Storage and wind auctions are not linked, but there is 100GWh in the planning pipeline. Not all of that will get built, but it is a 10x increase.

The UK arrests imprisons people for incitement to riot, not mean tweets.

I believe that a good thermal store can increase the efficiency of this sort of plant 30-40 percent, so in that sense quite a lot is in the thermal store.

Yes, of course there is a heat exchanger. It's all very well known and widely available technology. Their claimed efficiency is 70% over 12 hours, so that is enough to make solar function all day, at half the unit price of lithium.

Of course, these figures might not pan out, they might not be able to scale up, or battery prices might drop fast enough that their lower cost might disappear. Or their dome might be too weather sensitive or, or, or. For now, though, they appear to have an early stage product that has a reasonable chance of success.

They have a big tank of water. That keeps the gas below 30C for compression and warm during expansion. They have been doing this for three years. How that works in summer in Sardegna, I don't know. I guess a bit of insulation and some evaporative cooling.

They buy the CO2 commercially. Very little should be lost. CO2 isn't hard to source in industrial quantities.

It isn't hard to find their given efficiency claims, as you can also find compressed air stats, but of which are in commercial prototype phase. CO2 is better than air but you need to keep the CO2 around.

That is what the big dome is for. It is inflated with gaseous CO2, which is reused during charging. The CO2 is closed cycle

The problem is, when you discharge you get a lot of cold. So your turbine efficiency drops unless you can get heat from somewhere. Thermal stores keep cold from discharge and heat from charge to offset against the next cycle.

It doesn't. Most code doesn't use nor need unsafe. Most uses of unsafe are well encapsulated.

Ha! A few years back when I was choosing a language for my library, it was a toss up between GO and Rust. I went for Rust for a variety of reasons, but if I tell the truth not wanting to mix tabs and spaces was high on the list. When you don't behave tine to try them all, software engineering is just as much matter of chance as it is reflection.
Have a good holiday also.

I've written Rust for quite a while now. I expect the compiler to help stop me from writing some bad code. It doesn't always run correctly after compiling, but there are a whole class of errors that it doesn't make.

It sometimes stops me from writing what I think is perfectly good code. I could understand if all the objections you hear were about that.

Well, it seems to me that you are disagreeing with the notion of memory safe languages at all.

I can see that, but I feel that "memory safe" is still a useful classification of programming languages; we have been distinguishing between those that *routinely* require memory management, such as C, and those that do not through GC like lisps, java and so forth or lifetime management as in Rust, even if they exceptionally have a mechanism around that, either through extension over an FFI or as in Rust, through "unsafe".

Yeah, I read a few more of Lunduke's stories. He seems far from objective and reasonable. They are rather highly politicised and often mean-spirited. The whole thing feels like a translation of a shock-jock show to the technology and the web. In the current day, I can see how that it likely to succeed, but it is not somewhere I will go again.

This sort of site is bound to attract some extreme views; if I were him, I think, I would welcome that whether it happens by chance or design. I wouldn't draw any conclusions about the rust community from this.

Can you give me an example of a programming language that you think is memory safe?