tohmasu
tohmasu on Hacker News
Hey guys, I just wanted to say that it looks completely natural that a short sarcastic post about social media in general gets followed by two suppressing posts that very specifically defend Facebook, completely have each others backs and also delivers a little ad hominem.
This is why social media ToS are typically concise and clear: "License agreement: We spy on you and sell your information to anyone that's interested, press accept to continue".
The words "Team", "Hero" and "Action" are conspicuously missing from the acronym MOBA.
Given that the phrase "multi-player" traditionally didn't say anything about playing on the same side, I'd say that Starcraft fits the bill just as well as League.
The source is available without paying, you could have had asked.
"I don't know where these figures come from" isn't a question, it's the start of a bad faith argument.
As for your claim about the IEA, you're welcome to post some source to back that claim, other readers may be interested.
Sure, but people writing articles on the subject should know better than to mix units like this.
>> Even assuming the forecast 5x increase in "renewables*"
> I don't know where these figures come from /../
There is a link to a well respected statistics site right above the line you are quoting, so if you don't know where the figures are coming from, that says a lot.
I get the feeling there's a "snake eating its own tail" aspect here.
Assuming carbon sequestration can be done at scale, it will likely require energy, maybe even a lot of energy.
So where's this energy going to come from?
Well... global energy demand is increasing as-is and the winners are: coal, oil and "natural" gas (which is a fossil fuel): https://www.statista.com/statistics/222066/projected-global-...
Even assuming the forecast 5x increase in "renewables*" (I can't find the double asterisk footnote) until 2050, it seems unreasonable that a ~250EJ "blue team" (hydro, nuclear, other renewables) could plug a ~500EJ hole created by the "red team" (coal, oil, fossil gas).
We need a magnitude more clean power and all the wind, solar and wishful thinking in the world aren't going to cut it.
> Our network cards need PCIe 3.0, so that disqualifies 5 chipsets right away: only the A520, B550 and X570 chipsets remain.
No, the linked Wikipedia page only shows the PCIe lanes connected through the chipset and doesn't account for PCIe lanes provided directly from supported CPUs. X470 supports CPUs which have PCIe 3.0 and a board with x8/x8 mode like the ROG Strix X470-F https://www.asus.com/microsite/motherboard/AMD-X470/ should work just fine (and has no fan).
What government would that be? Hydro has been a mainstay for 70+ years.
70-80% Hydro [~90% Hydro+Geothermal].
~10% wind and almost no PV.
It's important to keep in mind that wind and solar aren't really a part of this success story.
>Otoh sitting in the sun for a few hours to charge some battery via rays from the sun is itself free.
Sounds wonderful, please show the math.
You have inadvertently highlighted how thin the line is between (some) business and fraud.
Imho it would be nice if this type of article didn't always assume that everyone knows that The One True Voltage™ for battery cells is (just about) 3.7V (in this case 3.65V according to the picture).
Also, here's a B.Sc. paper from my alma mater (English abstract in the paper)
http://www.diva-portal.se/smash/get/diva2:1236618/FULLTEXT01...
that puts the current all inclusive production cost of nuclear power in Sweden (incl. funding for permanent spent fuel storage) at $0.03/kWh. That's an actual cost for stuff that actually exists today.
>"0.01997 $/h * 24 * 0.266 * 365 * 20 = 930$"
That's a calculation based on 1kW of installed capacity, which is about 3 of those 345W panels so the earning per panel over its lifetime (in sunny southern California btw) is about $310.
Also the $ sign goes in front of the number.
Please link. I've read about some far future contracts relying heavily on public subsidies but even those were at a higher price.
At that price, earnings would (depending largely on geography) be something like 160-400 USD / 1.8m² panel over a 20 year period. This needs to cover panel cost, inverters and electrical infrastructure, installation&decommission, land rent, loss due to some prematurely dead panels, administration etc.
I would presume it's a matter of very few new nuclear reactors being built. Some smaller sites will be decommissioned regardless though.
Just no. Reactor buildings take up a small fraction of the total site area. Constructing additional reactors on existing sites has been done for about as long as nuclear power has existed and multiple reactors coexist simultaneously at the same site.
>"Replacing panels is just a cost question"
Sure, I bet you won't need more than 2 guys and a pickup truck to install, maintain and replace the 120 million panels it would take to create the equivalent to a site with 4 modern reactors. After all, that's only 35 000 panels to install every day if you want to build the site in 10 years.
Everything is magical with solar.
>"2c/kWh"
That's a hypothetical figure for 2050.
Also one batch of PV panels equivalent to a reactor cost 6x as much and with a lifetime of 20 years to the 60 for a nuclear reactor so you will need to replace these at least twice. All 32.5 Million of them.
>"So 1.5 GW of solar = 1.0 GW of nuclear."
That's not how it works. PV capacity factor is 11-12% to the 90-95% of nuclear meaning you need to install about an order of magnitude more PV effect not 1.5x.
You're saying that a couple of 50 year old reactors when including a safety zone and adjusting for lifetime capacity outputs about twice the maximum power of commercial solar panels before adjusting for capacity factor.
When you adjust PV for capacity factor the difference ends up at over an order of magnitude.
Legal wishes to remind you that that statement always needs this accompanying statement.
The word "better" does not imply a commitment towards customers and/or investors.
*The word "do" should not be seen as referring to the taking of any specific course of action which may or may not yield tangible change.
*The word "can" does not signify a concrete ability and is not forward-looking.
*The word "We" should not be interpreted as Canonical Ltd. nor any of its subsidiaries or affiliated entities.
I believe The Settlers pioneered this mechanic in 1993. In the Settlers II at least, supply block wasn't a matter of constructing additional pylons but rather "someone has to carry feed to the pig farmer so that someone else can carry pigs to the butcher so that..."