Comment Re:At 89 be glad of death's mercy. (Score 1) 64
What do you think is the right age for Carousel? As someone over 30, I think 30 is too young.
What do you think is the right age for Carousel? As someone over 30, I think 30 is too young.
It hasn't produced anything yet, but somehow it's already Too Big to Fail? Sanders and Trump can go fuck themselves.
I think that would be a fair exchange for the resulting LLMs also having no copyright protection.
I think the possible adverse impacts to society would not be outweighed by something that small.
And SMRs will never be economical.
SMRs that utilize 1950's designs and require intense operational oversight and maintenance could never be economical. SMRs that use better, safer designs that can safely operate with no active operational oversight and little or no maintenance, which can function without intervention and without refueling for 20-30 years, then be inexpensively disposed-of and replaced, and which can be manufactured in large quantities to bring the unit cost down, promise to be very economical.
Will the new designs actually achieve all of those goals? On paper it looks good. Whether that theory will translate into practice is something that can only be discovered by trying.
This sounds like a fabulous plan with no possible downsides, risks, or sharp edges.
The risks are a lot smaller than you think they are, because of new reactor design. Nearly all of the nuclear reactors in the world are still using a design that's 70 years old, that requires active cooling and doesn't fail safely. We have much better designs now, at least on paper, designs that simply can't melt down, whose failure mode is to simply stop. But no one builds these new designs on industrial scale because they're unproven, and there hasn't been much funding for doing all of the engineering and research needed to develop them into fully-functioning designs that can be.
I'm skeptical that small reactors are really the best way to actually deploy nuclear power on a large scale, because of security concerns, but starting small is the best way to validate and refine new designs. And modularity is clearly a good strategy for making deployments of varying sizes cost-effective. If you can develop a cost-effective module that can be manufactured in large numbers, you can build large plants by clustering them.
The new designs shouldn't actually need much operational oversight -- if something goes operationally wrong, they just stop functioning -- but they'll still have highly radioactive cores which, if extracted, could be pretty terrible weapons. Not to make nuclear bombs, but to greatly enhance the damage done by conventional explosives, by adding radiation hazards that linger for years. So, security will remain an important consideration, and the SMRs should only be deployed where security can be assured, which will in practice mean that most are deployed in large clusters.
This all assumes that the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the new designs proves out, of course. The only way to find out whether that will be the case is to try.
So the only way to do this is to make water. So which method will Google be using to make water? Will they use:
- Desalinization? Doubt it. - Distillation from air? Doubt it. - Combine hydrogen and oxygen gases? Yea, nope.
So how will they make 120% of the water they consume? The article talks about misnamed conservation efforts. That's not making water.
One common way is treating municipal wastewater. This doesn't "create" water, but it does make available a water supply that wasn't previously.
"recycled treated wastewater"? I can only imagine they would have the mother of all filtration systems so that a tiny chunk of "whatever" doesn't clog up a tiny water line. And, the chemicals they have to add to prevent corrosion and water scale and all that pollutes the water used enough that it might not be reclaimable without specialized filtration.
I think such systems are generally dual-loop. There's the loop that directly cools all of the equipment, which is full of pure (might even be distilled) water that circulates but is not consumed, then that water goes through a heat exchanger in a much larger supply of treated wastewater. So the wastewater doesn't get close to sensitive equipment and doesn't run through tiny pipes.
A bit idealistic, but nevertheless correct.
1. The immunity ruling, plus
2. Absolute authority over the executive branch, plus
3. The unlimited pardon power.
This is an interesting analysis, and I don't necessarily disagree with the points made. I would only point out that the Immunity ruling was in July, 2024 while Biden was President, and he absolutely utilized #2 and #3 and arguably #1. Suggesting that this is a Trump-only problem is disingenuous.
I don't think I ever suggested that this was a Trump-only problem... indeed I specifically highlighted at the end that conservatives should worry greatly about what an unlimited liberal president will do, and I pointed out at the beginning that presidents have been pushing the boundaries since Nixon, at least.
