This isn't a problem at all. Another BS propaganda by the fossil fuel zombified dinosaur lobby.

Correct.

Electricity has always been overproduced at times, well before renewables came along. That happened because coal plants can't change output fast enough to follow the rapid drop after peak usage. The solution for decades now has been Alumina plants that chew the excess production. Nuclear is worse at flowing load changes that coal. That has lead to the country with the largest proportion of it's electricity coming from nuclear also creating the worlds largest amount of ... storage. Pumped storage to be precise. It's not exactly a new problem.

Right now, Australia is building hydrogen generation infrastructure to soak up the anticipated over production from renewables. It's a similar idea to Alumina plants, but on steroids.

So yes. The story is a beat up from the fossil fuel industry. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Thanks. Excellent info.

For those following along, data on the Xuantie C910:

• Performance: 6 DMIPS/MHz (O2), 7 Coremark/MHz (O3)
  Frequency: 2 – 2.5 GHz
  Area: 1.137 (MP2)/0.398 (core)
  Power: 200 uW/MHz

For context ARM Cortex-A57: 4.1–4.8 DMIPS/MHz, Cortex-A77: 13-16 DMIPS/MHz.

Android needs a superscalar OOO core to run it. RISC-V isn't there yet, and won't be for a while. This is going to remain ARM's stronghold for a long time. Instead RISC-V is disrupting from the bottom, like micro computers did to mainframes to 40 years ago. Here's a 32 CPU RISC-V CPU that sells for around $0.10. That sighing sound you hear is microcontroller designers saying "bugger, the ARM licence costs us more than that". Well, not really, but it doesn't leave a lot of room for ARM's royalties.

No. Those cells can't divide into any cell.

Assuming they are skin cells, they can.

This means that deployment of that turd has not been great so far

Maybe, but this campaign has been working wonders. People are upgrading from Windows 10. The Linux desktop percentage has gone from languishing at barely measurable for decades to growing at 1% per year since the Windows 11 push started. That doesn't include Steam, or ChromeOS. It's an outcome that took the full might of Microsoft Marketing muscle to achieve - we freetards had no hope on our own. Thanks Microsoft!

Now if only Google can do the same thing with Chrome and Firefox. Credit where credit is due - they certainly look to be trying.

Your links are news articles about a report from a person that is openly opposed to nuclear power.

True, two of them did. But one of the others was from CSIRO, the Australian Government science arm, and another from a think tank. Neither have been known to push anti-nuclear barrows before.

In the mean time in the real world (ie verifiable real world data) efforts to roll out new nuclear haven't gone well. For example people like to point to China, who had a plan to roll out 30 new nuclear reactors by 2030. According to Wikipedia, nuclear was 4.9% of electricity production in 2019. Now 4 years later it hit 5%. In the time it took nuclear to grow by 0.1%, renewables contribution grow by about 3% - 30 times more, to about 30% of the total. And while everybody likes to mention France's existing nuclear plants, they somehow skip over their attempt to build the first new plant in decades, Flamanville 3. It's over a decade behind schedule, from memory.

And then there is the shambles the USA industry finds itself in, cumulating in the folding of NuScale. The costs of their mistakes in nuclear probably outstrip their contributions to the Ukraine war. And lets not mention the cost of decommissioning the UK plants shall we, which were so large they had to be born by the tax payer.

But feel free to put your own money into nuclear. Who knows, maybe most of the investment bankers in the world are wrong and you will get wildly rich from your investment. It's not like I'm giving advice I would not follow myself. I have put money into solar and batteries, and it does generate positive cash flow for me.

You guessed wrong. In fact your so badly wrong ... anyway here are a few links to prove it

Nuclear remains the most expensive form of newly installed electricity generation, and renewable energy from the sun and wind the cheapest, according to GenCost's draft annual report.

Nuclear power is now the most expensive form of generation, except for gas peaking plants.

Nuclear energy too slow, too expensive to save climate: report.

https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/were-wasting-too-much-energy-on-nuclear-talk/.

