consumes a colossal amount of resources [...] so it takes a huge amount of oil
Solar is the main source of interest, since it's gotten so cheap. And solar is fundamentally a thin slice of silicon with trace amounts of mystery elements. The entire thing can be made extremely thin, but it doesn't really matter. Because silicon is just fancy sand, and we have enough, it's not a concern. The trace amounts of mystery elements (dopants) are so minor they don't matter, regardless of what they are and how they are sourced. Then there are conductors and structural elements, for which you can use what is available. This would be say aluminum for contacts (though they are very thin so you can still use fancier elements), aluminum and epoxy for the frames and protective layers, ...In sum solar has no problematic elements, and the amounts involved are minor on the scale of large construction projects.
Wind I want to say is similar. Mainly bulk construction materials like resin, concrete, steel. With some electrical components. The main difference is that here you have generators that might need a lot of copper. Though that is changing, I am not sure how far that is in the rollout but it won't a concern into the future. Generators won't need nearly as much copper in the future.
The only thing relevant for pollution, oil use, cost, supply, ... in the constituent resources are the batteries. If you put electric car batteries from 10 years ago into a box, you'll have a bad time.Since then though, we've seen chemistries that make good lithium batteries without problematic elements like cobalt or nickel.Making batteries that don't move lets you optimize things even further than for cars in that respect. The production for car vs grid batteries are now also separate due to that.The main issue of current grid batteries is thus lithium. Which is environmentally problematic to refine, and is expensive, but is readily available and does not depend on oil to my knowledge. The existing production also does not emit enough CO₂ to matter in the ultimate CO₂/kWh numbers when those go into grid use for decades, especially under overprovisioning where you need less batteries per renewable power production to begin with.And ofc there are many developments in battery tech. Lithium is not inherently necessary for all batteries, there will be alternate chemistries available not too far into the future.If you are thinking of building a nuclear plant now, then you need to consider what batteries you would need to buy in 10 years when it would be done, not which batteries are available now. In 10 years I'd expect something like molten metal or iron batteries that don't have any even slightly problematic elements.
the fact that they require an enormous amount of space
Loosely about 0.1% of current agricultural land. Even if you don't want to build some solar farms in place of existing farms for various reasons, it's not that much compared to other large infrastructure like cities, roads, agriculture, so you can find mixed use situations where they fit well.For example over parking spaces providing shade, on top of roofs where you don't usually see them, or on top of crops that benefit from the shade.
If you look at countries that have a few tens of percent of their grid on solar at present (often with gas turbines instead of batteries), there will of course be a few panels visible when you get around, but it isn't omnipresent.
the fact that we still don’t have even the beginnings of a storage solution capable of lasting more than a few hours
Overprovisioning. If you naively assume you build exactly as many solar panels as you need to average to the demand over the year, you get some very large numbers for storage. But given that solar is very cheap and batteries are expensive and problematic, there is no reason to do that. What you do in practice with both solar and wind, is you build more than you would need, enough so that under suboptimal production you still don't need to draw from storage. Wind turbines don't always spin when it's windy, especially very windy, since then they produce so much power all demands are fulfilled and the rest would overload the grid. For solar it's increasingly the same, you just can't tell.Private micro-solar often has a maximum power it can send to the grid, and home solar installations are over-specced for that and can send the maximum for far more of the day. Simply because overspeccing is minor increase if cost compared to everything else so financially the best decision.
In short: The sun shines every few hours, you don't have to store seasonal power.
The price stuff is only relevant for new production, there's not yet a financial reason to replace all existing plants with renewables.
As for China, I'm not fully sure why they aren't. Either it's internal lobbying, making decisions against the public interest, or it could be China wanting to keep their market control.There is still limited supply, for example building solar cell fabs is a very involved process. China might well be able to use their entire production internally for a long time before fabs scale past their demand. And in the mean time, the rest of the world would first see price increases or shortages, and then build their own fabs taking chinas market control.
There is also the very short-term thing where they are replacing oil with coal due to the Iran war (best war in the history of war, maybe ever).
