Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:radiation was detected (Score 1) 111

You still did not explain ehat you mean with your pointless points :)
Over daytime solar dors not produce zero ... just for your interest. Even when it is cloudy it has a nice power output.
It is completely normal for germany to have high wind yields and relatively low solar yields in autumn/winter. However on sunny winterdays peak solar output is similar to summer. Only total yield is lower due to the shorter day length.

Comment Re: Who's to say? (Score 1) 111

Well, if you want to be pedantic (of course you do), heat isn't radiation. Black body radiation is a consequence of heat. And in point of fact the ionizing spectral components of the Sun's radiation generates over seventy-thousand cases of cancer in the US annually, and over ten thousand deaths. If there were an artificial radiation source that was that harmful we'd be right to be very concerned about it, that's substantially more than 3x the number of people who perished in 9/11 every single year.

The real issue here isn't people using linguistic short hand like "radiation" that Internet trolls can play "gotcha" with; it's people not understanding the difference between radiation per se, ionizing radiation, and radioactive fallout. Maybe you don't need to be a Nobel Prize-winning physicist to run the DoE, but you should at least be able to explain the difference between these things. And you'd certainly want anyone working in government to know the difference between preventable and non-preventable deaths.

Comment Re:sorry, it's not that simple (Score 1) 355

The Greenies and NIMBYs are going to oppose fusion just like they oppose fission.
That is extremely unlikely.
Unlike you most figure heads of the green movements have a clue and/or a PhD about/in science and know what they are talking about.
There is a huge difference between some iodine or cesium remains after a fission reaction and agitated iron/steal after neutron bombardment (fusion reaction).

Comment Re:radiation was detected (Score 1) 111

You are listing ages old US installations.

No idea why they are such expensive.

New installations in Germany are cheaper than nuclear since years. And Germany is not a particular good country for either wind (except the coast) or solar.

Bringing retarded grid concepts etc as arguments makes no sense.

Around here it's drive the "peak energy" costs from 0.07kWh to 0.18kWh in less then a decade.
Wind and solar are used for base load, not for peak energy or balancing power. You probably mean something else. If the energy prices during peak times changed, you most certainly don't know why. The most likely reason: your peak demand exploded and there were now new load following plants built. The new "renewables" now cover for some base load and the old peak plants struggle to fulfill the new peak demand. Go figure ... can't be so hard.

And on top of that: peak prices explode so that people who care about the price can throttle their demand. Only idiots still consume absurd amounts of power around peak time when they could avoid it (and that is damn easy, even in backyard countries like the USA)

Comment Re: Not gonna happen (Score 3, Insightful) 355

His point is that there aren't really any oil companies left anymore. Most of the 'big oil' companies are now fairly diversified energy companies. Fusion would be great for them, because it has very large capital costs, but huge return on investment, meaning that only companies with experience in power systems and a lot of spare capital will be in a good place to be first movers. They wouldn't want to kill this, they'd want to own it and be the first to provide electricity in the kinds of quantities promised by fusion.

Comment Re:Reads Like An Ad (Score 5, Insightful) 355

I'm in my 50s, and I've been hearing that practical fusion generators were only 10-15 years off since I was a little nerdling

There was an article a few years back that put these in perspective. They pointed out that N years in the future really means $M dollars more spending in the future and that these predictions have been quite consistent: if we'd kept funding at the anticipated rate in the '60s, we might have working fusion already.

Comment Re:We do not have the technology (Score 1) 91

Why do people always say "we don't have the technology" when we clearly have it?
Mars missions are not a technology problem, particular radiation and life support are solved problems.

What we lack is know how, and cost efficient approaches: know how why so many landing operations failed, e.g.
Very likely simply due to weather phenomena and atmosphere pressure changes (anomalies).

I agree that manned Mars missions, especially by mini companies, are unrealistic ... but it is a mere monetary and time frame problem, not a technology one.

Slashdot Top Deals

Base 8 is just like base 10, if you are missing two fingers. -- Tom Lehrer