another lie.

yet Germany chose to expand GAZPROM. One of their leaders - Schroder IIRC - even joined the company after stepping down.

Comrade, you just gave up the fact you are Russian. Nice try Putin.

It’s been calculated that Europe has sent at least as much money to Russia to purchase its oil and natural gas as Europe has spent on supporting Ukraine’s defense.

Citation needed, Comrade Putin.

Comment Re:Hydrogen as fuel? but water considered dangerou (Score 1) 129

Did I ignore that coal requires machines to produce energy?

You left out the fact coal needs machines to collect.

No. I'm pointing out that in every case we need to build machines to collect and convert energy that exists in our environment into something useful. It is because we need these machines that no energy is "free". Most of all we need energy to produce these machines, and that forms a basis for comparing the utility of different energy sources.

Terrible comparisons does not excuse your misstatements.

How do the different energy sources compare on the energy return on energy invested

You presented none of this. Your only statements were how bad solar was while not disclosing the coal was far worse.

Fossil fuels land around 30 on EROEI. Onshore wind, hydro, and nuclear fission do better. The other options most people would considerr do worse or aren't listed.

Pure EROI does not factors like pollution, supply chains, and practicality. Ignoring things seems to be your modus operandi.

Did I "rig the comparisons" on solar power?

Presenting the costs and requirements of one thing while ignoring the other option has higher requirements is rigging. Like I said you can say renting a house is cheaper than owning because owning requires a mortgage and utilities.

Only if you believe I had some influence on studies done in Germany.

What studies? Is this yet another thing you did not present to anyone?

I can't speak German but I visited the place once. It's a nice place, great food, and as someone that grew up in an area with plenty of people with German ancestry it was a bit like "going home" for me. Germany has been quite committed to renewable energy for some time now so they'd be quite interested in getting the most out of their investment in wind, solar, hydro, or whatever but they could not reach the EROEI of nuclear fission.

Again. You are relying on a single factor. Other factors have no place in your world. By your logic, every country in the world should use nuclear then coal despite the fact coal and nuclear fuel do not exist everywhere.

If you have a better metric to choose for a fair comparison then I'd like to see it.

How about looking at the real world? Coal plants are being shut down even in red states. The main reason: they are more expensive (despite your EROI factor) to operate than other types of plants. That operating cost does not include the fact they pollute more.

Based on studies I've seen on varied energy sources I've become convinced that it is only a matter of time before nations all over the world, including Germany, will learn that for the best return on investment they should be producing energy from hydro, onshore wind, geothermal, and nuclear fission. Failure to use energy sources with the highest return will put them at a disadvantage economically compared to nations that do use the energy sources with the highest return.,

So no one should use solar because you only rely on one factor in your calculation for the entire world. You don't see a problem with your analysis?

Comment Re: Hydrogen as fuel? but water considered dangero (Score 1) 129

I'm sorry, are you saying to deploy solar panels to power water/electrolysis to generate electricity from water so you can have electricity when the sun is down?

I am saying using burning hydrogen is one method that can used when solar is not available.

Why not simply store the excess solar energy?

There are alternatives like battery banks, molten salt, compressed air. All of these will depend on what is available in the location. Using a closed loop hydrogen/water loop is a possbility.

Slashdot Top Deals

We are not a clone.

Working...