natmaka

Did you use imapsync?

https://imapsync.lamiral.info/

I'm reminded of Manitou-Mail, a daily-driver powerful PostgreSQL-based dedicated mail client, quite robust and powerful.

https://www.manitou-mail.org/

> I've been hearing optimistic predictions around hydrogen

Fair point, same here (I was born in 1967), however fossil fuels are so effective and adequate as energy sources, as long as we ignored/neglected their dubious effect on the climate, that there was no real attempt to explore other ways.

> Storage and transport are incredibly expensive and technically difficult

For the "gridpower backup" application there is no transport needed, and storage doesn't have to be compact nor mobile (those are a major challenge for hydrogen in transportation).

> dreadful energy density

This is not a show-stopper for the "gridpower backup" application. For huge volumes or very long-term (not sure this will be necessary) it may be stored in salt caverns ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage#Underground_h... )

> potent green house gas effects > dangerous

Granted, however we are used to store huge volumes of dangerous materials, some gaseous at ambiant pressure/temp (methane...), even into salt caverns, albeit when we began to do so (in the 1950's) it was quite a challenge.

> Roundtrip efficiency (electricity to H to electricity) is abysmal

Various new ways to obtain H2 from electricity offer impressive yield in realistic conditions (check SOECs), and other advances are promising ( https://liten.cea.fr/cea-tech/liten/english/Pages/Strategic-... ).

> green methane makes a lot more sense

As does ammonia, in some contexts. There is no one-size-fits-all here!

Facts: Superphénix was a prototype. It didn't reach its goal (reaching the industrial stage). Not a single model of breeder reactor reached it. Mentioning its high availability rate neglects planned shutdowns (planning enough of them improves it). Its load factor in 1996 (just before its shutdown), more relevant, was 0.31, thus well below the minimum viable for an industrial reactor. Some people consider the project to be a success, but no expert or its operator has ever said so (they proclaimed their confidence in their ability to achieve industrial operation by an unspecified date), and its successor, named "ASTRID", launched 12 years later, which was supposed to design and build a reactor for €5 billion, spent more than €700 million on studies alone before being put on hold, so "it worked, but everything has to be redesigned...".

The connection is that "it will also have natural gas capacity" seems false to me as backup turbo-alternators can 'burn' hydrogen ( => no natural gas capacity).

> hydrogen > contributes less than a rounding error to global electricity generation

True, however it doesn't imply that it will remain irrelevant.

> unviable financially

For the time being, and less and less. Bloomberg NEF predicts that green hydrogen will cost approximately 1.2€/kg in 2050. Carbon taxes or oil prices may also play a role as nearly all hydrogen is now produced thanks to some fossil fuel.

> nuclear > is a genuinely low-carbon source of electricity

Green hydrogen could also be.

> prone to leakage

This is a major challenge for transportation-related usages, especially in small or not-intensively used vehicles. This isn't in the "gridpower backup" role, as mass and volume of storage isn't a major parameter.

Hydrogen is already used in many industrial processes (~1e8 metric tons/year), including turbo-alternators, while there is not a single ready-to-be-built model of industrial breeder reactor.

> Whether your grid has nuclear or renewables, it will also have natural gas capacity.

No, turbo-alternators 'burning' hydrogen do exist. And green hydrogen (produced by renewables) is cheaper than pink hydrogen (produced by a nuclear reactor) because the total cost of renewables' electricity is lower than nuclear's.

> proven technology with excellent safety record

The real long-term effect of past nuclear accidents is a subject of debate, and the potential worst case a concern for all.

> the only power generation that has a completely closed fuel life cycle

Not at industrial-scale.

> and believe in a technology we don’t have.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...

Is TMI up and running?

On the other side: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/micros...

When it comes to building nuclear plants China is, by far, the pack leader.

However its results are dwarfed by the results of its renewables projects: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...

Indeed, however it was deemed way more convincing by more and more people after each nuclear accident.

Nuclear ELECTRICITY, not 'energy'!

In France about 60% of final energy is produced thanks to fossil fuel.

Moreover the cost of this 'nuclearization' was huge (France debt is abyssal, and taxes are very high)

Details: https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl...

Because, for now, those non-nuclear-capable states weren't interested in becoming nuclear-capable. On a standard PWR (the most common type of civilian industrial reactor) cooking military-grade plutonium is easy: charge it, let it start ('diverge') and then run, all as usual, then shut it down early.

