You still need a base power plant and few others for controlling the amount of energy in the system. Using only renewable is kind o hard. If we can figure out a way to store energy the way we can access it very quickly with arbitrary output, we could move on to renewables exclusively.
No we need to be able to shed unwanted power. Generation using renewable sources can be over provisioned, and still be economically feasible. Power usage fluctuations are thé key issue to manage. As wind is a very good base load provider.
Don't look at capacity factor that is very misleading.
What? Please show us where the wind blows 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, every year.
Not being a nay-sayer, but your comment is very misleading.
"Good base load provider" means high availability - reliable enough so the lights don't go out. When's the last time you remember a power outage in the US that did not make the news? Yeah, that kind of availability. Outages are rare enough that they make the news when they do happen. Right now, wind cannot provide this kind of "base load" guarantee unless we overbuild a huge amount of capacity and implement a very sophisticated real-time system to manage all the inputs/outputs, and even then you'll be lucky to generate stable baseline load. China's trying right now and having a very difficult time both delivering stable power, and making money doing it[1].
What is base load? Its the minimum load required in a network or is it those plants for whom it is uneconomical to go below a certain output.
For the first no power plant is truly base load as all plants must shutdown sometimes. So you need to look at a system. So taking into account that in a large area like California it always blows some where, can wind generate the minimal base load at any time. For wind the law of large numbers eventually means that given a per wind turbine capacity factor of 36% a pure wind net achieves 36% capacity factor. If the 36% is the day peak load, then at 18% you are at night low load, considering that wind can be base load.
On the second base load is pump it when you got it e.g. because it costs to much to ramp down (coal, nuclear) or because you got the power anyway (wind, day/noon solar) then yes wind is base load.
Single wind turbines are not base load power plants, but when you have thousands of them over a large area they start to guarantee with high accuracy a minimal load with very good prediction properties.
Of course this ignores economic efficiency, but that depends very much on oil prizes.
e.g.
The us uses 18 million barrels of oil a day. That means the yearly oil consumption of the US is very roughly equivalent to the volume of oil required to flood Rhode island state one foot deep. Which on the face of it does not seem economically efficient but at the moment it is.
...the NSA would love that most of all. The vast majority of programmers lack the knowledge, skill, or both required to correctly implement anything related to cryptography.
Who's "everybody?" If you mean userspace application/library developers, they don't have a good source of entropy, so they have to get it from the kernel. That means userspace CSPRNGs end up depending on the kernel CSPRNG. Presto, two single points of failure!
I see, so prior to this random() and entropy() addition to Linux nobody could ever write any security related application. Yes, this is true. We should change the pull request to "Enable security for Linux, 2014". God, never too late...
Lat time I checked Google was not an ISP for consumers. They do this to generate more competition against the ISPs forming a trust against competition.
Example:
"The Justice Department has reached out to the companies as it investigates whether the cable-industry merger (CMCSA:US) is anticompetitive, said the people, who asked not to be named because the review isn’t public."
Thanks to Goole Comcast started to do higher speed internet, it was shocking to me how customers were not interested in it but right after the Google offering the very same customers went totally mad and they suddenly needed faster internet. Who understands these very complicated matters anyways?!?!
> does the fact that OnePlus offers the OnePlusOne for $300 (to the few people who can get it) mean that the Galaxy S5, which has similar specs but costs twice as much, is unreasonably priced?
If Samsung had a monopoly on phone sales, so that you were required to purchase a Galaxy S5 (just as most people are required to by Comcast to get any modern internet whatsoever) then yes, it would be fair to say that the S5 is unreasonably priced when compared to a OnePlus.
But their not. Anyone can choose to not purchase a Galaxy S5, and still own a smartphone with a dataplan. You can't choose to not purchase Comcast and still have high speed internet (in most areas).
- -
If Comcast wants to keep their monopoly, they have to submit to regulation on prices and services. (Just like every other utility). If Comcast doesn't want to be regulated, all they have to do is give up their monopoly utility status.
It's fairly cut and dry. They can't have it both ways. They can't keep getting free government money as a utility, and then turn around and pretend to be a luxury good (like a Galaxy S5 is).
And in all likelihood the software that powers your smartphone (to say nothing of heavy industry, biotech, higher education... ). If you wanted to mention something that sounds "dumb" you could have at least gone with agriculture and hydrocarbons or something more accurate.
I'd say this post is deliberately offensive. More importantly for HN it is simply inaccurate.
"European economy has barely grown for 15 years and these agreements are a welcome development."
Good, keep it this way. We don't need more economic growth because the 90% of it goes straight to billionaires and the average worker don't benefit from it anyways. What we really need is an economy that does not rely on growth and mass production of toxic waste.
Are you arguing the benefits of a stagnant economy? I don't understand how that could be a good thing. The economy needs to at least match growth of the population, or else that means you have unemployment or lower wages. But if that's what you want just to stick it to the billionaires...
Growth and more growth is only needed, because of our interest based money system.
Any gardener can tell you, that unlimited (and exponential) growth is not possible. But economists still believe in it.
Some (very soon) day, all the resources of this planet will be wasted -- and humanity will have destroyed itself -- just because of economic theories and to make billionaires from millionaires.
Growth is needed to lift people out of poverty, create jobs and opportunities and support wider range of social projects from infrastructure to space exploration.
