acosmichippo @ acosmichippo @lemmy.world

Posts

11

Comments

1,680

Joined

2 yr. ago

two places:

1. secure location in your home (physical copy in a safe or a digital copy on an encrypted disk)

2. in case of a disaster like a home fire where you lose the 2FA device and local backup: in a remote location such as an encrypted file in a cloud service or at a trusted friend/family's house.

obviously you do but it can be leaked, phished, or hacked in other ways. a second "factor" such as possession of a token device is a safeguard against that.

you can actually read about all this many places online, it's nothing new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-factor_authentication

...which you keep in a separate secure location in case you lose your 2FA device.

Don’t forget hydro, look at Norway, it’s pretty far away from the equator but has almost 100% renewables. Island as well. There are suboptimal locations, but in the end there is no country which can’t use renewables for all electricity needs.

everywhere that can use hydro already has. you can't just create new rivers to dam up, so that isn't an option to address our growing electricity needs.

All rooftops should be enough but parking lots and agrarsolar would be also solutions. So even if we only use solar (which we don’t ) it should be possible.

yes I was mistaken about that, point acknowledged.

Renewables create a base load, the problem are demand peaks following overcast days. And there npps don’t help.

this is not uncontested, plenty of people disagree.

Maybe, but not fast enough. We need the power immediately and battery are already in the steep part of their growth phase.

we have been saying this for decades and I guarantee you we will still be saying in in another decade. Also, renewables aren't fast to connect to the grid either. The more we spin up the bigger the backlog will be connecting new installations to the grid.

We can’t spend several decades learning how to do it right. Then we could also just wait for fusion.

luckily we have a whole planet of people with various interests and expertise. Like it or not, there are going to be people working on nuclear, you can't just wave a wand and make them all work on solar or wind. it would be extremely short sighted to outright eliminate one potential clean source of energy when we are so far behind on the issue.

Then we use power lines like we do already. Most power plants right now are also not in cities, so I don’t understand the argument. Would you also want to build the npps in/near cities?

longer power lines means more efficiency losses, and the more you plan to roll out renewables to 100% the more inefficiencies there will be. as previously stated, connecting large brand new renewable installations to the grid is expensive and also takes a long time.

Where do renewables not work?

the sun doesn't shine and wind doesn't blow consistently everywhere. especially in winter the farther you get from the equator.

Everyone can wire up a small solar farm after a few hours of YouTube, i wouldn’t trust myself with reactor maintenance.

of course, but even if we put solar on every rooftop in the world that won't solve our energy demands.

You don’t want to have to build enough nuclear for peak production

I never said you should. from the beginning I said we need nuclear for the baseline which will help reduce the need for grid storage. yes, some grid storage will be needed.

And storage is getting cheaper and better every year.

so would nuclear if we actually did it and improved regulatory inefficiencies.

We need less space for solar to power the world than we use for golf courses right now, so I’d say landuse is a non issue. Because you can use roofs and such even less.

land use isn't an issue in rural places, but it absolutely is in more densely populated places near cities and datacenter hubs. The world is not homogenous.

again in France specifically I agree pivoting to more renewables makes sense because they already have an abundance of nuclear. But if we look at the earth as a whole, renewables don't work everywhere, they take up a lot of space, and will require a TON of storage to provide reliable power during peak and off-peak usage. If you actually factor in all that grid storage and distributed infrastructure needed for renewables the overall cost difference to nuclear is not nearly as bad as the usual LCOE calculations make it seem since 100% of nuclear's cost is baked in up front.

too expensive compared to what?

SMRs specifically are a new developing technology. I suppose it's possible they are all hype, but with many big tech firms investing in them to power datacenters, I tend to think there's a good chance they'll work out in the end. China's first SMR will be up and running soon, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

valve is a publisher too, and they have the exact same policy for their games.

https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement

yeah I think I played about 10 hours. the initial stage around hogwarts proper was interesting and fun, but once the quests went out into the open world it got a lot more tedious.

well yes at 70% of its energy supply, France probably has too much nuclear now that renewables are cheaper. They are a massive outlier in that regard. This is not about making nuclear the one single energy source everywhere, but to provide a baseline load for stability and to reduce grid infrastructure upgrades like storage and new connections to distributed solar and wind farms. The article also says they hope to export their nuclear expertise to countries who are interested in nuclear, so they clearly do believe in the technology.

the major difference with GOW is that you can pause combat at will to strategize and time abilities/combos with your squad.

this will be my last reply only to reply specifically to LCOE since you put so much effort into finally typing some kind of semblance of an actual argument. Yes, nuclear is expensive (partly because we haven't been DOING it), we have already covered that. I assume the unstated premise you are operating on is that we can supply our entire energy needs with cheap renewable, but that is NOT the case, especially as we use more computing and electrified transportation in the future.

Renewable energy sources are all geographically limited. Solar and wind takes up a lot of space and are are highly variable, so they require lots of grid storage as stated already (did you factor grid storage into your cost analysis?). I'm not even arguing against them, by all means we should be using them as much as possible. But we need to be realistic about their limitations and true LCOE.

Also the cost of nuclear can be greatly reduced by directly replacing coal plants with them where all the grid connections already exist. You can't do that with solar or wind.

So your entire premise that nuclear isn't viable because renewables are cheaper is a non-sequitur. The choice isn't between renewables or nuclear, the choice is between renewables and coal. In that context, nuclear is absolutely economically viable because we know coal is not.

I have read plenty and know what I'm talking about, but I'm not here to participate in lopsided conversations. I know a sea lion when I see one, and I look forward to your arrogant 5-word disrespectful reply.

edit since a citation was requested:

https://www.mackinac.org/blog/2022/nuclear-wasted-why-the-cost-of-nuclear-energy-is-misunderstood

Mark Nelson, environmentalist and managing director of Radiant Energy Fund, explains that LCOE was developed as a tool to describe “the cost of energy for power plants of a given nature.” But this tool fails when it attempts to compare the different energy sources needed to provide reliable, 24/7 electricity supply.

...

The problem of cost is therefore one that is both exaggerated by critics and exacerbated by overzealous regulation. In other words, not only is the problem not as bad as it is often portrayed, but there’s far more significant room for improvement.

lol this is such lazy bullshit. god forbid you actually have to type more than one sentence to explain your position.

yes, nuclear has a high startup cost, this is known. that does not automatically mean it’s not economically viable.

rebuttal: yes it is.

great conversation! feel free to add any context, reasoning, or citations to support your opinion.

I put as much effort into my rebuttal as you did in your initial comment. If you want an actual conversation, by all means begin any time you like.

that's just nonsense.

it's a bit rich. "opponents of carbon-free electricity" are suddenly opposed to burning things huh?

anyway, there is actually a way to reduce our need for batteries AND fossil fuels. Nuclear.

I wouldn't say it's bad, but it's not great either.