hnaccount_rng

Fair enough, unfortunately doesn’t help me. But thanks for the answer anyways

But that’s “same port, different route” rerouting right? Here you would have to have “different port” rerouting (or some really weird weather making the Pacific intransitable”

Do you have some sources to their actual pricing? Some while ago I tried and came up blank. I assume your statements to be correct, because otherwise what would be the point of discussion, but I haven't been able to find any hard(ish) data

I'm really not sure about that. There is a recent "renovation" of a pumped storage site in Germany for more than 300EUR per kWh of storage capacity. Unfortunately I cannot find the original "Bürgerinformationen"-slides again. And it is a local, probably heavily politics-influenced provider, so maybe a lot of that is political landscaping. But I haven't been able to find a lot of anything with respect to storage prices beyond batteries. And I was really surprised that this renovation is the same order of magnitude than a battery installation.

You are still correct in the sense that storage is still incredibly expensive per hour of demand stored, but batteries may very well already be the cheapest option out there

I think this is a charitable interpretation of the remark which deprives GP from learning something (sorry if this comes across as condescending, I'm genuinely trying to point out a imo relevant difference)

No it's not at all accuracy vs precision. That statement is about a property of the measurement tool, where one can have systematic offsets [0] (think about a manual clock, where the manufacturer clued the finger on with a slight shift) vs they can simply be inaccurate (think about a clock that only has a minute finger, but not one for seconds).

The thing pointed out by the original comment is about a change in the _measured_ system. Which is something fundamentally different. No improvement in the measurement tool [1] can help here as its reality that changes. Even writing down the measurement time is only going to help so much since typically you aren't interested in precisely the time of measurement and will do an implicit assumption of staticness of the real world.

[0] The real reason for those is that it is _much_ simpler to build a precise relative measurement tool (i.e. it's easier to say "bigger than that other thing" than "this large"). One example is CO2 concentration measurements, they are often relative to outdoor CO2, which is - unfortunately - not stable

[1] Assuming that the tool is only allowed to work on one point in time. If you include e.g. a weather modelling supercomputer in your definition of tools, that would again work.

I think this "debate" is largely irrelevant: China has decided that locomotion will be (battery) electric. That is the largest scale you can get, so any effects of scale for an alternative will at best be as large as the battery electric one.

And then there are the variety of other disadvantages that come with hydrogen: - significant leakage and high greenhouse factor - heavy support equipment need (both for storage and for usage)

About the only advantage of hydrogen (vs. lithium-ion batteries) is gravimetric energy density (where it's about a factor of 300). But even volumetric energy density differs only be a factor of 5-10. (Both numbers ignore that the storage thing will add significant weight). And those are _already_ not limiting for locomotion needs.

- how sure are we that we are solving a co2 climate crisis with the actions we are taking?

The thing here is yes: Even if we would generate the energy for the locomotion completely with fossil fuel! Large plants are significantly more efficient (10-35% vs up to 60%) and it would be _much_ simpler to, e.g. think about carbon capture if we had tens of thousand CO2 emitters rather than a billion. But we are not doing that!

Oh please don't misunderstand me: We will end up using solar (or wind, which is really just solar with an extra detour), mostly because we have about 4 orders of magnitude more energy available there than we need. I just wanted to put the (admittedly impressive sounding) number of 3,100 GWh annual battery production capacity in perspective.

And to further qualify that: The capacity is increasing rapidly (but we will need it)

They are already ramping down new construction and they are starting to replace older (less efficient) plants. It's quite likely that one of these last 3 years will have been peak coal in China. The bad news is: That's a lot of coal that being burned. The good news is: They are less reliant on "recouping costs", which means _those_ plants will be shut down as soon as that's feasible

To put that number into perspective: That's about three days of Germany's electricity usage. And we can easily absorb 2-3 days in the electric grid alone.

I agree with Hegseth not being qualified and everything, so +1 for the snark, but.. how was this "serving the needs of the administration"?

I'm not sure if this is a meaningful distinction: Fundamentally you can describe the world as a "next token predictor". Just treat the world als a simulator with a time step of some quantum of time.

That _probably_ won't capture everything, but for all practical purposes it's non-distinguishable from reality (yes, yes, time is not some constant everywhere)

But we don’t have tariff regimes. That what a common market means. It doesn’t mean that you can sell the same product to everyone. It just means that you can move that product everywhere. And even the regulatory regime is overwhelmingly European (that’s why you get manuals in 20 languages)

But that only works if you compare the US with other single countries. The EEA is similar to the US, China will be larger than the US, India will be larger than the US. Any of those combine and you loose by a factor of 2, etc

We use about 1 part in 10000 of the sun's energy deposit on earth... No, we are _really_ far away from preservation of energy being a limiting problem

> they know what's going to happen, and they expect the coming storm because they seek what follows.

I agree that that's their understanding. I'd argue that in reality they don't, they can't. International relations are a very complex system. And there is no precedent of an empire wilfully dismantling its periphery.