Batteries need to be included if you want to compare renewables to nuclear, yeah. Still by now they beat nuclear on price, including the batteries.Hydro can be disregarded since it's usually already built, as you mentioned.
For solar and wind, especially solar, things have changed quite a bit. Of course mainly batteries just got a lot cheaper and better, but the power production got so ridiculously cheap that you can use over-provisioning. Meaning you build way more power than you'd need if you could store it, and them simply don't store it all. For example you build enough solar to supply average power for a rainy day in winter, and then only build batteries for the night, completely disregarding seasonal and weather-based storage.
Overprovisioning compared to naive numbers (still thrown around by lobyists) can save you like 80% of battery capacity.
And as a bonus you can run power-based industry (aluminum, hydrogen, titanium, ...) for free when you are otherwise not using the over-capacity, if you don't mind running the machinery on-demand.
We should charge fossils for them, else we are just disadvantaging everything but fossil and nuclear.Green doesn't get subsidies either and still competes on price with fossils, and it does not have home solar (except arguably residential solar in some places).A CO₂ tax has been demanded by lots of organizations over the years, but in the EU (and I presume elsewhere) has been repeatedly obstructed by fossil lobyists.
From memory, the issue with France is specifically that they use a russian design for the fuel rods that only russia makes.I wanna say that is hexagonal rods, vs the us standard of round.
There are projects running to make these hexagonal ones in western supply chains, but that is at least 10 years away, and there are not enough rods in storage to bridge that.
And for new plants you'll see initial prospects for the cheap russian format, and then either the plant sees a massive cost overrun when they build the way more expensive more available rod design, or it's dependent right from the start.
Usually someome else is posting them, I just did this one a single time.If you use a client that can block words you can block posts with "Mimi" or with "[Mimi]" in their title, that'd work better.
I have had a desktop and a laptop on a basic compatibility script, that only implements sudo <command>, for a long time, and not had any issues.And I installed and compiled a bunch of random stuff.I would be very surprised if there were issues.
I recommend you set up some log file to log calls to sudo, so you can judge how much that layer is even needed.
Comma.ai Launches A PCIe Gen4 x4 To USB4 Dock With Open-Source Firmware
Laptops have it where they used to have thunderbolt 3. usb4 is basically just standardizing and opening tb3.You might notice linux using a usb4 module to support older tp3 ports for that reason.
Desktops still barely even have usbC, so thunderbolt or usb4 never really got to them.
It would have to be distinctly different from any thumb drive over the last decades. My older ones definitely weren't just a single chip, I recon you'd need some immense training specifically on drive designs to know this isn't just a normal one from like 2010 or 2015.
I was talking about the new user experience. No new user can navigate without the arrow keys, the most you can expect is looking up i and esc to enter and exit edit mode, and then using both modes the same way being annoyed at being in the wrong mode when something doesn't work.Keeping track of the modes is also obviously something only problematic to those not familiar with vim.
Being good at nano does not transfer like notepad transfers to notepad++ or kwrite.vim does not respect nano shortcuts and modes are simply a barrier: an extra keypress and another thing to keep track of. It slows you down significantly.Noone good at nano would switch to vim naturally, you have to force yourself to endure until you catch back up to what you could long do in nano.
Conversely I don't know a single shortcut, behavior, or info notepad shows that np++ or kwrite don't have. Besides maybe bracket and quote completion in kwrite which you'd have to disable in settings.And on the other hand the advantages are more directly visible, like tabs, syntax hilighting, ...You might not immediately intuit the shortcuts for tab management, but you can still use tabs and then not return to notepad due to missing them.
I believe the point was they were treated as having used ai because ai sounds like them because it was trained by people with their accent.Similar to the "This is not ai, I'm just autistic".
If you have a million stolen licenses, but on the road remain very few, say 1k. While there are say 100m other cars. If you now have 99% accuracy, you will read 990 stolen cars, and misread 1m plates. Since 1% of plates are stolen, you randomly hit 10k of those misreads into a stolen plate.
