I agree carbon capture and sequestration is important but I haven't seen anything that looks good at scale yet.
And there won't be unless we motivate research into it.
When there is a decent solution it would be ideal at times of surplus generation when power is otherwise unable to be used
Indeed! This is an ideal use for overprovisioned capacity.
At the small scale I have an issue where in summer my solar surplus is more that my rural grid connection can handle so when my hot water is heated and the house and car are charged I end up with the solar inverters derating
Wow. I generate way more than I use in the summer, but my (also rural) grid connection can absolutely take it just fine. I have 200A service with a 150A breaker (so, about 37 kW), but my generation peaks at about 20 kW. My bigger problem is that if I try to charge my house batteries (20 kW) and my car (12kW) and run my AC (4 kW) and the steam generator (9 kW) and run basic house loads (2 kW) and run my welder (10 kW) that's 57 kW or about 235A. In practice I don't ever do all of those things at the same time (and rarely charge batteries from the grid), so I've never actually tripped the main breaker, but I could do it easily if I tried. I imagine it will happen someday. I could swap the breaker, but the wiring from the main panel isn't big enough to have the proper safety margin at 200A. Running new wiring would be... a big project, likely involving tearing up and replacing a big chunk of my driveway. So, 150A will have to do.
I have not found a good use for such surplus power yet, but carbon capture would be ideal.
Me neither. I ran the math on doing some BTC mining (I think BTC is a scourge on the planet, but I'm happy to take money) but it didn't pencil out. Free power is great for mining, but the cost of the rigs is high enough that you really need to keep them humming 24x7, and I don't have enough battery capacity for that.
I agree carbon capture and sequestration is important but I haven't seen anything that looks good at scale yet.
And there won't be unless we motivate research into it.
When there is a decent solution it would be ideal at times of surplus generation when power is otherwise unable to be used
Indeed! This is an ideal use for overprovisioned capacity.
At the small scale I have an issue where in summer my solar surplus is more that my rural grid connection can handle so when my hot water is heated and the house and car are charged I end up with the solar inverters derating
Wow. I generate way more than I use in the summer, but my (also rural) grid connection can absolutely take it just fine. I have 200A service with a 150A breaker (so, about 37 kW), but my generation peaks at about 20 kW. My bigger problem is that if I try to charge my house batteries (20 kW) and my car (12kW) and run my AC (4 kW) and the steam generator (9 kW) and run basic house loads (2 kW) and run my welder (10 kW) that's 57 kW or about 235A. In practice I don't ever do all of those things at the same time (and rarely charge batteries from the grid), so I've never actually tripped the main breaker, but I could do it easily if I tried. I imagine it will happen someday.
I could swap the breaker, but the wiring from the main panel isn't big enough to have the proper safety margin at 200A. Running new wiring would be... a big project, likely involving tearing up and replacing a big chunk of my driveway. So, 150A will have to do.
I have not found a good use for such surplus power yet, but carbon capture would be ideal.
Me neither. I ran the math on doing some BTC mining (I think BTC is a scourge on the planet, but I'm happy to take money) but it didn't pencil out. Free power is great for mining, but the cost of the rigs is high enough that you really need to keep them humming 24x7, and I don't have enough battery capacity for that.
Who made the call to fire these guys?
Were they Americans who did the firing? Were they Americans who got fired?
It's important to understand the sociology potentially putting huge American enterprises risk
And why would we believe the claim that a 1-year reliability rating had anything to do with this?
Anybody who vaguely understands automotive manufacturing knows that cars that were sold over one year ago were designed several years ago and tooling takes months to years for a new model.
This article seems designed to obfuscate rather than clarify.
This makes me feel like buying a BYD would be less risky.
Capitalist economies give us roughly 99.999% of memory today. What alternative source do you suggest to meet demand?
Am I taking crazy pills here? They were suing Apple. The entire lawsuit was against Apple, not Google.
They sued both over the same issue.
Apple won, Google lost, in spite of the fact that Google had the more open ecosystem and the better case.
Just because we can't magically address all causes of CO2 and pollution in general doesn't we should blindly ignore the issue.
Indeed. We should also, however, recognize that emissions reductions can never get us to net-negative CO2 and that is where we need to get. We should be investing heavily in research into carbon capture and sequestration, because it is the ultimate long-term solution to greenhouse gas emissions, the thing that will allow us to actually reverse global warming.
In the meantime, as you say, we should start by looking at the CO2 emissions sources that allow us to most quickly and cheaply reduce our emissions. The easiest area is electricity production... made even easier by the fact that wind and solar are the cheapest technologies we have for producing electricity, in many cases even when the cost of battery storage is included. And of course as we convert electricity production to non-emitting sources, we should electrify as much as we can the other areas where we burn fossil fuels.
But we also need to be investing in carbon recapture, because some things are going to be hard to convert and, as I pointed out, only recapture can get us to net-negative. We should also be researching geoengineering techniques, such as methods of reducing insolation. Geoengineering isn't a solution (e.g. reducing insolation does nothing to fix ocean acidification), but it may be a necessary short-term measure, and we should be prepared, having already done what we can to understand it in case we need it, and before we need it.
Carbon reduction is good, but it's insufficient and I worry that we're not putting enough into other approaches. A large part of the reason is that people are afraid that attention on anything other than carbon reduction will harm the emissions reduction efforts. That's not a ridiculous concern, but it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scale and scope of the problem.
People have passengers sometimes, and driving from the middle of a three-person bench seat is much more dangerous than from the side.
You use your coal to make steel, which needs the carbon from the coal for the alloy. Not all use of coal can be replaced by other electricity or heat production, even if getting blast furnace temperatures out of a nuclear reactor weren't considered bad.
the longest, most complex complex calculation ever done successfully is apparently factoring 29 with a specialized algorithm for 29.
Shor's algorithm has been used to factor 21, not 29. 29 is prime, and people don't usually talk about factoring primes because the factors are trivial. But otherwise, yes.
The only way it could work fairly is by having an independent unbiased group making the determination on what was clearly misinformation.
That would be ideal, but I don't think it's really necessary. Just keeping the list a subject of public debate is sufficient to prevent things from getting too skewed.
That basically all of the people in the Western governments turned out to be raping minors and eating children
There is zero evidence of this, and the fact that you seem to believe it makes me dismiss everything else you might say out of hand, because you clearly either lack or don't engage critical thinking skills.
That's the thing though. The biggest source of misinformation in ol' Blighty is Nr.10.
I don't think that would matter in practice. This law wouldn't let them specify what *news* is allowed, only what news sources, and there would be a huge stink if they tried to block the major real news outlets. They'd like to, I'm sure, but I really doubt that they'd succeed.
It does demonstrate the problem with "misinformation" though. Some people will continue to insist it was true even years after it was proven false.
Russiagate was absolutely not "proven false". Mueller's report and both the House and Senate reports (from committees led by Republicans) thoroughly verified it.
That's OK but the only reason many people buy American cars and trucks is to support American jobs.
When it's all robots might as well get a Tundra rather than a 1500. Or maybe BYD will come in with something soon.
We'll see how that goes.
I was playing poker the other night... with Tarot cards. I got a full house and 4 people died. -- Steven Wright
