×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Denmark Plans To Be Coal-Free In 10 Years

David Jao Re:Been over this too (332 comments)

Yes, we certainly have been over this. All the windmills in the world amount to 4% of worldwide electricity output. How much more can we get? Not every place with people has year-round wind. So you need serious investment in transmission and storage, areas which are currently already strained under existing load. Can it be done? Unproven.

about a month ago
top

Denmark Plans To Be Coal-Free In 10 Years

David Jao Re:The quote (332 comments)

Large is obviously to be taken in the context of global warming (how much more obvious can the context be?). Individual machinery is not large on this scale.

about a month ago
top

Denmark Plans To Be Coal-Free In 10 Years

David Jao Re:That's even worse! (332 comments)

We've been over this. Cordemais produces at most 22.8 TWh per year assuming year-round 100% production with zero downtime. The 2006 report, page 9, exact same table, lists 60.5 TWh of coal-based production for the year 2006. Do I need to belabor the obvious and point out that 22.8 is less than 60.5? Cordemais alone does not produce more power than what the report claims for coal power stations. Give it up already, you're just flat-out wrong.

about a month ago
top

Microsoft Losing the School Markets To iPads and Chromebooks

David Jao Re: Compromise combos don't work (219 comments)

I think you vastly overestimate how many x86 apps can be rebuilt. Even Intel itself has to go to absurd lengths to engineer bug-for-bug binary compatibility into successive generations of x86 chips, precisely because it's so hard to get the industry to recompile. People always complain about Linux because it lacks Photoshop ... well, where is Photoshop for ARM? You speak of servers; where is Oracle's database software for ARM?

It's also not clear if Intel can succeed in making x86 chips save power. At least they're really trying now, which is more than they were doing before. But all that x86 instruction set baggage really bites them. It's something they can ignore in the server arena, but low-power is a different beast. Now I'm not saying they can't do it; Intel has great people and they do great things when they really try. But it will be hard.

about a month ago
top

Microsoft Losing the School Markets To iPads and Chromebooks

David Jao Re:Compromise combos don't work (219 comments)

I don't know what you're talking about but in the USA many public school districts are strapped for cash and the educational discount does not quite go all the way in making the Surface Pro price-competitive with Chromebooks (how can it?).

about a month ago
top

Microsoft Losing the School Markets To iPads and Chromebooks

David Jao Re:Compromise combos don't work (219 comments)

The Surface Pro 3 requires compromising on price. It's much more expensive than any of the alternatives under discussion, especially if you want basic functionality such as a keyboard.

about a month ago
top

Microsoft Losing the School Markets To iPads and Chromebooks

David Jao Re: Compromise combos don't work (219 comments)

The only problem is that Windows RT is doomed. Windows is far too dependent on x86 compatibility. If it can't run existing legacy Windows programs, then for most people there's no point. Without backward compatibility, you'll have to switch over to completely new software anyway, and by that point for the vast majority of people an iPad is a more attractive proposition.

about a month ago
top

Microsoft Losing the School Markets To iPads and Chromebooks

David Jao Re: Nonsense (219 comments)

I'll go one further. The real cost is not licensing, and it is not CALs. Everyone knows the real cost is LIABILITY. Horror stories abound of BSA licensing audits gone amok. Funny how Microsoft's Total Cost of Ownership studies always ignore the cost of license compliance, and always ignore the risk of multi-million dollar BSA penalties for even the most minor infractions.

I avoid all non-free software from BSA member organizations. If the BSA comes knocking, they get the door slammed on them until they come back with a court-issued warrant.

about a month ago
top

Denmark Plans To Be Coal-Free In 10 Years

David Jao Re: So numerology trumps reality? (332 comments)

Worthless? Blatant lie. Where did I say wind was worthless? Quote me please.

You will fail. I never said wind was worthless. Even a computer could do this. Hint: Ctrl-F.

I never even said anything that could be interpreted as equivalent to saying wind was worthless. Again, if you think otherwise, quote me. Go ahead.