Regarding your claims about Biden... bringing him up is kind of a non-sequiteur. As the other commenter pointed out, Biden very much followed the traditional path with respect to treating the independent federal agencies as independent. Do you have any counterexamples? As for #3, Biden did abuse the pardon power and I wish he hadn't done it, but as far as I know there is zero evidence that he did it to protect people from prosecution for illegal acts that he ordered.
Finally, on #1: Yes, the ruling happened during the Biden administration, but the ruling was entirely about Trump. I'd go so far as to say that if Biden had been the subject of the case, the conservative justices would have ruled the other way.
While Trump didn't initiate the move towards a more powerful executive, if he achieves status as king-in-all-but-name, he'll be the one that did 90% of it.
Already, the battery are too depleted to be used for what they were intended; what happens when they can't even shore up the power grid by a significant amount. If they were perfectly usable--they'd still be in the cabs.
Not at all.
Car batteries have to have high storage to weight ratios. A reduced-capacity battery holds less power but still weighs just as much.
But weight doesn't matter for grid storage. If the batteries only have half as much capacity, just stack up twice as many of them. And in fact it's not a case of "half capacity". I'd bet Waymo retires them when they get to 80-90% of capacity, because reduced capacity means more time spent charging and less time spent working. If the grid storage system gets a battery with 80% of its original capacity, it can likely use that battery for decades before it has to be retired and recycled.
And, of course, lithium ion batteries are highly recyclable, so there's no reason not to expect them to be recycled when they're finally taken out of service in 2060 or so.
batteries in EV's driven by consumers last 15-20 years: https://www.evconnect.com/blog...
That's not really correct, though. The batteries aren't worn out or unusable after 15-20 years... they just have maybe 15-20% less capacity than when they were new. So a battery that provided 400 miles of range, now only provides maybe 320 miles. So it becomes a question of how much range reduction the owner is willing to tolerate.
I bought a Nissan Leaf in 2011. The early model Leafs were something of an outlier because they lacked a thermal management system for their batteries and they had a very small battery, both of which caused them to suffer much more severe degradation than basically all other EV models. My 2011 now has about 70% of its original range, and that original range was only about 80 miles with a good tailwind. So now it can only go about 50 miles on a full charge. In the winter, that drops to about 40 miles... less if you use the heater.
Is the Leaf's battery so degraded as to be useless? Depends on your use case. For many use cases the Leaf's battery was too short-ranged to be useful when it was brand new. For a typical commuter, though... it was fine when it was new, and now it's marginal to insufficient unless you can charge at work.
As it happens, my son -- a college student -- still drives it daily to and from school and work. In the summer it can get him to school and work and home, without charging (he charges it from a wall outlet at his apartment). In the winter, he has to charge either at school or at work. Both have chargers (proper L2 charger at school; wall outlet at work -- but it's enough).
I wouldn't put up with that at my stage in life, but there are plenty of people who would. Heck, in college I drove a car with an unreliable starter; I always parked on an incline so I could start it by rolling and popping the clutch. This is even more true of vehicles that start with a larger range, say 300 miles, and more reasonable degradation. Your 300 mile-range car may become a 250 mile-range car over the course of 20 years of use. More likely, if you're the sort who buys a new car, you'll keep it for a few years and then sell it or pass it to someone else when it has lost only a few miles of range, but there's no reason not to expect it will stay in service for 20, even 30 years... mostly likely until it's in an accident or has other issues unrelated to the battery that aren't worth fixing.
Interesting. Now, make an ICE version. I live rural and charging stations are very few and far between. The nearest is 20 miles away, but several gas stations are available within 3-5 miles.
I don't think an ICE version would be legal. You can't really hit the emissions targets without electronic engine controls.
As for charging, your house is the charging station. You might have to run an outlet and plug in an EV charger. If you've got a welder you've almost certainly already got a NEMA 14-50 or similar that will work. And if you don't have a welder, you should fix that ASAP! Everyone who lives in the sticks should have a welder and know how to use it.
Isn't it interesting that the same people who laugh at science fiction listen to weather forecasts and economists? -- Kelvin Throop III