standeven

The age of solar + storage is here. It’s the least expensive option to add power to the grid today, and prices are still dropping while efficiencies are increasing.

And flywheels! That’s what my startup is working on.

Most of California’s electrical costs are due to transmission and distribution, and I believe a lot of those costs stem from reducing power-related wildfire risks.

Last time I checked, 11 states received the majority of their electricity from renewable sources, and 10/11 had cheaper rates than the national average, with California being the exception.

I’ve personally seen turkey vultures circle carcasses on several occasions.

Non-American here: What is the incentive for anyone in the US to pay off medical debt then? Also, I’ve read that medical debt is the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the US; how does that work?

Pumped hydro is great, but the potential energy from gravity is actually really low. Stacking blocks will probably never work, and pumped hydro only works due to scale and existing geography. It’s also not modular and can’t be co-located with generation or loads unless the geography works out.

“… our electrolyzer capex costs <$100/kW”

Forget the DAC and natural gas, how are they generating green H2 for so cheap?

Yes, the valleys and rain don’t help either. The interior gets a lot of sun though, especially the Okanagan.

Anytime I find myself coding something easy, but repetitive and boring, I hand it off to ChatGPT.

“I’m going to give you a list of 50 variables and I want you to format them into functions like this:”

It’s faster and easier than writing a script to do it.

I think that used to be the case, but more and more often I'm seeing distributed wind and solar/storage reported as the cheapest way to add power generation.

Maybe it's similar to BC, Canada. They're mostly hydro powered, so they already have clean energy that's fairly cheap. As a result, the economics for solar never made much sense.

However, with crazy-cheap panels and low hydro reservoirs due to climate change, solar now makes sense and it's appearing on more and more roof tops.

Ha, also in Canada and also played a lot of Slime Volleyball in school. I remember the graphics were pulled from a folder of jpegs or gifs, so I substituted all the images with pictures of my friends and other goofy things. Good times.

Do hand-dug berms planted with native and non-invasive plants count as technology?

And is increasing desertification one of earth's natural processes or is it an effect of technology, specifically technology we've used to pull massive amounts of carbon out of the ground and add it to the atmosphere?

Not trying to be hostile, just questioning some of your assumptions.

They weren’t policing, just warning of foreign interference. I also don’t want a government agency policing information, but I do expect them to take action against foreign interference.

I never called anyone who disagrees with me a bot/agent, but the comments below the CSIS ads were clearly full of them.

So...you won't trust CSIS until they try to overthrow the government?

Personally, seeing them operate equally well under multiple generations of opposing political parties in one of the most free countries on earth for 40 years, PLUS having no track record of misinformation, is more than enough reason to trust them.

Can you cite a single example of CSIS creating misinformation?

Their agenda is “A safe, secure and prosperous Canada, through trusted intelligence and advice”.

If they were caught lying, it would erode trust and disrupt their agenda. So yes, I believe their incentives and agenda align to inform Canadians accurately.

What would it take to prove that CSIS is trustworthy?

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) has an active campaign to battle disinformation, especially from foreign sources. They even used Soviet propaganda-style ads on Twitter to convey their message. (1)

Of course, the Twitter comments below the ads are full of people/bots/agents claiming that CSIS is in the pocket of Trudeau, legacy media, the WEF, etc.

1- https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6955717

You have clearly misread my comment. Care to try again? And once again, I urge you to post any reputable link to a group of relevant scientists supporting your view.

It's hardly going against the grain; ~40% of Americans don't believe in human-caused global warming, I just didn't expect much overlap with hackers who are usually so logical.

For example, 30% of Americans believe in astrology, but I would expect very few hackers on here do.

When I see others buying into propaganda, and then voting for policy that will hasten the end of human kind, I get concerned. We're not crying over spilled milk; we're actively trying to stop the milk from continuing to pour all over the floor.

Your passive attitude, which equates to plugging your ears, closing your eyes, and shutting off your mind, is the same attitude that allows genocides to be committed while you "prance through a meadow".

To be clear, I go outside and enjoy life daily. The difference is that I accept the mountains of evidence that say we must, individually and collectively, adjust our way of living to preserve this benefit for our children. And no, the weather isn't always nice; the last several summers have been choked with wildfire smoke.

Sure, move the goal posts. Can you provide a link to any professional organization or group of relevant scientists that states climate change will continue at a dangerous rate even if humans immediately stop adding carbon to the atmosphere?

So..you’re unable to provide a link?

The fact that you mention that contrary opinions regarding climate change are associated with a political group should be alarming to you.

A minority of scientists believe in a flat earth. Should we assume then that the world is flat? Or should we accept the incredibly strong consensus that the world is round?

Can you provide a single link to a professional organization or group of relevant scientists that states humans are not causing global warming, or states that we cannot affect change? If there is “broad disagreement” it should be easy.

The amount of climate change denial in these comments is both concerning and absurd.

Anthropogenic climate change is real. It sucks, and we’re experiencing the results of it today. If you do not believe this, please consider who the experts on this very complex topic would be (climatologists, meteorologists, etc), and listen to what 99% of them are saying.

A new trend in agrivoltaics uses rows of double sided vertically-mounted solar panels, receiving light from the East and West. The rows are spaced far enough apart that combines or tractors or whatever can fit between. They take up a minimal amount of land and receive the earlier and later light of the day, helping avoid the grid spike in the afternoon.

Is there seasonal storage in Denmark, so excess solar in summer can be used in the winter?

Volkswagen has a good explanation of why they settled on electric instead of H2: https://www.volkswagen-newsroom.com/en/stories/battery-or-fu...

Wow, you weren’t kidding. I just checked Autotrader and low-ish mileage 2017 Mirais start at $6k.

Business idea: buy Mirais, pull out and sell the H2 systems, and drop in battery packs to make them BEVs.