whalebird

8 ms·

1.
by whalebird 7y ago
> It's the kind of problem that requires incredible amounts of data, hardware, and theory to make any progress. I wouldn't be surprised if the opposite was true, at least with the theory part. AI didn't really go anywhere
2.
by whalebird 7y ago
I don't think the power dynamics are that clear. The Saudi state is not at all under total control of MBS. Formally, his father is in power, there are other potential heirs to the throne. There is the possibility of intrigue. In hindsi
3.
by whalebird 7y ago
> You've got to be kidding. It is plausible in the sense of "plausible deniability". Imagine MBS saying something like "That Khashoggi guy, I wish somebody hacked him to pieces!". You can interpret that as an ord
4.
by whalebird 7y ago
There's no such thing as bad publicity.
5.
by whalebird 7y ago
Do you really think that's what he should have said? Because that sounds like a vastly dumber thing to say, even if it's "honest". The "rogue operation" story is "good enough". It's plausible. Th
6.
by whalebird 7y ago
Look, as far as the broader argument for or against nuclear goes, we are one the same side . I actually want you to have strong position. > Of course you can't calculate the risk of being run by an opressive regime like the soviet
7.
by whalebird 7y ago
> I am not ignoring anything I am simply pointing to the fact that when we talk wind and solar the true cost isn't calculated whereas with nuclear it is. I agree with you on wind/solar. I'm just going one step further and
8.
by whalebird 7y ago
> All sources of energy have financial consequences if they go wrong, we use them anyway because the value they provide to society vastly outperform occasional disasters. All energy sources aren't equal though. The value to society
9.
by whalebird 7y ago
This isn't an insurance against catastrophic failure on the order of Fukushima or Chernobyl, which run into the hundreds of billions, if not trillions. Of course you can have an insurance pool that covers arbitrarily small sums at arbi
10.
by whalebird 7y ago
The negative prices paid on EPEX did not exist until 2007 on the German/Austrian market[1], which clearly coincides with the green energy rollout in Germany.
11.
by whalebird 7y ago
The marginal cost of renewables isn't zero, producing it causes more wear and tear than not producing it. Furthermore, if you pay negative prices as a result of a renewable surge, that might as well be considered into the marginal cost
12.
by whalebird 7y ago
> Negative grid prices are the consequences of power plants which cannot shut down in times of oversupply, that is mainly coal and nuclear. Riddle me this, then: Why did negative energy prices emerge along with renewables[1]? The problem
13.
by whalebird 7y ago
Insured by whom? You need to understand how insurance companies operate: They gather data, they calculate the risk vs. the cost of paying out, they add a markup - that's your price. There is not enough data to do this with catastrophic
14.
by whalebird 7y ago
> You might assume this is just some techno-weenie blogger that's getting too excited about one of his hobbies, but if you look at the official submissions from companies aiming to build nuclear in Australia you'll see that thi
15.
by whalebird 7y ago
The issue is that you won't find an insurance company willing to insure a risk that they can't calculate. There's too little data to find a price here. In the end, the government always bears the cost, because any catastrophi