This is generally alwayd an issue with rolling out mass tests. If the thing you search is even rarer than your failure rate, most detections are errors no matter how good your test.
This is why we don't just test everyone for diseases all the time even when it would be very cheap and simple.
Sega doesn't want to preserve the ownership of their ip, they were bought by a gambling company who took on their name and is using sega as a public relations shield.Their aim is to keep sega in high public esteem.
Meanwhile Nintendos ip is extremely valuable compared to the size of their company, so their aim is to protect ownership way more than making new games or other ongoing business.
International ip law is weird, so letting fanmade games go runs a risk of loosing ip. For Nintendo that is even more dangerous than for other studios whose ip value compared to revenue is not as extreme. While for sega ultimately loosing ip control is basically the point of the investment.
Solar is the main source of interest, since it's gotten so cheap. And solar is fundamentally a thin slice of silicon with trace amounts of mystery elements. The entire thing can be made extremely thin, but it doesn't really matter. Because silicon is just fancy sand, and we have enough, it's not a concern. The trace amounts of mystery elements (dopants) are so minor they don't matter, regardless of what they are and how they are sourced. Then there are conductors and structural elements, for which you can use what is available. This would be say aluminum for contacts (though they are very thin so you can still use fancier elements), aluminum and epoxy for the frames and protective layers, ...In sum solar has no problematic elements, and the amounts involved are minor on the scale of large construction projects.
Wind I want to say is similar. Mainly bulk construction materials like resin, concrete, steel. With some electrical components. The main difference is that here you have generators that might need a lot of copper. Though that is changing, I am not sure how far that is in the rollout but it won't a concern into the future. Generators won't need nearly as much copper in the future.
The only thing relevant for pollution, oil use, cost, supply, ... in the constituent resources are the batteries. If you put electric car batteries from 10 years ago into a box, you'll have a bad time.Since then though, we've seen chemistries that make good lithium batteries without problematic elements like cobalt or nickel.Making batteries that don't move lets you optimize things even further than for cars in that respect. The production for car vs grid batteries are now also separate due to that.The main issue of current grid batteries is thus lithium. Which is environmentally problematic to refine, and is expensive, but is readily available and does not depend on oil to my knowledge. The existing production also does not emit enough CO₂ to matter in the ultimate CO₂/kWh numbers when those go into grid use for decades, especially under overprovisioning where you need less batteries per renewable power production to begin with.And ofc there are many developments in battery tech. Lithium is not inherently necessary for all batteries, there will be alternate chemistries available not too far into the future.If you are thinking of building a nuclear plant now, then you need to consider what batteries you would need to buy in 10 years when it would be done, not which batteries are available now. In 10 years I'd expect something like molten metal or iron batteries that don't have any even slightly problematic elements.
Loosely about 0.1% of current agricultural land. Even if you don't want to build some solar farms in place of existing farms for various reasons, it's not that much compared to other large infrastructure like cities, roads, agriculture, so you can find mixed use situations where they fit well.For example over parking spaces providing shade, on top of roofs where you don't usually see them, or on top of crops that benefit from the shade.
If you look at countries that have a few tens of percent of their grid on solar at present (often with gas turbines instead of batteries), there will of course be a few panels visible when you get around, but it isn't omnipresent.
Overprovisioning. If you naively assume you build exactly as many solar panels as you need to average to the demand over the year, you get some very large numbers for storage. But given that solar is very cheap and batteries are expensive and problematic, there is no reason to do that. What you do in practice with both solar and wind, is you build more than you would need, enough so that under suboptimal production you still don't need to draw from storage. Wind turbines don't always spin when it's windy, especially very windy, since then they produce so much power all demands are fulfilled and the rest would overload the grid. For solar it's increasingly the same, you just can't tell.Private micro-solar often has a maximum power it can send to the grid, and home solar installations are over-specced for that and can send the maximum for far more of the day. Simply because overspeccing is minor increase if cost compared to everything else so financially the best decision.
In short: The sun shines every few hours, you don't have to store seasonal power.