dalyons

13 ms·

241.
by dalyons 9mo ago
I guess I didn’t get one with supercruise
242.
by dalyons 9mo ago
i have a 2020 outback, and I didnt evaluate the lane keeping as part of the purchase decision. But since then i have rented a ton of different cars for work travel, and have realized surbaru has the best system out there, outside of truly p
243.
by dalyons 9mo ago
Nope, you as a company owner are highly motivated to shift to RSUs once you hit a certain valuation and number of employees. Everyone does it.
244.
by dalyons 9mo ago
now that 98% of cars sold are BEV, i wonder how long its gunna take for that 1/3rd to get to 95%
245.
by dalyons 9mo ago
Why not? Few more of these (1) and you should be golden. One years auction will be 12% of all uk demand. 1 https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-what-uks-record-auction-for-o... )
246.
by dalyons 9mo ago
Wrong, unless you can prove otherwise. EVs cost a little more emissions to build but are widely regarded as breaking even with a gas car in 1-2years after production. And even shorter as grids decarbonize.
247.
by dalyons 9mo ago
And yet their coal usage has plateaued for the last few years, and actually likely started to decline in 25.
248.
by dalyons 9mo ago
Such a tired point. It’s not the 1970s anymore, and the west can build any large projects cheap. Go look at the projected costs for France’s new fleet, and that’s before the inevitable cost overruns
249.
by dalyons 9mo ago
sure. But today china is the #1 producer of solar panels (80% of global production capacity), #1 producer of wind turbines (40%), #1 producer of batteries (~80%), #1 producer of EVs (75%). Noone has done more for global clean energy, and it
250.
by dalyons 9mo ago
I agree with you, china is building risk mitigation in a way that no one else is, and it will serve them well. However, in this thread I’m solely replying to your comment on the “24% nuke by 2060” plan. That particular plan is not going to
251.
by dalyons 9mo ago
Sure, I’m just pointing out that 24% share of power being nuke by 2060 is never going to happen now. Renewables got too cheap, and it’s not “on target”
252.
by dalyons 9mo ago
> But they have limited flexibility: you can't turn it on and off easily and there's limited power modulation you can do. That's why France keeps its gas output relatively constant in winter and do the modulation with nucl
253.
by dalyons 9mo ago
oh sure yeah, they're expensive (although used are getting cheaper!). I didn't read "holding out for a 400m range" as "holding out for a 400m range less than $X". But yes, all the long range EVs, rivian, lucid,
254.
by dalyons 9mo ago
The world is buying Chinese solar without subsidies. It’s the cheapest power option. Chinas nuclear share is declining every year.
255.
by dalyons 9mo ago
Everything I’ve read says their nuclear share is actually declining y/y, due to the crazy growth of renewables. I think that target is out of date?
256.
by dalyons 9mo ago
And thank god they have this incentive alignment! Chinas greentech buildout and export is the only thing with a chance of getting us out of this climate mess. Imagine how fucked we’d be if they had their own oil.
257.
by dalyons 9mo ago
You are wrong by a factor of at least 10x
258.
by dalyons 9mo ago
~39% of Australian homes have solar as of 2025. Seems pretty widespread
259.
by dalyons 9mo ago
& battery tech continues to evolve at high speed. China is already selling 1000v 5min charging evs. Semi solid state are shipping. 500+ mile range cars exist. EREV is going to be obsolete in a few short years, if it isnt already.
260.
by dalyons 9mo ago
someday is today in california at least. there are so many superchargers everywhere that i have never worried about the problems you mention.
261.
by dalyons 9mo ago
the rivian max variants are 400 mile range, you can buy one today.
262.
by dalyons 9mo ago
Why? Batteries and grid shaping inverters are cheaper and better in every way
263.
by dalyons 9mo ago
i'm sorry it came across that way. let me rephrase. "cheap" to me implies it is affordable in a relative sense, compared to other options. It will almost certainly never be cheap - even if we make it cheaper through more prod
264.
by dalyons 9mo ago
Whether you look away or embrace it doesn’t matter though. We’re all going to be unemployed. It sucks.
265.
by dalyons 9mo ago
I agree, but is it bad to have this reaction? Upending people’s lives and destroying their careers is a reasonable thing to fear
266.
by dalyons 9mo ago
They sort of are, nuke is a tiny % of their annual new capacity. Also, nukes don’t have to be cost competitive in a single party state.
267.
by dalyons 9mo ago
For the last two years more than 90% of new power generation capacity added globally was renewable. Est 95% in 2025. So no, new carbon sources are not competitive. https://www.wri.org/insights/state-clean-energy-charted
268.
by dalyons 9mo ago
Cheap-er, not cheap. They’re still fundamentally massive complicated constructions. They will never be as amenable to mass production cost reductions as things like solar and battery
269.
by dalyons 10mo ago
On a clean grid they are ~100% better on tailpipe emissions. They create less brake dust, not more, due to regen. Yes, more tire particles due to being 10-20% heavier, but way less particulate overall because of no PM2.5 from combustion. Ma
270.
by dalyons 10mo ago
oh. im not really sure how i was supposed to get that point from a post that was seemingly just criticizing EVs vs ICE. But sure yeah, EVs wont make the world less car centric. I dont think thats ever going to happen, sadly. > EV'

More ›