Wind power today is 4% of global electricity production. This amount is worthwhile, but NOT A COMPLETE SOLUTION, and whether or not wind can go much beyond present production remains unproven. What part of this complex sentence do you not understand?

about a month ago
top

Denmark Plans To Be Coal-Free In 10 Years

David Jao Re:That's even worse! (332 comments)

The 2006 report says exactly what I said it says, and you know full well that it does.

Since you can read French, I direct your attention to page 9 from the 2006 report.

Production totale brute d’électricité (2006): 450.2 TWh (Nucléaire)
Total: 574.5 TWh

In percentage terms: 78.4%

Stop it with the outright falsehoods. I am right.

about a month ago
top

Denmark Plans To Be Coal-Free In 10 Years

David Jao Re: So numerology trumps reality? (332 comments)

Wow, more accusations. If you want to get all accusatory, let's take you to task for YOUR lies:

1. I can read French very well, thank you very much. Lie.

2. I have no idea what Party you keep referring to. I do not live in Russia. I do not live in the USA. I do not live in Europe. I cannot debate straw men. Identify "The Party" to which you refer if you want me to comment intelligently on this bogeyman.

3. I am no longer committing any deceptions, yet you still have not rebutted in any way the fundamental argument that nuclear power has a far higher output ceiling than wind, all the meanwhile accusing me of lying. Stop grasping at past straw men.

4. "As for the name calling, you've been doing either all of it or pretty damned close to all of it." Direct quote from you. Blatant lie, and you got called out on it hard. Note: arguing that your name-calling was justified does not mean your name-calling never happened.

5. "I very much doubt 75% is the case apart from a absolute yearly maximum" Direct quote from you, which you have still not yet unambiguously repudiated.

Stop attacking me and give me a good reason why we should not pursue nuclear power more than wind power. All I hear is crickets so far.

about a month ago
top

Denmark Plans To Be Coal-Free In 10 Years

David Jao Re: So numerology trumps reality? (332 comments)

Honestly, the arguments I put forth apply just as well to a 75% level as to a 100% level, so no, I don't think it's a big deal. But even if it is a big deal, I've admitted wrong on the 100% point about 20 times already, how many more times will it take before you move on?

about a month ago
top

Denmark Plans To Be Coal-Free In 10 Years

David Jao Re:So numerology trumps reality? (332 comments)

Now that we have degenerated to arguing about name-calling, I'm sorry, but names matter.

about a month ago
top

Denmark Plans To Be Coal-Free In 10 Years

David Jao Re:You deliberately got it wrong 3 times out of fo (332 comments)

Look, I can take name-calling, even warranted name-calling, but I will not stand for you accusing me of doing all the name-calling when in reality you are doing all the name-calling. That's a blatant bald-faced lie.

about a month ago
top

Denmark Plans To Be Coal-Free In 10 Years

David Jao Re:You deliberately got it wrong 3 times out of fo (332 comments)

The hallmark of a losing argument is having to attack the messenger. Just look at your own words. "Pathetic." "Idiot." "Stupid." "Bullshit."

Search this thread for how many times you said those words. Search for how many times I said those words. And you still think I am doing "all of the name-calling or pretty damned close to all of it"?

If you are this wrong on easily measurable objective facts then I don't even want to know the rest of your purported argument.

Can you make a single argument that addresses any of the actual issues?

I have never attacked you personally in this thread. If you think otherwise prove me wrong with a quote.

about a month ago
top

Denmark Plans To Be Coal-Free In 10 Years

David Jao Re:So what about the 2006 report? Oh forget it (332 comments)

If you are willing to resume a serious discussion and stop the name-calling (which you're obviously not), then let's point out (no more exaggerations here, every number below is well-sourced and easily checked):

  • Nuclear energy currently accounts for approximately 1/6th of worldwide electricity production.
  • Wind energy currently accounts for approximately 1/25th of worldwide energy production.
  • No country currently produces a majority of its electricity output via wind. Denmark is the highest at 41%. Note that Denmark's population is 5.5 million. Germany (population 80 million) derives roughly 13% of its electricity production from wind. Spain (population 46 million) is at 18%. There's a couple of smaller countries (Portugal and Ireland) up there as well.
  • Meanwhile France (population 66 million) derives roughly 75% of its electricity production from nuclear power plants.

