brutusborn

12 ms·

1.
by brutusborn 1y ago
Interesting, especially the black-start ready inverters, but orthogonal to our comments on the stability of nuclear. If the addition of renewables leads to an unstable grid, it is irrelevant if the grid is then restarted with the help of re
2.
by brutusborn 1y ago
Looks like they're using French nuclear to help black start the grid [1]. Solar and wind systems could have caused the instability issues that led to the Spanish Nuclear requiring isolation. It will be interesting to see the final inve
3.
by brutusborn 2y ago
It’s not really a problem, you just adjust the size of your assumed storm. We have lots of climate models and data to adjust predicted sizes. Climate change effects are already being included when calculating wind and wave loading in many c
4.
Ask HN: What are good Python resources for kids?
1 points by brutusborn 2y ago|0 comments
5.
by brutusborn 2y ago
I was imagining them flying close-by, so any failure would have a higher chance of causing a cascade. I couldn’t find any info on how close they are, but I imagine it’s too far for this to be an issue.
6.
by brutusborn 2y ago
Does anyone else read “formation flying” and instantly think “Kessler syndrome”
7.
by brutusborn 2y ago
What do you mean? Coping as in pretending they aren't Technoserfs?
8.
by brutusborn 3y ago
Where I live the only kids who program are those who are lucky enough to have a teacher interested in robots. They are taught to program robots as a fun activity rather than a part of the curriculum. I understand your sentiment about the op
9.
by brutusborn 3y ago
I grew up in an isolated location with a big drinking culture. As a youngster I wasn’t aware that there were places to move to without this problem. You could choose to avoid the drinking culture, but that was basically social suicide in bo
10.
by brutusborn 3y ago
I’ve experienced the same in Australian suburbia. Awful drinking culture and pre-Uber taxi unreliability means a lot of people drink and drive. It is more common in low socio-economic areas but still existing in all classes. Hell, our state
11.
by brutusborn 3y ago
The only alternative I can think of is to use escrow, which probably isn’t attractive for illegal activities and still requires trust.
12.
by brutusborn 3y ago
I disagree, computers are just a tool. Learning basic programming in primary school helps build a foundation for more sophisticated knowledge in high school. It can also help contextualise mathematics. The problem is abuse of the tool, as y
13.
by brutusborn 3y ago
It’s early stage tech, they’re all promising in that _they are trying to develop tech to help_. How can I prove a developing tech will scale? How can you prove it won’t? It started at 0 and is now at millions of tonnes scale. If that isn’t
14.
by brutusborn 3y ago
I hate Gorgon too, they tarnished the name of CCS for commercial gain. Their system is throttled for economic reasons though, not technological. Even worse: the government funded it! If the Australian Government held their feet to the fire
15.
by brutusborn 3y ago
So your criteria for success is to ‘save the world.’ How about we aim for ‘reduce emissions’ or ‘develop solutions’? Or even better ‘stop opposing people who are trying to help’? All tech starts at small scales. Yours is an absurd rebuttal.
16.
by brutusborn 3y ago
What’s the maths and physics that make it impossible? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’m interested in the limits. I still think reflexively opposing a potential solution is stupid. Skepticism is healthy, automatic rejection is a waste. I
17.
by brutusborn 3y ago
This is true, but there are no biological simulations in the mainstream models, just various correction factors with their own uncertainty. I wish they had biological data because then we would have more domains in which to measure their ac
18.
by brutusborn 3y ago
Saying CCS isn’t currently successful is like saying utility grade solar wasn’t successful in the 70s. We’re on the start of an exponential curve and the tech will only get better. I don’t understand why people think this is “used” to sell
19.
by brutusborn 3y ago
If I must spoon feed you… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_carbon_capture_and_s...
20.
by brutusborn 3y ago
I’m not conflating them, I’m trying to elicit someone to _compare_ them so we can discuss reflexively rejecting certain solutions. If you don’t have some measure of cost / benefits / risks, how can you reject a potential solution
21.
by brutusborn 3y ago
Your intuition of scientists updating views is wrong, see Kuhns scientific revolutions for more examples. Scientists generally stick to preconceived notions long after there is data to refute them. E.g. heliocentrism, germ theory, cigarette
22.
by brutusborn 3y ago
You summarised my point nicely. What we call ‘truth’ is just the beliefs we think are most accurate. ‘Just follow the science’ is silly because it essentially means following beliefs on faith without questioning whether they are the best th
23.
by brutusborn 3y ago
I think if you’ve looked at numerical models then you have enough knowledge to at least judge the underlying assumptions: boundary conditions, numerical stability, discretisation methods, validation methods and results. In the same way that
24.
by brutusborn 3y ago
Again, If you don’t know how bad it will get, how can you balance the negatives of remediation? We already created misery via starvation due to biomass subsidies, what makes you think our future policies will be harmless? Of course my examp
25.
by brutusborn 3y ago
The same logic applies to shutting down oil and gas production: if we are not certain, then why risk the downsides? I’m not saying this is a good way to think, just that it shows the fault in your logic.
26.
by brutusborn 3y ago
My evidence is the lack of a basis for 2C and lack of a cogent plan to limit warming to 2C. I tried to find the basis and instead just found lots of IPCC discussions with no scientific basis. That’s why I asked: you can find articles saying
27.
by brutusborn 3y ago
I work with a few climate scientists so my opinions aren’t my own. I referenced 2 researchers above, what is wrong with their opinions? [4] isn’t climate denial, it was an attempt to get some criticism of an interesting heterodox theory, an
28.
by brutusborn 3y ago
Why not? If we burn gas using CCS and develop a lot of nuclear, we wouldn’t even need renewable energy. I’m not saying it’s bad, just that it’s not essential (and may actually be a distraction in e.g. Germany where it has displaced nuclear
29.
by brutusborn 3y ago
Existential threat means things can’t get worse (you just stop existing). Ignoring the potential of geoengineering implies you are sure that we have a better solution which will work. I hope we don’t have to use geoengineering but I am cert
30.
by brutusborn 3y ago
GDP is just a measure, and it doesn’t include externalities. Any state or person is free to make up their own metric that includes it. Call it GDP_E and put it in every government report! Saying it should include externalities is like sayin

More ›