moloch-hai

9 ms·

91.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
I asked a mathematician about what a wacky conclusion it is. He said that whenever you allow infinity, you get results like that. It relies on uncountably-infinite division of an object, which corresponds to no real-world experience anywher
92.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
It will get continually better as prices continue downward at exponential rate, as they have done year after year. People taken in by hucksters of any stripe suffer. There is nothing unique to or characteristic of solar in that. People who
93.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
You want to 'deal in reality'? Do you really doubt UK's transmission line will work? Maybe look into existing HVDC lines already in service, then. UK's folly in relying on Morocco for power is way off topic. UK certain
94.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
You seem to miss what "overbuild" means. Nobody is relying on 1000 kW from that array. If it is a 3x overbuild, then they are counting on only 300 kW from it, with any extra going to charge storage or put on a transmission line to
95.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
Alaska has wind. And also very long summer days. Solar has got so cheap that idling them half the year is no big deal.
96.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
Rare? Thanks.
97.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
Faithfulness to an imagined "original text" is often asked for, often attempted, but wholly futile. We have no such "original text". There never was any such "original text". Read it in the form most entertaini
98.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
If not, you could have published a proof that it was not. I knew somebody whose PhD project was a proof that all objects X are in Y. After rather some time he found instead that there are no objects X. That proof was not considered PhD mat
99.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
Unfortunately, he got it wrong anyway.
100.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
> For every deliverable GW of of solar you have have a GW of backup That is utterly silly. Think . You need only just enough backup generation capacity to fill a shortfall. In contrast, you overbuild solar and wind so you can charge
101.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
There is nothing wrong with running a backup generator when mains power is down. Solar alone obviously can't happen, most places. Solar + wind + hydro + (sometimes) geo + (even) old nukes + storage + xmission line + backup combined-cyc
102.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
Maybe, or _exit().
103.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
Expectation is that Indian Point will cost $1B, not counting finding a home for the on-site waste.
104.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
Mine produces 6-8 kW on summer days, in New York. I still buy most of my power from the utility, but my roof is maxed out.
105.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
There is no place for nukes, just because because they cost so many times more than renewables. They cost, per kWh, even more run intermittently. What you need in backup generation is cheap construction. Storage cost is falling even fas
106.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
Yes. I have excess in summer. You can sell excess when you have excess. Some places (sadly, not all places), adding battery lets you sell excess at a higher price during peak times and maybe buy back off-peak.
107.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
None of what you have posted is surprising. None of it changes the equation dictating build schedule. None of it favors nukes in any role. There is no need for "ten times" overbuild. Instead, you just need a backup generator y
108.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
We have seven+ decades of experience now. We are certain of two things. (1) Price of reactor n+1 is not less than n's; (2) every number produced by the nuke industry is a lie.
109.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
Individuals willing to do it self-selecting against contributing to the next generation could be a great boon.
110.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
Existing supertankers can displace in the hundreds of thousands of tons. New, they cost under $100M. Scrap, much less. They are not bothered much by weather, in normal operation. With that much weight hanging well below the surface, they
111.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
She knows. Code where it matters is wrong.
112.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
It didn't crash until after its work was done. It could even have trapped the segfault and exited cleanly.
113.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
I would be satisfied to see him stick to facts.
114.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
For reasons. Not regulation, and not hippies.
115.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
We don't actually know what most decommissionings will cost. $300M is just a lower bound. Nukes' fuel cost seems low only in comparison to their other very high costs.
116.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
Let me tell you about an entity called the EU.
117.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
Renewables do, in fact, generate power. We have combined-cycle gas turbines already, that will not be torn down. They will just be fired up only at need. Eventually they will burn synthetic fuel. At need.
118.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
We do not, in fact, need to build storage now . What we need now is renewable generating capacity to displace fossil fuel burning. At a time in the (not very distant) future, when we have enough of that above immediate needs to spare eno
119.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
You don't need a tower. A boat with a winch and a weight does the job cheaply. For extra credit, more weights.
120.
by moloch-hai 4y ago
It is not a good article, at all. See above. It is cleverly written to fool the unwary.

More ›