schroedingershat @ schroedingershat @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

375

Joined

2 yr. ago

If this magical reliable, cheap, abundant, fast to deploy molten salt handling technology existed, the people with it would be dominating the storage industry with carnot batteries on every abandoned (and active) coal plant as well as the solar industry with 2c/kWh CSP.

There's only one contender, buddy. This "if only you'd stop fighting and just direct 10x the resources at a non-solution" schtick is even stupider than the rest of the lies.

The nuclear industry is owned by the same people as big carbon. The only people parroting this garbage are the same people that have been pushing coal and climate denial.

This is true, I was criticising the weird tone of the article for implying it was some great burden to only have one or two large dedicated living spaces and 100sqft bedrooms rather than three and 200. It would be a whole lot less unnatainable if 2 bedroom/1 shower, 800sqft units in a multiplex or 5-over-one were the default rather than half the size of what this article is trying to present as some bizarre abberation.

Fossil fuel and monopoly utility owners desperately trying to direct resources away from the thing killing their profits to something they know is ineffective with astroturfing campaign. Fox news watchers parroting what they're told.

News at 11

If a fascist hands you a gun and tells you to murder a bunch of people so that he can get wealthier and more powerful, you shoot him and ask those people for asylum. Anything else makes you a fascist too.

If you don't live in the building and it's for permanent accomodation, you don't own any part of it. Very simple. Feel free to rent out part of the building though if you do.

Whatever mental gymnastics you did to get from there to homelessness being illegal don't apply.

What the fuck? It's called a starter home. How is the existence of sane-sized singe-family or mutli-family homes supposed to be a bad thing?

If only there were some method of generating electricity at the household scale that worked without the grid being active for the price of a 10 year old hatchback. Would be great to have some redundancy as this happens more and more. Oh well.

Also untrue if you think it through. Anything other than pressing charges independently of her public statements is creating an environment where your boss might sexually assault you on live TV and get away with it so long as he has the power to end your career.

You are assuming the things she has to say to keep her job are her opinion.

If you want round trip efficiency higher than 30% you need prohibitive quantities of platinum and iridium (with some promising research to maybe replace the iridium with cobalt, making fuel cells about as sustainable as NMC batteries).

Storing it is also generally prohibitive. Small high pressure vessels have a hard expiry date shorter thna the expected life of a battery, take up more space and cost as much as LFP batteries. By the time you add a fuel cell stack and buffer battery there's not really any weight saving either.

Geologic storage is an option, but use cases are limited. Large scale stationary tank storage is also a possibility for industrial chemical use.

Hydrogen hype is largely a greenwashing and delay tactic by the oil and gas industry.

PV energy in low cloud areas is <2c/kWh and dropping 7-10% p.a (a recent UAE ppa was 1.6c).

Crude oil is presently ~4c/kWh and frequently 6c. Distillates are often over $1/L before taxes or 10c/kWh.

20% one-way energy efficiency competes with oil. If the catalyst stack is significantly cheaper than water electrolysers it can use curtailed renewables and compete with oil at <10%.

Won't replace batteries or electrification, but a solid choice for emergency storage or high capital, low-use assets (like a forklift that gets used twice a week or a bbq).

50% efficiency would displace fossil gas with sufficiently cheap catalyst stack.

You'd have thought it was obvious, but everyone I've ever met IRL thought they'd be cheaper forever.

So that's a yes then.

The correct analogy would be if the climate deniers working for Chevron were held up as field experts, and that the institution of climate science stood behind them, then anyone who pointed it out was just told we need to organise agriculture on more +4.5 degree compatible terms.

If air pollution policy was set based on assuming all humans are spherical cows in a vacuum, you might have a coherent point, but when the dominant controlling power in your field is based on the assertion that we should just remove the air to make reality more like the models then your field is a laughing stock.

If I posit for a moment that you actually come from a sub-field interested in describing reality rather than altering reality to suit the wealthy, then you should rename what you do or get rid of the ones giving you a bad name. Clean up your shit or call what you do if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise you get to be lumped in with the feckless ghouls your field holds up as experts.

If your argument is "we'd be describing the economy if the economy would be what we described" you're just demanding reality change to fit the story.

Oh. You were serious with the "it doesn't matter if it conflicts with reality if I thought a bit because it's 'rational' and directly contradicting reality is the same as an approximation" schtick?

I don't know if that sad or even funnier.

Lol.

Okay. You Poe'd me. Nice parody. Well done.

If that were the case, a compiled program is not copyrightable.