You may want to check you spelling or explain what photos hitting your solar panels has to do with anything before you star throwing stones in your glass house of ignorance
You have the causality wrong, other than the hardcore group of preachers the rest are swinging that way because it’s what the congregation wants to hear. Preaching the opposite message will drop attendance even more the it has already dropped and will effectively mean having to close the church.
And the fire safety risks are significantly reduced (thermal runaway is much harder). They can also be transported and stored completely discharged, something not done with lithium ion batteries because of it degrades them much more than regular usage.
> The code is available on GitHub. Initially, I wanted to make it fully Open Source, but then I realized anyone could just fork it, slap a paywall on it, and repeat the exact cycle I'm trying to break (maybe highly unlikely, but just in case).
The GitHub is Apache licensed, what is not fully open source about the repo?
Good catch. The GitHub UI flags it as Apache, but if you check the actual LICENSE file, it has the Commons Clause appended to restrict commercial use. That's why I consider it 'Source-Available' rather than strictly Open Source.
The output of hand watchmaking is likely also indistinguishable to most customers. I am skeptical that people buying 250k watches can tell if the perfect design was done by hand vs done by machine. The manufacturers play up the handcrafted nature to justify.
As the ball of mud that is web standards grows, the less likely that it becomes that things can “sort themselves out”. Even as things are you need a literal army of developers to build and maintain a modern standards compliant browser, making any real threat to Chromium dominance unlikely, and that only intensifies as Google rolls ever more crap into the katamari. If users can then be harassed into switching to Chromium based browsers it’s likely that it will never be toppled short of some new technology superseding the web entirely.
If Google abusing it’s dominant position in web browsers is a problem then the solution is legislation and anti trust action. Letting Apple abuse its own position because it currently provides benefit is not a good approach.
Same thing played out with ads and tracking a few years ago, and now look at the ads situation in the App Store.
Are you talking about Google or Apple? Because Apple is being sued by the DOJ for monopolistic and anticompetitive behavior. There are numerous examples of it spelled out in the lawsuit:
Both of them. To the extent that Google uses their position with chrome to give themselves in another domain they should be sued. Likewise, Apple refusing to allow consumers to install whatever applications they want on their own devices is so egregiously anticompetitive.
In their wildest of wet dreams Microsoft didn’t imagine they could get away with what Apple is getting away with.
I can do neither, actually. I can merely observe reality as it is and look at which forces affect the direction of the world. And right now, I observe a reality where one of the most significant forces which counteract a completely Chromium dominated web is Apple's user-hostile insistence on preventing browser engine competition on iOS.
I have very little faith in a legislative solution here since I believe politicians care about browsers, not browser engines. They see Chrome, Brave, Vivaldi, Edge and Opera and see a diverse marketplace with sufficient browser competition. They don't seem to care about the technical monoculture behind it all.
Apple doesn't even make Safari for the world's dominant platforms - Windows and Android, yet they continue to hold back progress in web browsers on all platforms to protect their own profit on their walled-garden platform.
They need to wrap up the DOJ lawsuit against Apple, but I fear the current administration will look the other way because "Tim Apple" gave the guy in charge a golden trophy. I wish I were joking.
The actual lesson here is that beyond a small reserve, the case for nuclear is non existent (unless proponents are willing to stop pretending it isn’t about nuclear weapons).
The same Chinese who in addition to wind and solar are also building many nuclear energy plants of several differing designs, have nuclear already as 20% (?? or so, IIRC) of their supply capacity and intend by plan to keep it that way?
For whatever reason, the Chinese are all for hybrid nuclear / renewables - and keeping modern more efficient coal plants in the picture until they no longer needed.
The "trending flat" is by design, they want coal and nuclear as still available fallback, nuclear also has national security benefits for deterrence, the expansion plans for nuclear (not major amounts more, just steady low growth) are still on their table, just throttled back somewhat for now and ready to ramp up as they choose.
So, Wind on it's own ~ 2x Nuclear, and Solar on it's own about 1.3 x Nuclear.
Clearly I was thinking of some other pivot on energy charting in China taht had it at 20% - perhaps current growth rates .. apologies.
That aside, in the greater picture of energy consumption, Wind, solar, and nuclear in China are all close enough to be ballpark ( a little more seperated just in the context of electricity generation )
> How does nuclear, an energy source known for needing to run at a very high capacity factor (i.e at max capacity) help with energy spikes?
It's one of the fastest load-following power sources we have. I think only gas power stations are faster. And no, they don't run at full capacity at all times.
You can't ramp up or ramp down any of the renewable sources as quickly. Or you have to insanely overbuild them.
Batteries help to a point, and there are downsides and problems to batteries, too. You want to be as diverse in your power sources and power source backups as possible.
> Well you better go tell the Chinese that they should slow down on wind and solar, clearly they are misinformed about how to run their grid.
Non-sequitur.
China is building out all power sources at tremendous pace. They build both renewables and nuclear. They literally approve 10 new reactors a year on top of all the renewables they also build.
And while they canceled inland
plans after Fukushima, they may still reverse the decision. China is nothing if not pragmatic.
> China is building out all power sources at tremendous pace. They build both renewables and nuclear. They literally approve 10 new reactors a year on top of all the renewables they also build.
Not a non-sequitor. They are building out wind solar and hydro at orders of magnitude more than nuclear.
“Look China is building so much nuclear, we should too.” Is disingenuous and self-serving by the nuclear industry since they don’t acknowledge that their nuclear build out is a rounding error (and a decade behind behind schedule) compared to renewables. If we want to point to China and say we should do what they do, the obvious take away is that renewables are the way to go.
You: "Well you better go tell the Chinese that they should slow down on wind and solar, clearly they are misinformed about how to run their grid."
What do you call this? "An argument"? I was polite calling it a non sequitur.
> Is disingenuous and self-serving by the nuclear industry since they don’t acknowledge that their nuclear build out is a rounding error (and a decade behind behind schedule) compared to renewables.
China: Approves 10 new nuclear reactors a year. Builds up an extremely diversified power source for their country.
You: You're disingenuous. They are not building that much nuclear.
> their nuclear build out is a rounding error (and a decade behind behind schedule) compared to renewables.
Please don't use words and term whose meaning you don't understand. By source of power nuclear is 4.47% of total electricity production. Solar 8%, wind 10%, hydro 13.4%.
China is extremely lucky with their rivers and landscape. Hydro is huge in China.
> If we want to point to China and say we should do what they do
They do literally what I said: China is building out all power sources at tremendous pace. It's diversifying its energy production.
You, on the other hand:
- Claim that I should go and tell China to stop building solar and wind. Something I never said or implied
- That nuclear build up in China is a rounding error compared to renewables. It's not
- That "doing what China is doing" means to somehow only focus on renewables. Whereas China focuses on all sources, and nuclear is literally one of the country's priorities, building and approving more reactors a year than the rest of the world combined (going from 9 constructions in 2000 to 36 in 2025, 42 new ones proposed, and over 140 on the roadmap, 6-7 years construction time per reactor). And they are busy building nuclear reactors around the world (so, gaining more and more expertise and technologies).
At this point I've said all I needed to say to you.
reply