No politics, no hidden agenda, just the cold hard facts, which you don't like. (By the way, I post under my real name with my real email and real homepage. It's absurd for you to accuse me of hiding anything.)

When it comes to nuclear power, it's clear that we can scale up far beyond present production. We can build more power plants just about anywhere. Functionality-wise, there are no technical restrictions like weather limiting nuclear power plant location. Safety-wise, there is a concern, but it is not an existential threat to humanity like global warming. We as a species can survive (indeed, have survived) one power plant meltdown every 25 years. Hell, we as a species could survive one deliberate nuclear attack every 25 years.

When it comes to wind power, it's not clear that we can scale up. Wind power requires favorable weather. How many of these locations are there? Are they all used up by now? Maybe present-day production is close to the upper limit of production. More to the point, if it could be done at a larger scale, why hasn't it been done already? I look at wind power and I see a huge litany of unsolved engineering challenges that need to be solved (storage, transmission) to make the idea practical. Nuclear power also involves engineering challenges, but those have been solved already.

I do think wind power can be done, and we should try. I'm just saying it hasn't been done yet. We can easily get wind up to where nuclear is now (~20% of worldwide electricity consumption). No evidence exists that we can expand beyond that level; certainly only one small country (Denmark) has managed it to date. On the other hand, if we actually tried with nuclear power, we can easily get nuclear power worldwide up to where it is now in France (~75% of consumption). I guess you haven't noticed, but France has a pretty good safety record with their nuclear plants. If proliferation is a concern, then fine, I'll happily take 75% of (USA, Russia, Great Britian, France, China, India).

about a month ago
top

Denmark Plans To Be Coal-Free In 10 Years

David Jao Re:So what about the 2006 report? Oh forget it (332 comments)

Do you actually continue to dispute the simple and proven statement that ~75.8% of France's electricity (excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me for using the wrong word before, as if you couldn't figure it out) is from nuclear sources? By the way, 75.8% is not "slightly less than 75%".

about a month and a half ago
top

Denmark Plans To Be Coal-Free In 10 Years

David Jao Re:So what about the 2006 report? Oh forget it (332 comments)

A simple Ctrl-F on this thread proves that I never uttered the word capacity on this thread until yesterday's post. I was never talking about capacity. You imagined that.

about a month and a half ago
top

Denmark Plans To Be Coal-Free In 10 Years

David Jao Re:I do understand hence identifying the error (332 comments)

Oh good, so you admit you can read French.

According to your Wikipedia article, Cordemais has: "two coal-fired groups with a capacity of 600 MW each and two oil-fired groups with a capacity of 700 MW each, thus totalling an installed electric generation capacity of 2,600 MW." This is a direct quote.

According to the report I linked to (http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Ref_-_Bilan_energetique_France_2012.pdf), on page 28 of the PDF (page 26 by the document's own page numbering), in the table titled "Production totale brute d’électricité", you see clearly that nuclear power accounted for 425.4 TWh of electricity production in 2012, and coal generation (Thermique classique) accounted for 53.8 TWh in 2012. You can read the table even if you don't know any French. The total amount of electricity generated in France in 2012 was 561.2 TWh. Nuclear power is 75.8% of this total (425.4/561.2 = .758), exactly as I claim.

Now, time for some more math: 2,600 MW * 1 year equals 22.8 TWh, assuming 100% operation with zero downtime.

Note that 22.8 TWh is comfortably less than 53.8 TWh.

There is no contradiction. You lose.

about a month and a half ago

Submissions

David Jao hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

David Jao has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?