brutusborn

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 renewables.

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 codes.

The real issue is that engineering codes use frequentist methods which make it hard to consider uncertainty, which often makes it unclear what the real safety factors are. This issue is being solved by using probabilistic engineering techniques, and in future, more sophisticated causal inference.

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.

Does anyone else read “formation flying” and instantly think “Kessler syndrome”

What do you mean? Coping as in pretending they aren't Technoserfs?

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 opportunity costs for those with computing knowledge, but it wouldn’t be too hard to require teachers to do a basic computing unit at university. In the same way the best mathematicians are not usually school teachers, yet “regular” teachers seem to perform sufficiently.

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 both University and in Industry.

The only alternative I can think of is to use escrow, which probably isn’t attractive for illegal activities and still requires trust.

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 you describe. In my primary school, we were taught how to use Microsoft Office by using a workbook the computer teacher licensed to the school. We had some of the best computer resources amongst local schools at the time, yet learnt almost nothing about computers. It took me until university to write a line of code.

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 good enough progress then I have nothing for you.

Imagine using the same logic in the 80s “solar panels produce hardly any power and use lots of fossil fuels for production, why are we wasting resources developing them?”

Or the internet in the 90s “it will have less impact than the fax machine.”

It’s just emotional nonsense. We should support the people working on solutions, not complain from the sidelines.

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 they would have sequestered the promised amount. However they didn’t, and Chevron has no incentive to fix it properly.

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.