littlestymaar

7 ms·

61.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
Funny how random sources you haven't read from the internet are valid sources but a conference on the topic given in France's most prestigious academic place, conference which I followed, isn't because you don't like Fre
62.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
I don't know Japan but the author has a whole paragraph about how it's not the case, and how a big part of Japan success comes from the fact that this is not the case, so the author must be wrong one way or the other: > Unlike
63.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
> They do not avoid it "as much as possible". The panels are shading each other in that very photo You haven't linked the photo… > It's basic trigonometry. Narrow spacing needs the sun to get pretty high before sha
64.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
> I have read all the sources I linked. “I've spent 5 hours reading official materials before responding to a comment on HN”, yeah, sure. > The consensus among grid operators and researchers is that renewable grids are a solved p
65.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
> And they don't have a free house to be mounted on. Rooftop solar is more expensive than solar farms. There's nothing free in putting a solar panel on a roof. (Which is a pity because it means that if your country doesn't
66.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
> No no no no, that line has nothing to do with load factor. I'm talking about half the kilowatts for the house coming from solar, and half coming from the grid. Assuming consumption isn't correlated with sun hours, these are e
67.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
> the most striking institutional feature of Japanese rail is that it is privately owned by a throng of competing companies. Knowing the author I knew it was going to be his main argument before even opening the blog post. And it's
68.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
> You do realize that it’s quite telling that you still haven’t been able to point out a single of these ”falsehoods” nor been able to provide any factual information of your own? Brandolini's law. And I'm not going to spend an
69.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
> Are you saying it's cloudy for four months straight? No. But it's cloudy most of the time for four month straight (in average there's only 200 hours of sun between November and February in Copenhagen. Yes, you read it
70.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
You're not going to read them, so why bother since you live in a parallel universe. But if you wanted, you could ask your chatbot so you don't have to put the efforts to read anything.
71.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
How do you only consume 10% of your total consumption in 1/3 of the years? Mining bitcoin in summer yo drive total consumption up?
72.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
True, but then why claim unrealistic figures like op and their "90% of his electricity usage"…
73.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
As a complementary source of energy, yes, especially in summer (because the flip side of being north is that your summer days last longer). But in winter, you'll have something like 2-5% load factor on your solar panels…
74.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
New England is Spain in terms of latitude. Americans tend to forget how far north Europe is compared to the US.
75.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
> that thing has 90% of his electricity usage How is that supposed to work with cloudy days with barely 7 hours of daylight in winter?
76.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
You may believe that copy pasting sources that have been given to you by a sicophantic chatbot and that you didn't read makes you look smarter. But this is also wrong.
77.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
> At $0.01/kWh, PV electricity, if converted to resistive heat, would be below the cost of Henry Hub natural gas heat. And this heat would be very storable in artificial geothermal at maybe 600 C, where it would lose < 1% of stor
78.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
Of course it is relevant: the “nuclear accident” was caused by the tsunami in the first place! It has never been a nuclear accident to begin with, it was just a negligible (<1% in the pessimistic estimates) aggravation of the consequence
79.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
Again, price is irrelevant if there's no electricity available at all when you need it.
80.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
It's even worse than this, you'd don't even need to compare to other industries, nuclear-induced death over the past 40 years are negligible even when you compare to stuff like professional diseases of maids or electricians (
81.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
Is he well known here?
82.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
> The estimated ~200 cancer deaths from Fukushima will mostly be lost in a sea of cancers from other causes. This doesn't mean they can be, or should be, ignored In comparison to the 19000 persons who died directly from the Tsunami?
83.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
Price is irrelevant when you need most of your electricity in a season when there's barely any sun. Most of the European population leave on places that are more northern then Montreal, we have less than 8 hours of daylight per day, an
84.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
Dropping a nuke on a city where nuclear plants aren't … And it's not even close. That'd be exactly like the difference between the sole victim of the Fukushima nuclear accident vs the 19 000 dead from the tsunami that caused
85.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
Any country that can make a nuclear bomb could decide to make one whether or not they chose to have a civil nuclear industry (Israel being the prime example). And in the current geopolitical climate, expect more countries to build a bomb.
86.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
Wow, there's literally not a single accurate sentence in your comment. Not a single one! I'm stopping here since you don't seem to be interested in facts at all.
87.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
> That cost doesn’t even factor in disposal because no one knows the true cost yet There's still some cost factored in, unlike any other industry where the government is expected to clean up after the fact. > Not sure what risk y
88.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
The only credible competition against a state funded nuclear plant is hypothetical next gen geothermal power though. Nuclear won't save the planet, as few countries can develop a nuclear industry. But for countries that have one, it sh
89.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
> If this sounds like basic advice, consider there are a lot of people out there that believe they have to start with serverless, kubernetes, fleets of servers, planet-scale databases, multi-zone high-availability setups, and many other
90.
by littlestymaar 6mo ago
> I am pretty sure we dont need to evacuate large areas and keep sarcofag over former food processing plants. If we only tolerated the same long term risk level for food, you wouldn't be be eating anything but organic vegetables. Th

More ›