The burden we're putting on the resources of this planet is indeed very high and we must work to reduce it. However, GDP growth with shrinking burden on the environment is achievable by generating more value on a smaller environmental footprint (see my other comment, in short: we can increase GDP by growing the relative aggregate value of services, software and products made of recycled materials).
That is just capitalistic propaganda that now runs the last decades over the world.
But it does not work any more. The "growth" of the last two decades did go 99% into the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires.
Today is the situation, that new jobs in underdeveloped countries are at the existence minimum of that country or below -- meaning, those people work their ass of, just to survive and make the big bosses richer. And additionally, the environments of the countries are polluted, resources are depleted ...
> But it does not work any more. The "growth" of the last two decades did go 99% into the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires.
According to the world bank, the number of people in poverty worldwide declined from about 1.9 billion in 1990 to about 1.2 billion in 2010. That is despite an increase in surveyed population of about 1.4 billion over the same period. ( http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm?1,0 )
Now, it is possible that economic growth over that period was so enormous that only 1% of it (or less, considering that there are more people in the world besides the very destitute, millionaires, and billionaires) was sufficient for that amazing reduction in poverty.
But it seems unlikely, so I would appreciate a source for the assertion "The 'growth' of the last two decades did go 99% into the pockets of the millionaires and billionaires."
I don't know, where you live. But I guess, that you live in a country, where critics of the capitalistic system does not appear in the media.
I don't care, what the world bank says. It is statistics. For example: How do they define "poverty"? By manipulating the definitions, I can prove anything to you.
It is a fact (and in my country, you can see it in the media), that in the developed countries, the rich got far much richer than the other people got.
That maybe some people in lower developed countries are better of now (by the statistics), might be, but their income is so low, that they do not really count against the growth in income in the other countries.
Please, don't tell me about the world bank. I don't trust organisations, that are installed for one main reason: To sell capitalism to the world.
Of course, if you read the right (right-wing) media, they will try to discredit it, but I did not yet read any plausible critic -- only wild tries to protect capitalism from any thinking.
I am arguing that for an average person there is no difference between 3% growth and 15% growth, but for mother Earth there is and I don't care about corporate CEOs (less than 1% of the global population) and the Rokafela bros. Sorry for my ignorance but I think an average person and our planet is more important than few fat bankers and their CEO friends. I know, I am a bad person.
Economic growth does not necessarily imply destruction of the environment. The growth rate refers to the rate at which value of products and services in an economy grows. The aggregate environmental footprint may in fact shrink or grow slower than the GDP. I can think of three reasons why there could be a gap between GDP growth and environmental footprint growth:
Services. Most of the value in a modern economy lies in services whose footprint is a lot lower than manufacturing.
Software. Even in manufacturing increasing part of the value comes from non-material components like software and network services.
Recycling. Recycling and downcycling lower environmental footprint by reducing our need for raw materials.
That is just a theory. What do we have in practice:
- Some years ago, you could (yourself) exchange the battery of your mobile phone -- today, many mobile phones will be thrown away, when the battery is finished or any other part does not work any more. Todays "highest tech" industries are environmental nightmares. And now they even build tablet PCs that way, that should replace normal computers (see MS Surface).
- A lot more products are just build for fast consumption and recycling is still not in focus of most manufacturers. Instead, the waste from Europe is exported to Africa.
What I say: I am sure, that it would be possible, but with our todays ideology of growth for the sake of more and more profits and less and less regulation, that is just not "compatible".
It's actually more likely that your battery will be properly disposed of today than it was a decade ago. Its being integrated into the phone means it is handled in the entire "decommissioning" of the phone (when you recycle it, trade it in or even throw it away where it is fished out by garbage processing companies who make money by salvaging electronics out of garbage and preventing it from going to landfills.
The reality is, that very much (if not most) of our electronics garbage goes to Africa, where it goes to wild garbage dumps and young children are destroying their health by burning the valuable materials out of the garbage without any health or environmental measures.
Even when the phones are decomposed and parts are recycled, we are very far from recycling 100% of electronic gadgets. Maybe you could (with much effort, that is not cost effective) recycle 40% of the materials. The idiotic method of glueing all together makes things even more difficult!
What you tell here, is just science fiction, that is presented as facts from the media to give us better feelings.
I live in a country with very high standards for garbage recycling -- but even here, most of the stuff is either just dumped or burnt, since that is the most cost effective thing -- that is done, of course after the private households took much effort into waste separation -- it is just dumped/burnt together. I know that, because I brought my things separated to official recycling and was advised to dump it together into one big hole.
Don't believe, what media and press tells you, because governments want to shine a bright light on our industries! You are being just brain-washed.
You are welcome to move to Venezuela, Belarus or some other unlivable place. I'd prefer Europe to be economically free and in growing prosperity much like Singapore. Sadly most of EU citizens are overly brainwashed with statist propaganda from birth, and promoting degenerate policies which cause economic weakness.
This is one very good argument against the EU in its entirety. We don't need crooked politicians from a random country making decisions for the rest of the EU. It seems like things are going terribly wrong since this project started. The only gain we got is a higher dose of cocaine in the urine of the EU parliament members.
Could you conduct a detailed article and publish it please? I think it would be useful for people who are interested in this but don't have the background about JPEG or WEBP internals.
