hef19898

46 ms·

901.
by hef19898 3y ago
All things considered, Nepalese meat is propably saver than industrial one. After all, the remains seen on the sreetside are from the same day, meaning whatever meat you buy was still alive in the morning.
902.
by hef19898 3y ago
I know some small artists who think the same. And rightly so, because they earn their living that way. And obviously, those artists expect royalties as long as they have the rights, and as long as those rights are used by third parties.
903.
by hef19898 3y ago
The Tonkin Incident. Well, Wikipedia has a decent enough write up of the whole Vietnam War, including the French one, including Tonkin. The problem is less that those crucial facts are not know, but rather that they get ignored in public di
904.
by hef19898 3y ago
I don't share much, true. And I din't ask the state to intervene. I expect the state to provide the legal framework for me to intervene if I choose so. And guess what, the states and nations did: copyright law, patents, trademarks
905.
by hef19898 3y ago
If your software has million users, cudos. Regarding monetization: - either you developed said software as an employee, than you were properly paid for it and it is not content - your user bought liscenses from you for whatever conditions y
906.
by hef19898 3y ago
Oh, I'd be happy to give free, but not exclusive use of my stzff to, I don't know, charities I like. You want to use my stuff for advertizing and make mobey off of it, not so much. Because that would be a business trabsaction, and
907.
by hef19898 3y ago
As a hobby content creator, I absolutely disagree. My content is mine, if someone else wants to use it for whatever purposes, that party has to ask for, and get permission, to do so. Which I might or might not give. I absolutely do not want
908.
by hef19898 3y ago
Well, tell that the EIA and not me, it's their official government numbers... Edit: Just realized the link is broken for some reason... This one should work: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electrici
909.
by hef19898 3y ago
Two additions to your otherwise great summary: After the Leningrad incident, the RBMK Chief Engineering organisation announced changes to the operating procedures taken this incident into account to all RMBK plants. Those procedures where n
910.
by hef19898 3y ago
No need to do back-of-envelope maths: LCOE (total, incl. CAPEX, in USD per MWh): coal 82.6, combined cycle 39.9, advanced nuclear 81.7, geothermal 37.6, biomass 90.1, onshore wind 40, offshore wind (that one was a surprise, since offshore w
911.
by hef19898 3y ago
>> It's generally not practical to shut down those facilities just because electricity prices are temporarily high. On the surface, that sounds logic. In reality so, that is exactly what happens: as short notice reaction by big
912.
by hef19898 3y ago
The mist valuable thing money can buy you is time. If you make enough for a comfortable living, with a good work life balance and great people, and your own gig, I would consider you very rich in deed!
913.
by hef19898 3y ago
One study that didn't make it into shippings decarbonization initiative... Any "brilliant" thoughts on zhe other questions? Or the fact that your articke ends with pointing out nuclear propulsion was considered promising in t
914.
by hef19898 3y ago
Oh dear god, I just lost a considerable amount of brain cells... A couple of questions, answer those or just, pardon my French, shut up: How do you think all those hundreds of nuclear ship reactors will be built yearly? Have you heard of NO
915.
by hef19898 3y ago
What does Maersk know about shipping or ship building, those bloody amateurs? /s
916.
by hef19898 3y ago
You just refuse to get it, don't you? We way more experience eunning everything from gas turbines to ship engines than we have running civilian nuclear powered ships, I hope I don't have to explain how many non-nuclear powered ahi
917.
by hef19898 3y ago
See, comment like that tell me you have no idea how a ship engine, or engines in general work. The problem to be solved is not the ships propulsion system, what stupidly keep repeating with nuclear reactors, but the source of the fuel for t
918.
by hef19898 3y ago
You have now idea how ship propulsion systems work, do you?
919.
by hef19898 3y ago
It would never occur to me to defend coal...
920.
by hef19898 3y ago
I ment nuclear accidents and disasters, both Chernobyl and Fukushima can be traced back to ignoring safety rules and regulations.
921.
by hef19898 3y ago
All my numbers above are including load factors... And I never said nuclear projects don't exist, only that their net added capacity is negligible compared to wind and solar. And that those historical numbers show us that the investm
922.
by hef19898 3y ago
All ears? Really? Ok, the solution lies in the grid and demand flexibility, combined storage, mainly batteries, and keeping existing NPPs running as long as possible to allow the above to catch up. Feel free to google all of that, because I
923.
by hef19898 3y ago
There was no real build out since the, what, 80s? And no projection I have found hinted at one in the future. If those policy changes are supossed to any effect by 2035, those new NPPs would have to be at least in planning stage by now, whi
924.
by hef19898 3y ago
Not terrified, but maybe satisfied with running a stable 10-15 people shop? There is no need to grow each and every business into a unicorn.
925.
by hef19898 3y ago
A lot, but none you ever wanted to listen to so far. Fact is, even China isn't massivley investing in NPPs, but rather wind and solar. I'll risk a guess and say that they have a plan to cope with a grid in a highly industrialized
926.
by hef19898 3y ago
If it is so simple, can you do that math for us?
927.
by hef19898 3y ago
Let's see then: PV load factor for utility scale solar was 16%. China installed 230 GW, Europe 75 GW and the US 40 GW -> 55 GW incl. load factor and excluding the rest of the world Wind: Let's use 40% as a load factor, which se
928.
by hef19898 3y ago
Glad we agree that so far there was no nuclear build out, anywhere! Edit: COP28 agreed on triplong renewable capacity to 11 TW by 2030. If we consider pledges for future NPPs, I think it is just fair to do the same when it comes to renewabl
929.
by hef19898 3y ago
What are you even talking about? and what have guns to do with any of that? Or Greenpeace? After all, it is a well known fact that NPPs are uninsureable, always have been. Because insurance compabies are extremely good at running risk-pre
930.
by hef19898 3y ago
Lets put it in a formula: - comparison of net additional capacities: total name plate capacity of new NPPs being build + total nameplate capacity of new NPPs planned and proposed - nameplate capacity going offline vs. new solar + wind capac

More ›