Viewing profile — Schroedingersat
Schroedingersat
HN member- Joined
- Fri, Nov 19, 2021, 10:55 PM UTC
- HN karma
- 1,113
- Public activity
- 2,195 items
- HN profile
- View on Hacker News ↗
About Schroedingersat
No profile information was provided.
Recent public activity
-
comment
Comment #36339120
[flagged]
-
comment
Comment #36338800
The difference is a solar farm consists of 4 million identical modules and a quarter billion identical cells. If a cell is faulty, it decreases output of that module by 2%. If a mo…
-
comment
Comment #36337675
Yes. The capacity factor is a blatant lie given that units 1 & 2 are about 60%, and the costs are an old estimate of overnight cost without escalation or inflation. Comparing overn…
-
comment
Comment #36337594
> But at the same time, it's kind of odd he didn't notice people from his own side peddling blatant lies. Bit odd not to notice all the lies he's telling even after they're pointed…
-
comment
Comment #36335808
[flagged]
-
comment
Comment #36335759
The USA quotes AC capacity, costs and power. So a 100MW plant in the US quoted at $110 million including the cost of finance, profit margin, regulatory compliance, insurance and tr…
-
comment
Comment #36335536
The idea that this hasn't been tried repeatedly is a myth.
-
comment
Comment #36322158
You're amortising the cost over a time period that is in direct contradiction to reality, at an EAF that is in direct contradiction to reality at a cost of capital that doesn't ref…
-
comment
Comment #36322050
> The local Wikipedia says nuclear ramps up or down at 5%/min. This is faster than any other method of generation. How is paying extra to ramp at 5%/min once a day "faster than" be…
-
comment
Comment #36322025
Why do that, when you can just present the surplus/deficit coldest-sunniest day in late spring and pretend it is an essential aspect of all renewable generation?
-
comment
Comment #36308105
You see, that's the greenwashing bit. It's not made from water, it's made from fossil gas. All these schemes to increase demand aren't about making electrolysers to replace existin…
-
comment
Comment #36304741
Hydrogen has a GWP of 11. Cube square law also makes small scale hydrogen storage more expensive than batteries. Then you're back to limited niche uses, or needing expensive, leaky…
-
comment
Comment #36304644
The mirai has worse range, has less power, is heavier, has less internal space, is bigger, requires more mining if rare minerals for fuel cells, lasts fewer miles before replacing …
-
comment
Comment #36235525
A laptop powerbank cost about as much as those and will run enough lighting to read for days. Lower cost than that, there are C-grade prismatic cells. Usb/12V adapters exist for a …
-
comment
Comment #36235453
Rough service incandescent bulbs are exempt and will last decades driven at a quarter power. Sure it's a special order, but it's a special case.
-
comment
Comment #36235408
You actually think this is convincing. Wild.
-
comment
Comment #36226455
Very nice attempt at gaslighting, but claiming it's "partially spent fuel" and that calling it waste is a lie is like claiming shit is "partially eaten food" because you can still …
-
comment
Comment #36226414
What are you even talking about?
-
comment
Comment #36223191
> The big lie is calling it waste; "partially spent fuel" is more accurate Which you doubled down on twice, before backpedalling and claiming you never meant that the *other* 99% o…
-
comment
Comment #36223182
No, see I answered the actual question, which is oil. Which is mass limited. With how much energy would be available to do work at the destination. You jumped to a ship two orders …
-
comment
Comment #36220336
You are attempting to insinuate that reprocessing will eliminate the nuclear waste and obviate mining new U235. It does neither. Stupid semantic games and motte and bailey rhetoric…
-
comment
Comment #36220321
> Liquid natural gas is less dense than water, so of course ocean transportation of it is not mass limited. Did it really no occur to you that I was referring to transportation of …
-
comment
Comment #36210092
Yes. You could have done that rather than comparing to a ship two orders of magnitude larger. That wouldn't have been a ridiculous attempt to mislead.
-
comment
Comment #36209994
The relevance is that fertile material is not "partially spent fuel" in any extant fuel cycle. First it does nothing to the fission products (which are the bulk of the radioactive …
-
comment
Comment #36209941
Also false. LNG carriers are volume limited. Hence Q-Max vessels carrying about 100,000 tonnes vs bulk carriers of similar length carrying 400,000 tonnes. Also I said useful energy…