Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re:Wind and Solar are Environmental Disasters (Score 1) 403

You do that and solar power isn't cheaper than nuclear any more. Also, for almost any storage technology you can think of to add to solar it can be added to nuclear too. This is especially true with high temperature reactors that get as hot as any solar thermal system. Nuclear power can heat up that salt too, and do it all day and night, meaning less mass of salt needed since the reactor runs as base load all the time and the sun shines only a few hours in the day. When it comes to reactor down time the utilities figured this out already, they put three or four reactors on a single site so that for scheduled and unscheduled shutdowns there is a high probability of power staying up.

Storage doesn't make solar power look better, it makes it look worse.

Comment Re: Dunno if (Score 1) 114

Buddy, please explain it, because I really don't understand. Why don't you have $500 million in the bank, since the government could assess various fees totaling $500 million against you? You didn't have to pay that, so it should be just lying around unused right?

Explain, I'm soooo confused! Or I would be if I was a fucking idiot like you and thought hypothetical dollars were real.

You are correct, you do not understand it. There is apparently nothing I can do about that, since I explained it to you several times already. Contact an accountant for further elucidation. Inability to get you to accept the truth isn't my problem, and I've been called a fucking idiot by more than one person who has turned out to be really badly wrong. Good day sir, how about a profanity laced reply so that you can call yourself the winner of the internet. Calling people "fucking idiots" really does show the deep level of your knowledge, and always wins the argument in altworld. Looking forward to more of your insight ridden profanity which I'll promptly ignore. Ciao my chachalaca!

Comment Not a lot of recent San Francisco experience, but (Score 2) 260

I can definitely tell you the same things could be said about Washington DC. Not only are the housing costs sky high, but even if you want to pretend families living and working in that area are all wealthy enough so that's a non-issue? (And trust me, that would be a poor assumption.) The city itself isn't conducive to having a family at all. You really can't get around easily with an automobile. At best, you're going to have to get REALLY good with tedious parallel parking almost every time you need to go someplace and get used to circling around blocks multiple times, hunting for a space. Most of the time, you're going to have insane traffic gridlock on top of that, ensuring you're late to plenty of doctor's appointments and other things you need to take your kid(s) to. The preferred mode of transit is the Metro system, which is really not workable for a family. It's fine for the couple who has only one kid that's still a baby (though a stroller is going to be a big pain navigating the metro stations and getting it onto and off of crowded metro trains). But if you're like many of us, who have a few kids and/or pre-teens? You're looking at paying full price for each fare for them, and issuing each of them their own metro pass to keep filled with funds. A short trip during "peak" operating hours will set a family of 6 back at least $25 or so, round trip. You could use Uber or a cab, but same problem with it getting expensive quickly.

I think it's a general theme for cities with lots of high income job offerings, really. They cater to the individual employee or contractor working there, and to the idea that they may have a partner (whether business partner or relationship) with them. Once you get married and have kids? You're no longer their core focus, because after all -- you're committed to a lot of other responsibilities besides your work-life at that point.

Comment Re:Tables are turning (Score 1) 403

Actually, a fine of $10 per MWh almost exactly eliminates the disparity in Federal subsidies for renewables (excluding biomass aka burning wood) vs fossil fuels. (Table ES2 divided by Table ES3 to get subsidy dollars per BTU, divide by 293071 to convert trillion BTUs to MWh.)

Coal = $1085 million subsidy / 5923 MWh = $0.18 per MWh
Gas = $2346 million subsidy / 8309 MWh = $0.28 per MWh
Nuclear = $1600 million subsidy / 2379 MWh = $0.70 per MWh
Biomass = $629 million subsidy / 1317 MWh = $0.48 per MWh

Hydro = $395 million subsidy / 756 MWh = $0.52 per MWh
Geothermal = $345 million subsidy / 64.5 MWh = $5.35 per MWh
Wind = $5936 million subsidy / 454 MWh = $13.07 per MWh
Solar = $5328 million subsidy / 83.8 MWh = $65.57 per MWh
Total of above four = $12004 million subsidy / 1358 MWh = $8.84 per MWh

So it's not really an unapologetic subsidy for the coal industry. It's a leveling of the playing field.

Comment Re:I'm ok with this... (Score 1) 403

They'd probably be just fine with a dome over their state. Wyoming only has 586,000 people. Its population density is 1/27th that of New York, 1/16 that of California, and 1/6th the world average. In contrast, their forested area is 1/6th that of New York, 1/2 that of California, and 1/3 the world average. If you put a dome over their state, they could emit roughly 2x more CO2 per capita than the world and New York average, 8x more than California's average, and their air's CO2 concentration would still be lower due to their forests scrubbing it out.

I didn't vote for Trump and am horrified at the thought of what his Presidency could bring. But your mistaken assumption legitimzes what Trump's supporters have been saying about the election results - that the people living in the 2% of U.S. counties which voted for Clinton simply don't understand the problems and living conditions faced by people living in the 98% of the U.S. counties which voted for Trump. In fact if we took your dome idea and applied it across the country, and you added up net CO2 generation minus absorption by vegetation, you'd probably find the Clinton voter counties are net CO2 producers while Trump voter counties are net CO2 reducers by a massive margin. It's the urban areas and the trendy environmentalists which would suffocate first. The rural areas and real environmentalists trying to live sustainably off the land would be just fine.

