simplisticelk

4 ms·

1.
by simplisticelk 5d ago
Semantic diffusion strikes again.
2.
by simplisticelk 2mo ago
Yes, their system has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, but government policy is now making Chinese consumers poorer than they otherwise would be in order to support domestic industry. It seem’s to be for geo-strategic reasons rat
3.
by simplisticelk 8mo ago
You should give it a rewatch keeping in mind that it was financed by Peter Thiel and Elon Musk. The message of the film comes across a bit differently in that light; much more libertarian/anti-government. Enjoyable film nonetheless!
4.
by simplisticelk 8mo ago
Finding economically viable uses for intermittently cheap energy has proven to be quite difficult. Most energy intensive industries require high capacity factors to cover capital costs. £90 wind energy does not make for a low cost energy en
5.
by simplisticelk 8mo ago
You very well may be correct, but it’s really not about how much it displaces at demand peaks (BESS is more likely to displace gas peaking). It matters how much it displaces over years and how often the additional output is surplus to deman
6.
by simplisticelk 8mo ago
Absolutely, as long as a the energy of a wind farm displaces enough MWh of gas to cover its capital costs (incl. network costs) at the marginal price of gas it should reduce system costs. But wind energy output across an area the size of th
7.
by simplisticelk 8mo ago
This is an extremely misleading way to report the cost of energy. It’s almost meaningless to compare the cost of wind to the cost of gas because more wind does not reduce the need for gas plant. It may reduce gas utilization, but it will in
8.
by simplisticelk 1y ago
This is actually very regressive policy because it only rewards people who 1) own their own home and 2) can afford a significant capital investment. And under current retail rate structures it shifts the burden of maintaining the grid onto