gregbot
Joined 1 year ago
Karma
38
Submissions
108
Member since
Jun 30
Recent submissions
Comment · 6 months ago
Comment · 7 months ago
This made me absolutely livid:
> We requested a security incident report from the ethical hackers as proof
So instead of paying him a fair bug bounty, they demand that he write a formal report for them and prove to them that there is even a problem.
Totally unhinged, but it gets worse:
> the response was a demand for money for the report, which confirmed our suspicion that this was a ransom-related incident.
Wow. So when the security researcher informs them that he would be happy to do some consulting work for them and informs them of his rates, they flip out and accuse his initial good samaritan decision to inform the company of the issue of being part of a plot by him to hold the company for ransom?
Whoever thought this is both totally delusional and a complete jerk. Truly, no good deed goes unpunished.
Comment · 9 months ago
So do you oppose DACA? That was the executive deliberately refusing to enforce the law as passed by congress.
Edit: Here’s what a federal judge had to say in 2023: "The solution for these deficiencies lies with the legislature, not the executive or judicial branches. Congress, for any number of reasons, has decided not to pass DACA-like legislation ... The Executive Branch cannot usurp the power bestowed on Congress by the Constitution — even to fill a void." https://www.npr.org/2023/09/14/1199428038/federal-judge-agai...
> Also, as an aside, if the bad actors in government who were screeching about DACA's constitutionality put even a fraction of that effort into protecting the Constitution when the First and Fourth Amendments were on the line, that would be great.
This is actual whataboutism
Comment · 9 months ago
This website lists the ADL as “highly credible”.
Comment · 9 months ago
could you explain what moral value you are referring to?
Comment · 9 months ago
Its remarkable to see the propaganda shift from “these are unarmed protestors not terrorists with guns” to “they are terrorists and they should have had more guns”.
I’m just glad President Trump didn’t start Iraq War 2.0 with this unrest as his WMD excuse.
Comment · 9 months ago
> Investing into renewables brought prices down by creating an economy in scale, which for nuclear never has worked
Never worked? How do you explain all the countries in the world with large low carbon nuclear fleets and reasonable electricity prices? Like France, Japan, Korea, Russia, China, the US, Canada, UK, Sweden, Finland, Ukraine etc? Everywhere large nuclear fleets have been built with a dozen or more reactors the per unit costs have been affordable.
None of that really matters though because when you look at the full system cost of intermittent renewables, they are an order of magnitude more expensive than the marginal cost.
https://discussion.fool.com/t/levelized-full-system-costs-of...
Comment · 9 months ago
In 2023, coal-fired electric power plants accounted for 86% of West Virginia's total electricity net generation
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WV
Looks like west virginia is still a state where hybrid-electric vehicles have lower emissions than all-electric ones. Who knew.
Comment · 9 months ago
Arguably yes! But it avoids a lot of the safety and environmental hazards of traditional methods.
Comment · 9 months ago
US NREL Puts it at $2/W with no storage and ~20% capacity factor. Lifetime of latest panels is unknown but optimistically is 25 years. Assuming perfect and free storage that comes to $24.4 billion per year of capital expenditure for a country the size of France to be 100% solar. So no, it would not be more economical to use solar over nuclear. Wind would be better but when you add the full system costs of storage and backup intermittent heavy systems are vastly more expensive and emit more carbon than nuclear ones.
https://discussion.fool.com/t/levelized-full-system-costs-of...
Intermittents are only gaining market share because their unreliable and intermittent power which is less valuable is being purchased by governments at prices that far exceed what it is worth. In other words, massive hidden subsidies. Without those, there would be next to no intermittents on the grid anywhere.
See “Market matching costs” here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Comment · 9 months ago
Nonsense? Why was US nuclear built at all in the 60’s and 70’s? Or in France? Because it was cheaper? No. It was built because people thought it was a good idea. The same is true for intermittents today. They are popular with a section of the population so they get the funding. And no, nuclear has fantastic experience curves. Look at any country building lots of reactors and the n-th of a kind is cheap. Building out nuclear and maintaining industry experience works to keep costs low.
Comment · 9 months ago
Great. So 538TWh per year is 61 GW so roughly 61 GW * $9.38 = $576 billion staggered over the 80 year life of nuclear plants is $7.2 billion per year of capital expenditure.
For comparison, wind is about $5/W. Assuming a 35% capacity factor and a 30 year expected lifetime for the latest turbines that comes to $10.0 billion per year of capital expenditure with no storage or fossil backup systems or extra capacity given weather variability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France
Comment · 9 months ago
Ahh yes. France’s investment in replacing carbon free nuclear with… carbon free intermittents. Fortunately that hype-driven waste is not stopping France from building out new EPR2 reactors.
Classic New York Times style writing. This sentence should say “Israel attacked this village as part of its invasion of southern Lebanon and Hezbollah defended it”
Imagine if this whitewashing were done to Russia: Karkiv, a small city 10 miles from the Russian boarder which had turned into a battlefield during Russia’s campaign against Zelenski in 2022”