The IEEFA isn't enthusiastic: https://ieefa.org/resources/small-modular-reactors-still-too...

Recyclable blades are gaining traction: RecyclableBlade, ZEBRA, PECAN...

There even are efforts to recycle existing ones: https://www.offshorewind.biz/2023/02/08/newly-discovered-che...

In most advanced nations landfilling them is prohibited, and many are now burnt in cement kilns.

There is an official report detailing why the project in France (the Flamanville-3 EPR) failed, published at (French ahead!) https://www.economie.gouv.fr/rapport-epr-flamanville , and regulations aren't a major cause (translating the summary offers a good overview).

The Ohio nuclear bribery scandal is another case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_nuclear_bribery_scandal

Yes, even in South Korea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korean_nuclear_scandal

Nobody knows for sure, but the sole nuclear accident cleanup operations may cost $470 to $660 billion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident_cle...

> Automated VACUUM ANALYZE operations scheduled via pgcron targeting write-heavy tables

Why don't you set (per table) the autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor parameter (or autovacuum_analyze_threshold) then let AUTOVACUUM handle this?

Heraclitus summarized it 25 centuries ago: “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.”

Did you ensure that this cat didn't try elsewhere, first?

Hypothesis: you have (or had) at least a cat at home, while your neighbors didn't, and a cat showing up on your front porch may think "better here because at least a cat can live here, even if it triggers a territorial conflict".

Is the load factor of those Japanese machines similar to those used in the US? Isn't life expectancy multifactorial?

Simplification leads to automation, which is one of the main factor of efficiency. Means goal and end goal...

Efficiency is always at odds with robustness, and it may be the ultimate challenge.

Some Japanese firms may also have adopted ole' USDA approach as I remember reading during the 80's that some Japanese big motorbike brand team in charge of the design of a new model was composed of teams of engineers, each dedicated to a given aspect (even transversal ones, there even was a team dedicated to 'temperature').

> still a far cry from fossils related deaths

The question is not "which amount of fossil fuel, which amount of nuclear?" but about renewables and nuclear.

>> Because those who refuse to be exposed to induced risks can prevent most of it

> ??? In cities the bulk of deaths are cyclists/pedestrians

Being ultra-alert, or avoiding crossing any street or even avoiding any area where motorized vehicles zoom around is possible. Avoiding most of the effects of a major nuclear accident or of some wandering "hot" nuclear waste (during the upcoming 100000 years or so...) is way, way more difficult.

> Coal power plants are literally generating more radioactive ematerial

This is not about preferring coal to nuclear but about preferring renewables to nuclear.

> The entire french nuclear waste

(I'm French. ) Our "solution", named "Cigéo" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cig%C3%A9o ), isn't even ready (more than 60 years after the first industrial reactor diverged) and is officially imperfect (there are risks, French ahead: section «Déchets» in https://sites.google.com/view/avenirdunucleraire/#h.e4d4cdh3... ).

Better avoiding producing such stuff, IMHO. Renewables...

BTW check the trend: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...

> the worst nuclear reactor catastrophe killed ~30 people directly and ~5000 indirectly.

This is highly debatable.

A glimpse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...

> Why do we accept car deaths

Because those who refuse to be exposed to induced risks can prevent most of it, while those who refuse to be exposed to nuclear's induced risks (for them and their children, and their children, and their children... thanks to nuclear waste) are out of practical and realistic options.

David Osmond work is interesting. He wrote last week: "Each week I run a simulation of Australia’s main electricity grid using rescaled generation data to show that it can get very close to 100% renewable electricity with 24GW/120GWh of storage (5 hrs at av demand) Results: Last week: 98.6% RE Last 187 weeks: 98.7% RE (1/5)"

Ében-Émael on Sea!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_%C3%89ben-%C3%8...

As clean as the Rocky Flats Plant!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination_from...

Thanks to Lunar: https://www.debian.org/News/2024/20241119

Yes, this is abusive, however (back to our subject) AFAIK there is free media in Germany (TV, radio, newspapers...), and they enjoy a fair audience. Therefore in Germany public opinion isn't really managed by the government.

A. Merkel was pro-nuclear (she holds a PhD in quantum chemistry). During the 2000's she tried hard to slow down the phase-out process, and extended reactors' life in September 2010.