Toivon todella, että ei ole kyse tämänkaltaisesta menettelystä. Toki helppo myydä keskivertoäänestäjälle, kun voidaan ilmoittaa, että säästetään näin paljon rahaa, ja syyttömillä ei ole mitään pelättävää.
cryball
joined 2 years ago
The same guy x:d this. Apparently a chinese university has replicated at least the diamagnetism claimed in the paper.
Shouldn’t a different algorithm that adds a some sort of separate logic check be able to help tremendously?
Maybe, but it might not be that simple. The issue is that one would have to design that logic in a manner that can be verified by a human. At that point the logic would be quite specific to a single task and not generally useful at all. At that point the benefit of the AI is almost nil.
I guess this is a joke, but regardless. The current climate is quite different from having an ice sheet 3km thick on the ground. This summer we were nearing 30°C/85°F on some days.
I would be very interested to know why the trend has moved away from building reactors in time and within a reasonable budget. It seems that most projects after the turn of the millennium haven't been cost effective.
Why did we manage to build reactors well before but not now?
Doesn't matter. Bad news at the time was enough to scare people for the next 30 years.
My personal dream scenario is one, where renewables and nuclear become such cheap production methods, that electricity is cheap and abundant.
At that point one could just use that energy to synthesize fuel to avoid the hassle that is hydrogen storage.
This is a very promising approach I've heard of also. Places with reservoirs could benefit massively from super cheap energy.
In other places an alternative approach could be what we kinda do already. Nuclear or some other stable production as a foundation that is augmented by renewables. The foundation would guarantee that energy prices wouldn't fluctuate too much, but we could still reap the benefits of cheap renewables when available.
Good question, that one can only speculate on. IMO it's a two part question.
First is that newly built nuclear plants are expensive. So the question depends on if we bite the bullet (build the reactor) today or in 2070. One built today will produce cheap power in 50 years.
For example in Finland we have reactors from 1980, that make up the backbone of stable energy production in our country. Those are going to be kept online till the 2050s. I'd argue at that point the cost per kwh will be mostly dependent on maintenance and fuel, so relatively small.
Wind and solar cannot reap the same benefits if you have to replace the plant every 20 years.
Storage is a completely separate question that is not taken into account when new wind farms and such are being built. If one was to account for storage today, the cost of renewables would be much closer to that of other means of production.
Also in the future, if storage costs keep falling due to billions of R&D money, similar effects could be achieved in nuclear via serial production and scale.
EDIT: Just read you have studied this stuff for real. Then ignore most of what I said, as you might know better :D
The only issue I foresee with using regular batteries as grid wide storage is cost. Many renewable sources are inherently unstable in output, so one would have to plan for potentially multi day deficits in production.
At least in my country some alternative storage solutions are being planned. One company wants to use excess wind power to produce hydrogen. That hydrogen could then be used to offset potential production deficits.
Otherwise I very much agree with your list.
In finland we have this big hole that goes half a kilometer into stable bedrock. The storage solution is engineered to withstand the next ice age.
Känniläisten kuskaamisen ja huolenpidon siirto enenevissä määrin terveydenhuollon puolelle varmaan lisää entisestään alan houkuttelevuutta.
Löytyykö terveyspuolelta myös tarvittava osaaminen ja varusteet esim riitaa haastavien sekojen rauhoitteluun?