I really don't enjoy the whole "may you live in interesting times" thingy

Are those part of the EU? The whole membership of EU (or more precisely European institutions) is a mess and I really only know EEA, Schengen and Eurozone by heart. But there definitely are territories which are part of e.g. France, but not part of the EU

I would bet the main forcing being insurance companies. There are only a handful of those and while they are powerful, they are also subject to (western) courts. And if (essentially) the US says: If you insure a ship using the wrong fuel you will cease existing, those ships won't be insured. And ships are too expensive to run without insurance (at least most of them). But.. pure speculation

Ports could be the other player, but how would you coordinate the ~all ports?

I don't have anything more than Newton's third law for you and that its effects also hold in general relativity. The "far away parts of the universe are disconnected" is from my astrophysics courses back in university and the number of lectures to the cosmic microwave background, mostly coming from people discussing the Planck mission.

But.. no, I don't have a convenient citation for you. And at least for the "angular momentum is conserved thing", I'd be surprised if you'd find a google scholar paper, this is early GR

No it can't. Turbulence does not introduce net-angular momentum. It just (re)distributes it. And the scale on which that "mixing" can happen is limited (essentially the speed of sound is smaller than the expansion of the universe in the early universe). So on large enough scale, it (~any vector value) must be add up to ~zero (up to the initialisation uncertainties). Or one of our fundamental assumptions is wrong. And that's why this is so interesting

> but one reason is that it was more challenging

I feel like that's the most relevant thing here. Bored people do ~stupid pranks. And under-challenge leads to boredom

I think you are misunderstanding the point being made: The _only_ random chance that is part of current models is "quantum uncertainty at big bang time" and we can give upper bounds for the variations that can be explained from that. So what's really being said here is "We found a significantly larger discrepancy between Milkyway-corotating galaxies and Milkyway-counterrotating galaxies than can be explained by ~initialisation randomness"

I think you are arguing a moot point. It's not really about what happened, the law is mainly about the intent. He did not immediately leave because he did not believe this to be a genuine group. So he has no intend to do harm at this point. But once he becomes convinced this is real he now _intentionally_ receives classified information he's not authorised to have. So now it is _necessarily_ also a legal problem for him.

So in your case: Getting added to a random signal chat where you are not exposed to anything? You should be fine. At least it will be very hard to show any intent to violate anything. Though that isn't necessarily true either. E.g. one could imagine Signal usernames belonging to operatives being in that group. And starting to post or investigate those could still get you in legitimate trouble.

And yes, ignorance of the law does not necessarily save one either. But a central point in all prosecutions is some portion of criminal intent

I think GP was talking about saunas and not ambient temperature. So 100C not 100F. Still the argument remains the same: Low humidity (and reasonably short durations)

Fahrenheit is very intuitive if you are in Danzig in one particular year... [0] otherwise.. It's a historic accident. If you want to root your measurement system in human experience your measurement system will be outdated in a couple of decades. Because humanity changes! That way there will always be old/antiquated/historic units. Metric basically accepts that and uses easy to convert units and leaves the intuition forming to the humans gathering the experience

[0] Apparently the story is disputed.. But the way I was taught it was: 100F == typical healthy human and 0 F == lowest temperature in Danzig in the winter 1708/1709. This makes it (by construction) a more natural fit to human experience (especially one in northern Europe) https://web.archive.org/web/20131015045624/http://www.deutsc...

Yes, an official agency communication would have to go through deliberations and consensus finding from ~all parts of NOAA, most blog posts will only have the input of those experts. While that will mostly not lead to significant deviations since all of the discussed areas are subject to scientific rigour there is always the human nature of all actors.

Back in university we would publish news entries for all our publications without any input from the university. But for some papers there was also an official press release by the university. That came both with additional restrictions (length, language level, flashiness) but also with additional reach (getting picked up by newspapers directly). I assume that pre-Trump this would have been a similar setup. No guess as to now though

Oh wow. I read about that project some time last year. But I didn't do the calculations back then. If I did my math correctly then this H2-in-iron comes out to 2EUR/kWh_el. I wonder what the catch is

Thanks. I mean it’s from 2018 and that is ancient history as far as storage costs are concerned. But yeah those $/kWh numbers for PHS are orders of magnitude higher. Thanks for the link, I’ll try to find the final study tomorrow

I'd be curious if either of you would have a link to actual projects (projected or realised) with their respective costs?

> the annual cost to run a heat pump sits well between a natural gas furnace and resistive heating.

Why is that? Maybe I'm missing something fundamentally, but this should be a strict function of COP, $/kWh (elect.) and $/kWh (gas) right? The insolation thing is kind of red herring, because that saves kWh-needed and that goes into both, right?

And yes COP will probably be bad/worst on some days of the year. But on most days even Chicago should get a pretty decent COP from a low-temperature heat pump. Is natural gas just so cheap in Chicago?

Keep also in mind that batteries do two things: They can move loads in time, but they can also reduce transmission capacity requirements by increasing utilisation. As long as there is some time where the transmission line is not fully loaded (which today is true for _any_ transmission line even the limiting ones), then a battery on both ends allows you to use the capacity longer by charging the battery before the bottleneck with excess and once the input falls below discharging the battery to keep the line utilisation high.

The downside of this is that you now have a system that comes with all kinds of nasty additional complexities and failure cases from control theory.