This one?

If so it would supply just New South Wales for only 20 minutes. Hardly seems to be on the verge of solving grid scale storage.

Ok, given how this is a bot reposting everything posted to HN, how do you suppose complaining here is going to change anything?

They are known to be bankrolled by James “Fergie” Chalmbers, American millionair heir, “communist” who by his own words “chants death to America every day” and is a supporter of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and has been on Russia state sponsored visits to the regions annexed by Russia writing glowing praises of them.

It seems likely that at least Palestein action are useful idiots for the Russian state. Which isnt to say that banning them as a terrorsit group isnt massive overreach and completely undemocratic.

Curate your own feed, if you dont want reposts from HN then dont subscribe to a comm that does that.

If you are just talking transitor density I believe it still is, but even if not, my point was that it had exponential growth spanning over many decades.

That said, exponentials don’t exist in the real world, we’re just seeing the middle of a sigmoid curve, which will soon yield diminishing returns.

Yes, but the tricky thing is we have no idea when the seemingly exponential growth will flip over into the plateuing phase. We could be there already or it could be another 30 years.

For comparison Moores law is almost certainly a sigmoid too, but weve been seeing exponential growth for 50 years now.

From historical data, you can calculate the maximum lull where neither are providing enough.

The difficulty there is that there are a lot of places where you frequently get multiple weeks of both solar and wind at <10% capacity (google for dunkelflaute) that would need an implausible amount of storage to cover.

The OP article is already talking about 5x overbuilding solar with 17h of storage to get to 97% in the most favourable conditions possible. I dont see how you can get to an acceptably stable grif in most places without dispatchable power.

97% is great (though that is just for vegas) but it is still a long way from enough. Its a truism of availability that each 9 of uptime is more difficult to get to than the last, i.e. 99.9% is significantly more difficult/expensive than 99%

Then get it from the sources that already exist.

The problem here is that you cant simultaneously say “Solar is so much better than everything else we should just build it” and “we’ll just use other sources to cover the gaps”. Either you calculate the costs needed to get solar up to very high availability or you advocate for mixed generation.

None of which is to say that solar shouldnt be deployed at scale, it should. We should be aware of its limitations howver and not fall prey to hype.

97% sounds impressive, but thats equivalent to almost an hour of blackout every day. Developed societies demand +99.99% availability from their grids.

Cool, 13 years seems better than I’d expect for paying it off that far north. I’d be interested to hear how it does over winter.

I suppose the other variable is equipment failure and degredation rates, do the installers give you any guaruntees about those?

Yes, thats the exactly place to go hard left, full on no compromises. In the Democratic primaries.

Not in the presidential election when you know one of exactly two people will win and your choice is which one of them you favour over the other.

Just for reference, roughly where are you with this setup? What looks good for say Arizona is going to look very different for the Netherlands (for example)

One chat request to an LLM produces about as much CO2 as burning one droplet of gasoline (if it was from coal fired power, less if it comes from cleaner sources). It makes far less CO2 to talk to a chatbot for hours upon hours than a ten minute drive to see a therapist once a week.

Shit headline from the Guardian TBH, per the article body:

The judges said: “The issue is whether it is open to the court to rule that the UK must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration which is reasonably regarded by the responsible ministers as vital to the defence of the UK and to international peace and security, because of the prospect that some UK-manufactured components will or may ultimately be supplied to Israel, and may be used in the commission of a serious violation of IHL [international humanitarian law] in the conflict in Gaza.”

and

Dearbhla Minogue, a senior lawyer at Glan (the group bringing the challange), said: “The judges declined to review the defendant’s genocide assessment on grounds that it is not an area suited to the court. This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the government, but rather a restrained approach to the separation of powers.”

This is the court essentially saying its not our role to decide on geo-political affairs of the country, thats the governments job. In their own words:

The judges ruled that the “acutely sensitive and political issue” was “a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts”.

Compared to

It’s easy when you’re an obscure band to bellow “kill your local MP” or bray “up Hamas, up Hezbollah”.

Yeah, pretty much. Very few people would argue against stopping killing Gazan civilians (even if they are not willing to back the measures that would result in that, like applying real presure to Israel), that makes it a fairly apolictial thing to say. Advocating killing MPs or supporting Iranian proxies is certainly a lot more contencious.

Thanks for showing what a lovely person you are so clearly. Off to the blocklist you go.

I’d like that too! But that is completely separate to this bill. All this bill does is allow people who are in severe pain and about to die in less than half a year to get assistance in ending their lives if they dont have the capacity to do it themselves.

Thats it.

If your argument is that the world isnt already perfectly equitable and so we shouldnt make anything better until it is perfectly equitable then I completely disagree. I think that is a recipe for never improving peoples lives and just a way to get angry at the system without doing anything to improve it.

Huh? This my only account I dont even know who you are paranoidly accusing me of being a sock puppet for.

For the record I disagree with you (and that wasnt clear from your previous post), but thats a resonable concern to have.

comparing someone to hitler is not.

As to the substance of your concerns, do you think that doesnt happen now? There are plenty of deaths of dispair in the world currently. This bill does absolutely nothing either way for someone who becomes paralysed, loses their job and puts a gun to their own head. What it does do is allow people who are going to die immenently have the peace of mind that if it becomes unbearble to them they will be able to end their life even if they cant physically manage it any more.

I just dont see how providing assistance to die for those who require it has any bearing on people who end their lives due to financial hardship, would you want to go back to making suicide a crime?

I honestly cant tell what argument you are trying to make. Yes the world can be a shit place with people suffering and dying for the profit of others, but what does that have to do with legislation being put in place for people - in intolerble pain, with less than six months to live and have been judged by independent review and to be of sound mind and uncoerced - being assisted if they choose to wnd their life?

As to you being the “despised voice” not unless the other comment was from your sock puppet. They were comparing Starmer to Hitler by calling him Sturmer, despite him not having anything to do with this bill. I do in fact see lying about genocide as despicable.