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


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

Comment Re:The anti-science sure is odd. (Score 1) 674

Oh it's much, much worse than that. If you assume arguendo that any of the catastrophic AGW and more than half of the non-catastrophic AGW models are even remotely correct then it's far too late for any of the carbon controls to do jack fucking shit. Which means 4 options are on the table.
1. Kill off 80%+ of the human race if you want to keep the current 1st world standard of living.
2. Kill off 50%+ of the human race and reduce 95% of the remainder to subsistence living.
3. Large scale chemical atmospheric engineering.
4. Invent massive scale carbon sequestration machines to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.
The hilarious part is that until recently, number 4 never even passed the lips of the vast majority of AGW believers.

Comment Re:Can anyone say wind turbine boondoggle? (Score 1) 188

And you must be one of those idiots who keeps tools around after they become useless for their assigned task. These are offshore wind turbines. That means placement area is at a premium, they can't just erect more when their power output drops. Thus, if the turbines are needed to put out X amount of power, but because of their age have an output of X - Y, you can't just easily build more, you have to scrap the existing ones and erect new ones. Now, you can probably keep the tower, depending on corrosion, but that's one of the cheaper parts. Not to mention depending on how they build them it might just be more economical to scrap what's there than to try and retrofit everything in place.

Comment Re:Can anyone say wind turbine boondoggle? (Score 1) 188

Yes. I pulled it out of my ass. Interestingly, my ass now has a web address.


Found on my ass are significant amounts of text. Among them the following.

A modern wind turbines will be designed to work for 120 000 hours throughout their estimated life-span of 20 years. This would be the turbine operating for approximately 66% of the time for two decades. This is far more than modern car engine which is built to last for 4 000 to 6 000 hours of use. This equates to an average of 49 minutes driving a day over the same two decades.

Comment Re:Can anyone say wind turbine boondoggle? (Score 1) 188

You mean the reactor design that the company itself hasn't quite figured out how to get to work right in a full scale reactor instead of the smaller ones in Finland? That Hinkley Point? Not to mention that you managed to ignore the fact that it doesn't include maintenance costs. Or that a significant number of NG plants will have to be installed to spool up the extra electricity as needed given wind turbines uneven electricity generation, which means it'll take even longer than the 16.96 years assuming everything works perfectly. Or that no studies have been done on the lifetime of wind turbines exposed regularly to saltwater, but the probable result is a shortened lifespan.

Comment Can anyone say wind turbine boondoggle? (Score 0) 188

At the average price for electricity(14.4 cents per kW/h) in RI at the average household electricity usage per month(602 kW/h) it will take 16.96 years to pay that $300 million back. That assumes no operating costs or maintenence costs. Which is obviously bullshit. Turbines have, at max, a 20 year lifespan. But of course, green energy is viable, blah blah blah. Oh, and all this assumes constant delivery, which is never the case for wind as well.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Life begins when you can spend your spare time programming instead of watching television." -- Cal Keegan