Comment Re:2d sucks, you yanks are wankers (Score 1) 389

I love 3d.

A lot of shit in 2d is a blur, 3d rocks.

Go enjoy your over sugarated crap food, fake cheese, 2d, shitty 4g, crap NTSC, shit coffee.

Typical consumers, like subpar shit, coz they are cheap scum who want $3 movies.

You talk reaaaal purdy there.

Comment Re:3D TV is dead? (Score 1) 389

So... in other words... 3D was a solution to a problem that no one seemed to have had. An answer without a question. The typical marketing-oriented wet dream to increase sales by addressing a problem that does not exist.

The whole way back to "Bwana Devil", 3D is trotted out every so often, and then abandoned after people get bored with it. Probably the most successful 3D product ever was the still image Viewmaster system, and before that, the ancient 3D still photo viewers of Victorian times. But for motion? Maybe after we can go full immersive, and I suspect that the market will be mainly pr0n. Otherwise, what would be the point of going full immersive in say, one of the neverending Star Wars reboots?

Comment Re: Hopefully It's The UI Design and Privacy Teams (Score 1) 157

I've routinely pulled the power cord out of a local server just to demonstrate to a coworker that it's more robust than Windows. I had to because they refused to turn the power off. They were too afraid.

Which, by the way, is why a lot of people would not update. Having to reboot after updates is anathema to people who have spent so much time just getting the computer to run that they become superstitious and afraid to restart it once they get it running. I've worked with several people who are deathly afraid of a reboot.

Properly set up, you will NOT get an unbootable machine. And it only takes seconds to check and restore a journaling file system and be up and running again.

Those who claim Windows is better really need to, as you say, stop with the meth.

Years ago, setting up a Linux computer took a bit of effort, admittedly. So if someone here wants to complain about 20 year old problems, I'll happily discuss Windows 95 with them. But as long as a person can follow some simple instructions, present day Linux works about as good as you can get.

And if a person has any doubts, just use a live distro to check the computer out.

Comment Re:Okay, I'm a big nuke proponent but (Score 1) 403

Simply BANNING renewable energy? DUMB!

Must be some powerful stuff that they have to do that.

regardless, you and I are in a minority now, so we must put up with it, and embrace coal, the clean energy source of the 21st century, which is ironically, the dirty energy source of the 19th century.

This is what the minority who rule the country wants, so who are you and I to disrespect that?

Comment Re:And so this is the way (Score 1) 403

Trump America starts.

I had noted for months now that if we are going to put coal miners back to work mining coal - one of the core promises of Sunset in America - we will have to force other energy supplies out of the market. A communist level of forced coal subsidy.

Not that this will work. All it does is encourage people to move off-grid. And they won't be using coal to do it. Unless we make renewables completely illegal. Because for all of the punishment of Tesla by republicans it hasn't stopped Tesla, merely exposed the owners.

Trying to turn back the clocks to 1950 will not work in a world that is living in the 21st century.

Comment Re:The Eco terrorist squirrels got yo back (Score 1) 403

More power disruptions are caused by squirrels than any other entity. Website with mapped out known attacks:

But what a way to go! I saw one once meandering around a substation. A flash of light, and the freaking thing was vaporized. The whole thing took maybe a tenth of a second. The aftermath took a while though.

Comment Re:Hmmmm.... (Score 1) 403

I'm not a huge fan of renewables for large scale use but this seems kinda petulant to me.

It protects coal, and coal is a part of the future of America.

Better to have no subsidies or penalties, either way, on any energy production method. The market will work it out; just don't put a hand on the scale.

In some idealized world maybe. But we have that little problem with the owners of the politicians who run the country. They do not want the competition with renewables, period. Coal and gas and petrochemicals all have their subsidies. Which goes completely against the whole idea of subsidies in this arena, that being to promote worthy new technologies that won't just appear fully formed like Venus from the ocean, so need a bit of a boost. The problem is that other countries understand that, while we are either antagonistic or not allowed to think that way.

So some of the owners of the US are frightened of the new technology are so frightened of it that they not only do not want it subsidized, but they want it anti-subsidized? Using the force of law to punish it? Must be some powerful stuff.

Meanwhile, it appears that the US is working it's inexorable way towards surrendering it's technology lead to other countries. We'll let China develop new technology, we're too busy selling our hats to each other.

My only wish is that people who think that the free market is the solution to everything show the courage of their convictions and refuse to use anything anywhere that ever had a government subsidy of any amount. That would be exceptionally interesting. Probably would look like "The legend of Mick Dodge" http://channel.nationalgeograp...

Slashdot Top Deals

Ask five economists and you'll get five different explanations (six if one went to Harvard). -- Edgar R. Fiedler