Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:I agree (Score 1) 135

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) 135

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) 109

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: Hydrogen as fuel? but water considered dangero (Score 1) 109

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) 109

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) 109

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) 109

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.

Comment Re:steak, burger, and sausage are formats (Score 1) 192

Do you want a rifle to look like a cane to be legal? That's their choice, right? It's deceptive and people could be harmed by this deception,

Talk about false comparisons and outright lies. A veggie burger is LABELED as vegetarian (and sometimes vegan). To say it is "deceptive" is as idiotic as saying it is deceptive that margarine looks like butter and is not butter. It is on the label.

such as in another comment about the poster's daughter having an severe allergic reaction because something was labeled as "yogurt" when it was some kind of artificial concoction that contained nuts. Granted, the product was labeled as containing nuts but this was in small print and easily missed.

So in another post unrelated to your demand that the world conform to you, someone misread the label for an ingredient to which his daughter was allergic. Do you have a point?

I don't know any true vegetarians. I live in the Midwest USA where (if I recall correctly) the pigs outnumber the people.

So you don't know of anyone who actually uses these products but everyone should conform to your wishes. Basically: it does not affect you if veggie burgers are sold in your local store, but screw any vegetarians as the stores should not offer it.

Without realizing I had visited a kosher sandwich shop and asked for a ham and swiss on rye only to be told they had no ham. As I recall a beef and cheddar sandwich wasn't on the menu either. I don't remember what I ate but whatever it was didn't land in my top five list of sandwiches I like. I learned to pay better attention to the sandwich shops I visit.

Dude, what is the point of this story? To illustrate how ignorant you are of other people's dietary restrictions? As soon as you said, "kosher", I already knew they would have 0 pork products. Zero. That's part of being "kosher".

I grew up on a dairy farm in a largely Catholic community with many people that have ancestry from Ireland and Germany. We eat a lot of beef and cheese, with fish being the most popular option on Fridays though apparently that's a rule that's not followed as rigorously today as when I was a kid. So, if there's an objection to pork for maintaining kosher or halal then there's beef. If there's an objection to red meat because of Christian tradition then it's fish. While i was in the Army I noticed the dining facility kept peanut butter sandwiches on hand if there was some objection to whatever protein was offered, the staff got a bit annoyed at one recruit that kept asking for the peanut butter sandwich at a certain point in our training cycle but the Army rules on diet required them to comply with the request in spite of their annoyance.

Again: You don't have to eat the veggie burger. But you are adamant that no one else have them either because they are made in a certain form factor for convenience.

I've been to gatherings to watch a game before and I don't recall anyone offering a vegetarian option. I'd guess that if someone was a vegetarian they'd fill up on cheesy chips. If they believed dairy was also something they'd rather not eat then maybe they'd eat only the chips? Not eat anything? Bring their own food? Ask for a peanut butter sandwich like that picky eater.

So in summary: in your world there are no vegetarians. But in your world you find it deceptive that no one has offered something that looks like meat but isn't. In other words, it has not affected nor will affect you but the world must conform to your wishes regardless.

Comment Re:Full Context == Backfire (Score 1) 109

Most of these statements are at best half true. The issue is the poster uses "local" to mean country only while discussing all of Europe.

Europe has massively INCREASED dependence on Russian energy by phasing out local energy production

Europe has decreased dependence on Russian energy overall since Ukraine. While imports increased this year, Europe has reduced their dependence by 90%. This is simply not true.

Europe has massively INCREASED foreign industry dependence by phasing out local industry

The phrasing of this is somewhat true and somewhat false. Individually countries have phased out certain national initiatives. For example, Germany has closed their nuclear plants; however, German has massively installed wind power to replace these plants. From the standpoint of oil and gas, Norway has replaced Russia by becoming Europe's largest exporter of oil and gas.

Europe could easily have instead phased out dependence on foreign energy while maintaining its own industrial and energy production

For individual countries that has never been true. Germany for example has zero oil and gas production. They rely on Norway, the Netherlands, and the US for these things. However Germany has the largest base of wind power.

Comment Re:But what about (Score 1) 109

... all their climate destroying economic growth? Concrete dwarfs many other carbon contributors, and last time I went to California there was a f-ton of concrete. They even built roads out of the stuff. But pay no attention to that, look over here, we just stopped using coal!

[sarcasm]Yes because no other state or country uses concrete any more. Red states avoid concrete entirely as concrete is too "woke". Texas replaced concrete is their massive highway system with hopes and prayers. [/sarcasm]

Comment Re:Hydrogen as fuel? but water considered dangerou (Score 1) 109

I'm fine with onshore wind power for the most part as that doesn't consume land like solar power does but it is still limited in power per land area which means island nations like Japan and UK can't rely on wind power to meet their energy needs. They will need nuclear fission and I'm seeing announcements from leaders that recognize this.

1) You do know that offshore wind power exists right? 2) Japan's wind power generation as of 2023: 5.2GW. UK in 2023: 16GW onshore, 15 GW offshore. The UK in fact has the largest offshore capacity than any other country in Europe.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Never give in. Never give in. Never. Never. Never." -- Winston Churchill

Working...