I'm not claiming will agree with any of thee analysis. But you are deluding yourself if you think the majority opinion is that nuclear power doesn't cost most than the alternatives. The "I bet you can't find any such opinions" is right up the Blank Knight trying to convince the world it's only a scratch. You've convinced no one but yourself.

ltman said he wished the world would embrace nuclear fission as an energy source as well.

If it made economic sense, OpenAI would build a nuclear plant. And since the price of energy is apparently a problem, it would make sense to do just that, no? After all Google and Meta have done that with renewables.

OpenAI hasn't done it because it new nuclear is the most expensive source of energy on the planet. He must know that, but still he wishes for it?? What is he asking for - a government hand out in the form of tax payer subsidised nuclear?

Things like: ...

I come from Australia. As an example, here ISP's are required to tell you minimum download speeds you will get, and are not allowed to lie about download limits. Price Waterhouse Coopers is going to have a difficult time operating in Australia due to unethical behaviour.

Most of the OECD make a reasonable stab at creating "well regulated markets", and that includes the stock market, so they don't need a list telling them what one looks like.

That said, Dollar Ton was spot on when he complained I didn't know what "Free Market" actually meant. I guess that's because just about every market we have over here is in fact an "competitive market". The USA's love of "Free Market's" is a bit of an outlier.

Point conceded.

"Laissez-faire" certainly, but the word "market" in "Free Market" implies a few things. Things like both sides being fully informed about what is being bought and sold, and competition on both sides (no monopolies). The entrenched players hate those things, because it means the market is fair for all.

So Google and Apple vigorously defend their app store monopolies, Google and Microsoft make their ads near indistinguishable from search results (aka lying), and who knows what you will actually receive if you purchase from a vendor on Amazon with lots of 5 star reviews. One software vendor's shrink wrap guarantee was "we guarantee the floppy disk this software comes on is brown". His answer to the cries of "wtf?" was it gives you the same rights are every other vendors guarantee, and it's just clear about it. The standard industry practice is to this day to dupe to their customers with lengthy legalise.

In this case, being fully informed means being about to trust the auditors report. Efficient markets don't work without it.

In that case they're fucked, because the plan was to build 30 nuclear plants a year. They are averaging 3, and this year one was connected but has not (and may not) achieve commercial production.

In reality of course as a sibling commented pointed out, they added more solar and wind production this year than their entire nuclear fleet combined. Nuclear is as dead in China as it is every where else.

So what's with this headline suuggesting otherwise? I suggest you read the link I gave above, What Drives This Madness On Small Modular Nuclear Reactors?. My guess is the headline is flak (as Noam Chomsky calls it) from the pro nuclear lobby.

Another possibility: the headline is click bait horse shit. Take a look at consumer reports car make reliability data: https://www.consumerreports.or... About 1/2 way down, you will see a graph saying hybrids have 26% less problems than gas power cars. How can hybrids be more reliable than both gas and electric given they have the complexity of both?

According to that same page, Toyota makes the most reliable cars out there, and hybrids are made by mostly Toyota. That explains why hybrids are more reliable - but it has nothing to do with being a hybrid. Gas and EV's are made by range of companies, some of them downright abysmal (who would by a Chrysler after seeing that?). Off the top of my head Toyota doesn't make EV's, but if they did my guess is their would be more reliable than other companies gas cars.

Tesla is the middle of the pack reliability wise. Telsa only makes EV's. Given they are in the middle of the pack Tesla's EV owners can't possibly be doing what the headline claims: "Owners Report 'Far More' Problems Than Conventional Car Owners".

The first Tesla's were horribly unreliable. Not surprising, given Tesla's was a complete newbie it designing and making cars at the time and they were for the most part hand built. Given Tesla was one of the few electric car manufacturers, the headline was probably accurate back then. But it's today's headline, and today it's the worst sort: misleading click bait.

Of course not. Everybody knows that you search for porn on Bing.

They are doing what Intel tried to do, which is to say mass produce 7nm chips at a profit. Intel failed miserably at it's attempt. It's fashionable to pour shit on Intel, but I suspect nobody on the planet knows more about DUV than them. Colour me skeptical at China pulling it off where Intel didn't