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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Setback for clean energy (Score 1) 390

You pay a third to a quarter because of differences in electricity tax. And yes, of course Danes piggyback on the Swedish and Norwegian hydro. We supply power in winter from the wind turbines (wind is stronger in winter at Scandinavian latitudes) when water level is low behind the dams, and we buy it in late spring and summer when water is plentiful. It is very much a win/win situation. Nuclear can almost do the same, except it does not have the advantage of automatically supplying more in winter when demand is highest, and it is massively more expensive than wind.

Solar is not of much use in the Scandinavian region so far, since it supplies in summer when the dams are full. Once airconditioning becomes more common, it will start making sense.

Comment Re:Setback for clean energy (Score 1) 390

France only works because it can dump its nighttime excess of electricity on the European market, and because it is willing to run the nuclear plants below full capacity (effectively throwing free electricity away). No new modern nuclear power plant can compete in Europe even when running 100% at all times, running it load-following would turn it into a complete joke.

Comment Re:Setback for clean energy (Score 1) 390

It's great to be so smug when you have mountains. Of course you can do cheap and environmentally friendly electricity if you have hydro available. Without hydro or links to other places, the only thing that works is to have natural gas backup capacity that is a bit larger than peak demand.

There is nothing else affordable that does load-following. (And outside the US, natural gas is not all that affordable for power production).

Comment Re:Not really (Score 1) 390

More dangerous than SOME other forms of power generation.

Probably not more dangerous than coal, which kills at least thousands every year before accidents. And probably not more dangerous than hydro, which unfortunately has had some really nasty accidents.

But yes, of course a nuclear reactor will hurt people every few decades at least. If nuclear power was cheap, we would have learned to accept that.

Even wind and solar kills people, but they cannot kill lots of people in one go.

Comment Re:Not really (Score 2, Insightful) 390

If we learned so much about handling stuff that needs constant cooling, why did that chemical factory explode in Houston?

I constantly read two things from nuclear proponents:

1) The nuclear industry is vastly ahead of other industries in safety thinking
2) The ridiculous cost of nuclear is due to extreme overregulation and safety requirements

Now, personally the nuclear power accidents don't bother me so much. If you add up the cost of having a Fukushima once a decade and spread it out over the total electricity produced, it will only add a few cents per kWh. Nuclear power could be required to pay into a huge global fund to cover that kind of thing. There are a bunch of practical problems with that, but in theory it's viable -- nuclear accidents have killed very few people, so we are mostly dealing with economic costs and distress.

But please don't pretend that there will never be accidents again. Of course there will. Especially if we e.g. decide that global warming is so much of a problem that it's worth trying to fix it by reducing the cost of nuclear regulation.

Comment Re:All of these have this flaw (Score 2, Interesting) 226

Because all they need to do is send a malicious RDS message through the FM network to a vulnerable car radio. Many radios are on the CANBUS these days, and it is highly unlikely that the developers of the radio software care about security or that secure channels for expedient software updates were designed in.

However, there are much more exciting things that you can do once you're on the CANBUS, instead of just shutting down ABS.

Comment Re:A venus scenario won't happen (Score 5, Interesting) 292

The more appropriate extinction event to compare with is the End-Permian Extinction. That was caused by essentially burning fossil fuels, because lava got in contact with much of the then-existing seams of coal.

Right now we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a faster pace than the volcanism did back then, and we are less likely to accidentally leave rich coal seams untouched.

Comment Re:Do they support virtualization? (Score 1) 80

Intel's normal desktop chips also support virtualization in most cases

From what I have seen of the spec sheets, those games didn't start until the last couple of generations. i3's basically don't support anything remotely modern these days.

The rest of your information is very, well, informative. Thank you!

Comment Re: Not a natural result of unrealistic regulation (Score 1) 195

And how exactly does this smoke somehow become invisible and odourless? I don't think I've ever seen a Euro 5 or Euro 6 car emit visible smoke and unlike petrol cars, which produce a noticeable smell when the engine is cold, they are odourless. If I ever see a diesel car or lorry emit smoke, it is at least twenty years old.

I regularly see diesels with 2014 or 2015 registration plates emit nasty black clouds under acceleration. The diesels seem to have fallen out of fashion around 2016, I don't see very many new registrations. But at least until 2015, the emission control doesn't work on diesel passenger cars.

Comment Re: Not a natural result of unrealistic regulation (Score 1) 195

This does not change the fact that there are two cases:

EURO6 lorry engines, which are in practice free from emissions other than CO2. As a pedestrian, you only notice the exhaust by the heat.

EURO6 passenger vehicle engines, which emit pretty annoying smoke most of the time, and nasty black clouds every time they accelerate.

If we can get all engines to the EURO6 lorry level, we have solved basically the entire non-CO2 pollution problem from engines. After that we'll have to look at e.g. brakes before we do more about the engines.

Slashdot Top Deals

We gave you an atomic bomb, what do you want, mermaids? -- I. I. Rabi to the Atomic Energy Commission