adrianN

Gas is used as backup in a grid dominated by cheap renewable. High capex sources like nuclear are a poor replacement.

Nuclear power replaced coal in Germany, not gas. A big dependence exists because people heat their homes with gas and lots of industry needs gas, nuclear doesn’t help with either.

Even if the brain were a quantum computer (I think the jury is still out on that one) we could simulate it just fine on a classical computer, it just has exponential slowdown in the worst case.

It is my understanding that energy produces a gravitational field regardless of the form it takes.

Pinworms are mostly harmless and trivially treated.

Siemens is making a lot of money selling inertial stabilizers. There is ongoing research on how to stabilize grids in the face of decreasing inertial frequency stabilization.

Over the lifetime of the battery it’s not that bad and gets better as the carbon intensity of the grid that runs the factories improves.

You can get through a Computer Science degree with just a few thousand lines of code if you focus on theory courses.

I like scratches on my machines, it gives them character.

An error in the formalization could also be that you formally prove something different from what you think you proved.

It looks like we’re pretty much in perfect agreement, but I think it doesn’t hurt to already start planning what to do about the last couple of percent. These are all projects with long time horizons

Gas turbines can also run on synthetic methane or hydrogen, which is nice.

I’d keep gas plants around, but anyway, you need to cover that case and can’t just handwave it away.

You generally get more return on investment if you invest in building infrastructure in your own country rather than investing in blowing up infrastructure in a different country. So I’m implying that solar and batteries are a lot cheaper than the war in Iraq.

The war in Iraq cost a trillion dollars.