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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Questions (Score 1) 89

What is the efficiency of this system?
Who cares?

Seriously ... why is /. full with idiotic questions like this?

Easy standpoint: if I get "free energy" out of my plug in the wall, I don't care if it was produced by slime mold at an efficiency of 0.001% or by a solar cell with 10% efficiency or by a solar cell with 40% efficiency or a nuclear reactor by 41% efficiency or a combined cycle gas plant by 60% efficiency.

The only thing relevant for a layman like you is: cost per kWh/kW. And if you want to buy such a thing and install it on your property: land usage per kWH.

To answer your questions:
The system produces H2 via electrolysis, the efficiency can be googled or looked up on wikipedia.
The system uses H2 in a fuel cell to create energy, the efficiency can be googled or looked up on wikipedia.
The cost obviously depends on:
a) power production capability
b) storage capability
So you surely can get a system for 10k bucks and one for 1million bucks.

Ah, and the salt from the salt water goes into the salt water that is flowing out again and not converted into O2 and H2 ...

Comment Re:Sounds good... (Score 1) 89

For places where water is in short supply like California, why isn't every power plant being built near the sea, where they can use seawater for cooling?
Because this is not a game of "Sim City"?

I would bet over half the power plants in California are over 50 years old. At that time "desalination" and "water shortage" was science fiction, bad science fiction. Just like man made artificial global warming.

Comment Re:Interesting. (Score 3, Insightful) 185

Conventional wisdom is that China props up the North Korean government because if it collapses, China will have 25 million starving refugees at their doorstep (not that they don't already, but for now at least they aren't China's problem).

What actions China considers the best ones to accomplish that goal, and whether they are correct about the efficacy of their approach, is way above my pay grade.

Comment Re:green? (Score 1) 281

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:No global deletion (Score 1) 91

Remind me again who is having their free speech silenced by this

Google. And in practice, the people who rely on it to have their content be found (i.e. everyone else).

3. Why does Google have free speech rights that normal companies don't, e.g. credit references can't report things that happened long ago by law, and can't claim free speech allows them to.

Maybe those companies should? The solution to "some idiots excessively weight events that happened 20 years ago" is not censorship of facts, it's to educate people that other people change and that needs to be taken into account.

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) 155

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) 281

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

You have a tendency to feel you are superior to most computers.