ViewTrick1002

5 ms·

1.
by ViewTrick1002 7d ago
Because nautical miles is an angle measurement which then happens to be 1852 meters when you break it down.
2.
by ViewTrick1002 11d ago
Nuclear power had already collapsed due to its own costs and timelines. In hindsight it’s much easier to blame the accidents rather than face the structural problems nuclear power has. Which has only been exacerbated by renewables and stora
3.
by ViewTrick1002 11d ago
The problem is that we attempted to build nuclear power. It just didn’t deliver. There was massive state support behind it. It is hard looking at Vogtle, Virgil C. Summer, Olkiluoto 3, Flamanville 3, Hinkley Point C, Hanhikivi and the count
4.
by ViewTrick1002 15d ago
This tells me you are not serious. The easiest nuclear reactors to restart, as per that same nuclear lobby group, were those in the north. Northern Germany is already overproducing electricity, leading to curtailment of renewables. What pro
5.
by ViewTrick1002 16d ago
The flip side is that what you are saying is that nuclear power will be commercially viable into the 2100s. And betting the house on that. While knowing that the electricity they provide is expensive enough to lead to energy poverty for gen
6.
by ViewTrick1002 17d ago
Now you’re desperately trying to rationalize new built nuclear power. GenCost has an amazing FAQ section you evidently either ignored, or did not peruse. For example here they discuss economic life vs operational life, when you live in real
7.
by ViewTrick1002 17d ago
We have vastly moved the scientific frontier of modeling our energy systems since 2019. All those analyses find that renewable grids are far cheaper than if involving new built nuclear power. Here are two modern papers on the subject: http
8.
by ViewTrick1002 17d ago
How do you mean that the EU is a shit show?
9.
by ViewTrick1002 18d ago
Limited port capacity? Erosion? Limit disturbance of wild life? Either way it is a public resource. On one side access to a countries fishing grounds to make money from it. On the other side access to a countries tax money to make money fr
10.
by ViewTrick1002 18d ago
Of course they are rivalrous. Contracts change, boats get laid up and people are forced to change employers. You can imagine on popular routes where you get to keep the proceeds that you instead pay for the right to operate it. What’s the d
11.
by ViewTrick1002 18d ago
And anyone would be allowed to bid on the fishing quotas? What’s the difference between a ferry and a fishing boat?
12.
by ViewTrick1002 18d ago
No idea. But it is quite similar to how public transport works for archipelago ferries in Scandinavia. 15 year contracts when large investments are required. Otherwise 5-10 years. And you get a ”quota” for a guaranteed traffic to run for th
13.
by ViewTrick1002 18d ago
Which means in the next bidding round the fishermen would bid somewhere between the double they were charged, and could still apparently have a working businesses with, and what the middleman bid. All it means is that they were expecting to
14.
by ViewTrick1002 18d ago
But that would trend to cutting out the middle man due to the inefficiencies they create. Middlemen will only work if either these middlemen make the utilization more efficient or you make the requirements to bid so onerous that only these
15.
by ViewTrick1002 18d ago
Even if time limited? So you bid for 5, 10 years or whatever becomes a good balance between stability to invest in the business and an agile market.
16.
by ViewTrick1002 18d ago
Shared usage of a limited resource is a hard problem to solve. Given the current system maybe the most honest one would be if the state ”owns” all the quota and then let fishermen bid for fishing rights. But I have a feeling that will quick
17.
by ViewTrick1002 18d ago
In most European countries we don’t vote for prime minister/presidents. The representatives from the parties are free to choose whoever they want, but generally it becomes a leader of the largest party in the governing party/coali
18.
by ViewTrick1002 19d ago
Thats crying over spilled milk. We’ve spent the past 70 years trying to build out nuclear power. It didn’t deliver cheap energy. Today, renewables and storage are the cheapest energy sources in human history. They are filling the gap nucle
19.
by ViewTrick1002 19d ago
This argument assumes we must build nuclear power. The problem is that electricity is fundamentally priced on the margin. Now that we are moving beyond a purely centralized design. Think about a homeowner or factory with their own renewable
20.
by ViewTrick1002 19d ago
Yes. That’s called ancillary markets. One such are ”capacity markets”. Nuclear power’s problem is that neither its spread between CAPEX and OPEX, nor its operational profile fits them. We also have electricity futures. Again with the proble
21.
by ViewTrick1002 19d ago
Not sure why you are being condescending. Perfect reliability is not worth the squeeze. In Sweden, which is a very electrified country with harsh winters, the figure is that it is acceptable to have 1.52 hours per year of not matching deman
22.
by ViewTrick1002 19d ago
Please, don’t cite the LFSCOE paper again. Citing it shows you have a beef against renewables. That paper uses one renewable source, like only solar, and 2018-19 cost data for storage. A real grid is made up of a mix of sources, which is wh
23.
by ViewTrick1002 19d ago
Not sure what relevancy a 2019 paper has today? It also seems like they are constraining the system to have no overproduction. It’s like assuming that a fossil based system has all its producers generating the expected capacity factor and t
24.
by ViewTrick1002 19d ago
Why should your data center buy multiples more expensive nuclear powered electricity when renewables or stored renewables are available? They won’t. And even if they sign a PPA the renewable arbitrage they could do exerts large downward pre
25.
by ViewTrick1002 19d ago
The problem is that you can’t assume ”always on” anymore. Why should consumers choose expensive nuclear powered electricity when cheap renewables, or stored renewables are available? They don’t and now capacity factors crater. Leading to wh
26.
by ViewTrick1002 19d ago
It just stupidly expensive if it is completed on time and budget. To make the figure at least palatable for public funding the project assumes enormous learning effects for subsequent reactors.
27.
by ViewTrick1002 19d ago
The problem is that the economics of a ”firming”/”peaking” nuclear reactor is absolutely stupid due to essentially being only fixed costs. It is already stupidly expensive when running at 100% 24/7. Now try running it only when re
28.
by ViewTrick1002 28d ago
Based on the plans I’ve had Claude write since February, “load-bearing” first started appearing in early May.
29.
by ViewTrick1002 1mo ago
Which quickly becomes politically untenable when a large part of the voters either have their own distributed renewables and storage or benefit from lower electricity prices.
30.
by ViewTrick1002 1mo ago
The world isn’t building nuclear power. It’s simply too slow to build and expensive to be relevant.

More ›