Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:It's hard to believe. (Score 1) 108

> M$ not doing that is not surprising, they're pants-on-head retarded.

Let me repeat this in all caps:


There, does that make it clearer?

The suggestion that the data was incorrect was synthesized by the Register from a tweet from MS. And this is precisely why sources like the Wiki are better than single-editor sources like the Register.

Comment More BS from the Reg (Score 2) 108

As /. regulars are no doubt aware, the Reg has been fighting a single-handed battle against the Wiki for some years now. This has often led to some hilarity, as is the case here.

If one visits the Melbourne page on the Wiki, you'll find the coordinates are correct. If one examines the history, you'll see they have been correct for longer than Bing Maps has existed. There is no error in the data. The problem is MS's import.

Nevertheless, the Reg decides to read MS's tweet another way and blame it all on MS being stupid for trusting the Wiki. This is rather ironic.

Comment Re:It was a terrible deal for Britain anyway (Score 1) 170

> The wind doesn't just suddenly and unexpectedly stop blowing.

Indeed, a very much underappreciated - or deliberately ignored - point.

I've seen the software they use for this. They're predicting wind output more than 24 hours in advance, in 15 minute baskets. They have all the information they need to bring up or down other sources as needed.

IBM used to have a couple of pages about it but I can no longer find them.

Comment Re:It was a terrible deal for Britain anyway (Score 2, Informative) 170

> An installed watt of nuclear generates 3 to 5 times the amount of electricity in a year

You did *actually read the post*, right? I ask, because you quoted the part that negates your complaint right here:

wind: $1.50 / .32 = $4.70 / Wc nuclear: $8.25 / .80 = $10.30 / Wc

Do you see the .32 and .80? Those are the capacity factors. Capacity factor is the "amount of electricity in a year" you're trying to talk about. It is not "3 to 5" times as you claim, it is about 2.5 times, yet wind is so much cheaper than nuclear to build that it doesn't make a difference, on a per kWh basis, wind is still less than half the cost.

Those numbers, by the way, are actually being very favorable to nuclear, because the actual value measured last year was 72%, not 80% as I put here. I used 80 because Hinkley would improve the CF, and I think that's a fair estimate of the result.

Comment Re:It was a terrible deal for Britain anyway (Score 4, Informative) 170

> you forget all the problems with wind

No, I don't. Because most of them are made up by people who don't work in the energy industry, work for other sources (the nuclear and coal industries publish a constant stream of anti-renewables materials) or just don't want turbines in their backyard and will pick up any any old crap they find on the 'net as "proof", like YouTube videos.

Let me make this very simple: the people who actually buy, sell and finance these things *don't care about these made up problems* that anti-wind people dream up. They are as cogent as complaining about the color of the blades. Want proof?

Comment Re:It was a terrible deal for Britain anyway (Score 2, Insightful) 170

> The UK is mostly in a poor region for solar

Sure, but with utility installs at $1/Wp, that's actually a moot point. At this point a larger concern is lack of land.

> wind performance isn't exactly spectacular

The UK's average wind CF is 32% in 2014, which is slightly better than average. That is up significantly from previous years, due to the installation of newer (larger) turbines. It is also installing wind second only to Germany in Europe.

> They would have to install massive amounts of offshore wind overcapacity

Given that a wind turbine costs $1.50/Wp and a nuclear reactor $8.25/Wp, you can install 5.5 W of turbines for every W of reactor. With a CF of 32% vs. 72% for nuclear (old plants are terrible) that means the effective CAPEX cost is:

wind: $1.50 / .32 = $4.70 / Wc
nuclear: $8.25 / .80 = $10.30 / Wc

So wind costs less than half as much to build the same capacity. Moreover, in the last 25 years wind has decreased about three times in cost while nuclear has doubled. So, given a 10 year construction time for Hinkley C, these numbers will only get worse for nuclear. The decision is quite clear.

Comment Re:Until apple gets all peace warrior (Score 1) 254

> Ask Lockheed Martin, or Oracle or MS

Who are selling products worth millions, or billions. An iPhone is less than $1000.

Apple sells something like 250 million iPhones a year. Even if they get a 3 million for the entire armed forces, piled with all the goodies and cherries on top, it's still a drop in the bucket.

It's called math, try it some time.

Comment Re:Terrible summary, idiot commenters (Score 1) 202

> Just pull out the old panel and add in the new panel

And you can do that if it's not a solar panel, you could use cheap materials like concrete or steel instead of glass. And yet, we don't do that, because steamrolling asphalt costs much, much less. Adding glass and electronics to the physical panel will not improve things.

> I've seen lots of heated driveways in Utah

But we're not talking about a few hundred square feet of driveway, we're talking about a few million square miles of hiway. And then one can easily estimate the costs of doing so by looking up the operational costs:

and then multiplying. A standard lane in the US is 12 feet, we'll consider a two-lane highway and add the same for the shoulders and median and such, and multiply by a mile to get 190,080 square feet. According to that source, a snow melt system will cost $700 per 1000 square feet. So that means a two-lane highway will cost $133,000 to melt the snow PER MILE.

These articles come up all the time, things like space power and fusion. They are all completely hopeless, but because they're technological everyone argues for them. DO THE MATH FIRST.

> Without enough data, it's hard to say

Well maybe use Google to get enough data? I'm sure you can use it just as well as I can.

Slashdot Top Deals

Statistics are no substitute for judgement. -- Henry Clay