ZeroGravitas

I assume the "The greatest part of knowledge is knowing where to find something" part means it's an open book test?

Are there rules?

Or they could try to keep Republicans in power despite the voters not wanting them, like those that got J6 pardons did.

Octopus and a German University did a report on costs.

UK heat pumps are half the cost of German installs 14k Vs 28k euros.

Theres multiple reasons given:

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/03/13/heat-pumps-in-germany...

Also, I believe Octopus have nearly halved the UK price since that report by optimising installs.

Can a human even put GPL on bot written code since it relies on copyright to protect it? Is that like museums adding copyright to scans of public domain paintings in their holdings? Which was fought about in courts for years.

Part of this current article/press release's focus is extracting organic waste from the waste stream for this reason. They convert it to biochar.

It would to interesting to compare the "virtuous" reasons offered in these comments for hating recycling with USA vs EU (or other high Vs low recycling areas, like countries or states).

Does the USA or Missisippi have the lower recycling rate because they are uniquely immune to the corporate oil lobby that scammed Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium?

Is it because they instead reduce their consumption and reuse their empty containers unlike the lazy Belgians who are too addicted to feeling virtuous? Has the EU plastic use risen more than in America, because of recycling?

I have a vague theory that China's massive home market of poorer people keeps the innovation going. There's always an upside for making something 1% cheaper and simpler as more people can buy it.

That gets mocked by rich people in rich countries in the short term but then leads to disruptive innovation from below, cheaper, simpler items growing and eating the market.

Another possible conclusion is that it's only possible to build them in societies where they can be secretly subsidized and the EU has passed out of this phase.

There's an awkward middle phase where they lie about how long and how much they will cost because the transparency will kill them before they start if real figures are used. But you only get a few chances to pull that trick.

This is just a slighty more sophisticated version of the "solar doesn't work at night" trope.

The implications of bringing it up is that these silly hippies haven't even thought of this basic fact so how can we trust them with our energy system.

Meanwhile, actual energy experts have been aware of the concept of winter for at least a few years now.

If you want to critique their plans for dealing with it, you'd need to do more than point out the existence of winter as a gotcha.

Original source of that observation was Auke Hoekstra nearly a decade ago:

https://x.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1730992987021226002

Because most plans for it still involve attaching a giant steam boiler to turn the heat it produces into electricity and that bit alone will cost more than renewable alternatives.

Yes, when he said the Jews were intentionally importing substandard humans into western nations to undermine the US, I didn't need hand gestures to think he's a Nazi either.

The children yearn to be datamined.

EU is introducing particulate regulation roughly now-ish (proposed 2022):

https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/automotiv...

> Euro 7 will also regulate emissions from tyres and brakes for the first time worldwide.

That quote says Chinese buyers are buying more EVs. Which seems odd in an article claiming the global tide has turned against EVs.

It's like some weird 3rd-hand sour grapes. Yes they bought the EV but they don't care about it being an EV! Which matters, for reasons...

This is going in circles now.

The 3 electricity sources mentioned in that quote combined together added less new generation in China than solar alone last year. Wind beat them all individually too.

This year will be the same but even more so.

They've been talking about rolling back "DEIA" since they got in power. The A is "accessibility" so they're not hiding this.

So the solar deployment starts off unexceptional and gets more and more exceptional with every passing year?

At some point you have to accept this is not some anomaly and there is a pattern in the data that you are trying to to ignore.

Now that people widely accept that LCOE of wind and solar are less than fossil alternatives, the same people who claimed without evidence that this wasn't true have moved on to baselessly claiming that grid integration costs mean they are still right.

AEMO in Australia has had to put out similar work to this to show that renewables grids continue to save money as they approach 100% clean power.

edit: I googled to find coverage of the recently released report and found this headline:

> AEMO's net zero grid estimates blow out by billions, with coal to endure until 2049 in draft Integrated System Plan

That coal is to remain only because an LNP (right-wing climate denier) state government has legislated that it will remain. The experts say that decision will drive costs up and reliability down, but the headline is trying to attach that to the net zero target they are undermining.

It would be hilariously ridiculous if it wasn't costing people their health, their energy security and billions in extra costs.

Accurate summary of latest draft:

https://reneweconomy.com.au/isp-warns-of-missed-targets-and-...

It wasn't a "single year where solar was exceptionally high" because they generated more in 2025 by mid August than they did in the full year of 2024.

https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/?ent...

The coal line was slightly under the previous year’s and is now overlapping i.e. no growth compared with last year (data up to October)

Is the Atlantic intentionally undermining progressive values or are they just clueless?

They put so much effort into it I assumed it was intentional but I googled some of their funders recently and they seem to generally mean well.

In the last year of that graph 2023-2024, the increase in solar was greater than any other source, including coal, it's 15x greater than nuclear.

And unless people are shoveling coal directly into the data centres this electricity generating gas turbine is intended to be used for the electricity generation mix is more appropriate to conapre:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by...

Slightly worrying that there's two comments replying to an article about deliberate overcharging of consumers with responses about how profitable that is for them.

To support his notion that nuclear is cheap he cites Emblemsvag, here's a response from Fraunhofer calling the paper stupid.

https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/en/blog/2024/kritische-stellun...

> We can illustrate the fundamental nature of this error using a simple example: Let’s assume that a student buys a car and pays it off in monthly installments of € 300. The parents help to fund the student’s car purchase with € 200 per month. If we follow Emblemsvåg’s logic, the car costs € 500 per month.

The same author seems to have realised his error, but not as far as I'm aware admitted it, as he has a newer paper that argues that nuclear would have been cheaper if they used the waste heat from it for a radical desalination plan. Presumably he couldn't get the real numbers to support his pro-nuclear position without adding this strange element to tip the scales.

It's ironic and yet very on brand for someone who mentions IQ in his piece to be relying on some outlier crank for his scientific opinions.

The lower levels of the courts are putting up a decent fight against Trump's disregard for the law.

I'm not totally confident the system as a totality will hold though.

The other founder is in the news for calling for public hangings to be brought back.

Skipping over the several very obviously wrong things she said, one perhaps non-obvious thing she got wrong was that the EU has installed more solar per capita than China.

China is the one following the European lead here. Not the other way round.

Triple the population but not triple the deployment, at least not quite yet.

The bit where the Chinese live are very similar to Europe in terms of insolation potential for PV.

They do have some big desert areas too but they're 150th in terms of countries with good solar potential.

Africa, Middle East, India, all of the Americas except Canada, Australia are all ahead on that measure of potential.

They just passed the point where there are more EVs than diesel cars on the road, and passed gasoline cars a couple of months ago.

Roughly a thousand EVs added each day and roughly a thousand ICE removed from the road.

The price of electricity in the UK is going up right now to start paying for the next nuclear plant 10 years (fingers crossed) in advance of it generating any electicity.

They literally invented the idea of applying Contracts for Difference from finance to help build nuclear in the UK.

Those have massively helped renewables get built in the UK and elsewhere by letting governments cheaply subsidize financial risk in energy investments while allowing competitive developers to bid the price lower.

But it wasn't enough for nuclear, where the builders didn't want to be on the hook for the inevitable doubling (or worse) of final cost, so they wrote special rules for new nuclear to be paid in advance and not held to cost estimates.

What I got from the story was that the government is going to start donating $1000 to each child born from July 4th 2026 and the Dells are going to donate $250 dollars to 25 million children under 10 in poorer areas.

These will go into index linked investments and be withdrawable when the child reaches 18.