p1mrx @ p1mrx @sh.itjust.works

See also https://lemmy.world/u/p1mrx

---

Read more

Posts

19

Comments

279

Joined

2 yr. ago

I think the ultimate destination should be carbon neutrality while maintaining a strong industrial base and high standard of living for everyone in the world. Humanity needs to engineer an energy surplus to undo the damage we've done, and when one of the richest countries is planning for "demand response", that doesn't really inspire much confidence.

Cthulhu has awoken and demands release.

Because building lots of solar and wind farms is not sufficient. You also need stuff like batteries, hydrogen, and long-distance transmission to make the grid reliable without fossil fuels.

Though it seems like Europe overall is planning for enough diversity that the nuclear countries can sell to neighbors in times of shortage. Hopefully some US states will make similar plans.

It’s like you’re taking your ship from China to Rotterdam, you’re past the Suez canal, in the Mediterranean and now you decide to turn around and go around Africa after all. It really would be idiotic.

That decision wouldn't be idiotic if I actually wanted to go to Africa. It takes even longer to turn around from Rotterdam.

Typical android efficiency. He painted Tasha identically because the two paintings won't be in the same room.

Your second paragraph could be summed up as: we chose the destination years ago, so there's no point changing course.

Will wind and solar will be sufficient to replace all the gas with heat pumps, and keep them running every day in the winter? I would also be hesitant to give up gas heat, without understanding where the replacement electricity will be coming from. "Demand response" means that the rich stay warm, while industry migrates to countries with better price stability... or continued CO₂ emission to avoid those outcomes.

Perhaps in the end it doesn't really matter, since the transmission infrastructure for EU-wide renewables will also be useful for buying nuclear from the countries that are investing now.

You have to look back a few decades to see the whole picture. If we'd kept investing in nuclear technology since the 1980s, with a focus on passive safety and cost reduction, we'd never have needed all that gas in the first place.

By "we", I mean the entire western world, not Germany specifically. The fossil fuel companies allegedly encouraged anti-nuclear sentiment during that era, and nobody had the organization and foresight to fight back, so we're all paying the price today.

Yeah, nuclear is quite expensive, just like batteries, hydrogen, and long-distance transmission are expensive. The effects of climate change will be incredibly expensive. The best way to make technology cheaper is to build a lot of it, and just building something is step one.

It's more interesting to ask where the fuel could come from, given a few years of planning. The energy density is so much higher than gas, that geographical locality doesn't really matter.

I'm not from Sweden, but they currently have 6.8 GW of nuclear.

From the article: "Climate Minister Romina Pourmokhtari said [...] that the government believed that new nuclear power equalling 10 conventional reactors would need to go into service in the 2030s and 2040s."

Assuming that a conventional reactor is around 1 GW, adding 10 would more than double their current capacity.

https://www.thelocal.se/20230809/swedish-government-unveils-plan-to-scrap-cap-on-new-nuclear-plants

Electricity could be used for heating (via heat pumps) if Germany had an abundance of clean electricity in the winter.

I'm still using Win10 / Debian, but supposedly setting the language to English (Global) provides a cleaner install of Win11:

https://www.neowin.net/guides/use-this-simple-trick-to-install-windows-11-without-any-third-party-bloat/

Yeah, 5e²ⁱth world problems.

I'm imagining a future where both Trump and Biden get declared rebels by the other party, and neither can pass the 2/3rd vote. The government devolves into chaos where nobody can run for president anymore... eventually we just have to pick Tom Hanks because everyone thinks he's alright.

But seriously, I don't think I have the right experience to give specific advice.

Just build the printer, and try not to break anything. Work slowly, and if you mess up, try to understand what went wrong, take it apart and do it again. Watch some YouTube videos if you want to see other people doing it.

When it comes time to print, start with small objects and work through any problems, before wasting filament on big objects.

Sir, this is 3DPrinting, not 4DPrinting. The technology to print hypercubes won't be available until the Great Contact of 2297.

raw text: https://pastebin.com/raw/AAybnADh

So your interpretation of the 14th amendment is that "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" is the exclusive responsibility of the judicial system to determine? Maybe that's a valid interpretation, but it's not actually written in the text.

On what basis should he not be allowed?

Well, this is what the US constitution says:

Amendment XIV, Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The question is whether those words apply to his actions, and who exactly has the responsibility to interpret them.