Why save for a retirement you might never have when you can accept death and enjoy what you can now. Yolo

I wish being kind was easy. Sometimes I feel like kindness is one of the hardest things to do.

Honestly it’s hard when IM platforms are so fragmented to get the people around you to move over. I never had to convince friends to move to Lemmy to use it.

I think you’re kidding so don’t take this all as a criticism.

Is a loaf of bread a bread sandwich?

I purchased R6S years ago and it’s gotten nothing but worse over time.

I mean. Literally, literally means figuratively now. People look at DVDs and say they’re not a digital copy when they are written digitally. Words are fluid and contextual so to throw out half a phrase is to throw out the ability to understand it.

Property is a system of rights that gives people legal control of valuable things,[1] and also refers to the valuable things themselves. -Property Wiki

An intellectual property would then logically follow it is a valuable thing or idea that is then legally controlled.

I always considered it like thought property, not exactly tangible and the closest you could do is copy it.

I thought IP just referred to something you can’t physically steal and instead copy.

I don’t want to argue about semantics. If the solution is too costly to be implemented, then it’s not a solution. I don’t think there’s more to be said here.

Yes you do. That’s been your argument this entire time. You kicked around all this time till now saying really weird things like how batteries are inefficient or that green hydrogen is from hydrolysis but then tell me what your point is all along when your point has been wrong from the start.

I proposed using 1.7 trillion dollars in funding in my first comment and now you’re arguing that I wasn’t discussing cost from the start? Is 1.7 trillion dollars not costly to you? Is the project being two times over budget not costly? Is it further not costly that even being twice over budget nearly half are completed? Now is the time you pearl clutch about cost?

You don’t engage in pedantry, you engage in belligerence.

I really don’t understand the obsession here in comparing energy storage to energy production.

Do damns produce electricity with the sun? No. Do they produce electricity with the wind? No. They produce electricity via the rain.

The storage of electricity doesn’t have to meet energy consumption because that is what solar/wind/nuclear is for. The point of the storage is to form a buffer.

The first comment I posted shows how if you had 100 the size of the bath county plant you could run the entire US for hours. In just 100 of them. For the cost of the F35 it could be 300 or more but I am accounting for nothing but problems.

From the perspectives of the grid operator, renewables represent risk that destabilizes power delivery. Although weather forecasts are steadily improving and provide more leeway to prepare for sudden changes in the power supplies, the degree to which grid operators can turn on alternative power sources or alert customers to adjust their power demand is limited. In a truly “fossil fuel-free” energy system that relies exclusively on various renewable energy sources, the only viable means of addressing intermittency is to deploy energy storage.

Your source even agrees with me.

The absolute biggest problem with pumped hydro is that it costs a lot of money. Like, it makes nuclear look cheap.

Once paired and optimized for cost, the model returned 11,769 sites in the contiguous United States, as well as an additional 3,077 sites in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, where closed-loop PSH technology can be best deployed in the future. https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/articles/wpto-studies-find-big-opportunities-expand-pumped-storage-hydropower

What’s 24gWh*11769?

It is a solved problem. The solution is just extremely difficult and expensive.

Gross

Can’t you just disable fastboot?

Control Panel>Hardware and Sound>Power Options>System Settings Uncheck “turn on fast startup”

The amount of (potential) energy you can store is a function of the volume of the above container, isn’t it?

No. The potential energy is determined by elevation difference and mass.

Then, could you estimate the amount of water this container would need to be able to retain in a scenario where the grid relies primarily on intermittent energy sources?

That depends on each individual site of pumped hydro. Obviously a site with a 1000m drop will need less water in containment but enough to fill the pipes.

Then, could you estimate the amount of water this container would need to be able to retain in a scenario where the grid relies primarily on intermittent energy sources?

Yes

And can you propose an engineering solution to contain this much amount of water? I already did in my first comment you apparently didn’t read.

It’s not a reinvented dam because dams can only be built where there is a gorge and a drop. For instance you can’t really dam the Mississippi. You also can’t dam mostly every mountain but you can build a container on a mountain and fill it with any mass.

I don’t agree nor disagree with the rest of what you say, I just can’t get beyond the “energy storage is a solved problem” point yet.

It’s hard to agree or disagree on anything if you think potential energy is a dam. Is a truck with water in it just a dam that turns water mass into thermal energy with it’s brakes to you?

There is no upstream, you’re thinking it’s a dam but you don’t dam up a stream. You have two containers at different elevations to store potential energy.

You’re conflating a lot of things in this second paragraph. The world can generate enough solar for the entire planet off an area the size of new mexico. LA can power itself off just covering parking lots toe power itself. Then there’s nuclear, wind, tidal… All of these need a buffer because they struggle with either inconsistent production or inconsistent demand. Pumped hydro’s only purpose is to be that buffer. When you’re making lots of electricity you move mass up and when you’re needing more than you can produce you move mass down.

The US can power itself for the next 100 year off waste nuclear weapons alone… but nuclear wants to sit at a flat load. Because of this, you’d need brownouts to shed demand. Pumped hydro means you can run more nuclear and generate more electricity than the grid needs at night or whatever and pump water up a tube to another container.

Basically, the reason we use natural gas to generate power is because it is cheaper than anything and can be stopped/started with much less fuss. LNG tanks are pretty cheap, it comes from the ground at a determined rate… it’s super convenient.

But a LiFePo battery system with inverters and solar is enough to power households if done efficiently for less than $50,000. The price gets lower every year and eventually people will be able to opt out of the grid entirely.

You’re not being pedantic, you’re just misunderstanding. Pumped hydro storage is not a dam, it’s not a power source, it is a power storage system. You can use pumped hydro at dams but basically anywhere you can move weight up high and use gravity to recoup that is a form of storage. It is one of the most efficient ways to store electrical energy with electric pumps and turbines. The point of a dam has been to collect water that is deposited there via rain and use that to create power.

So, back to our initial problem: chemical storage (batteries) is expensive, environmentally dubious, problematic in many aspects and inefficient, chemical conversion (e.g. hydrolysis) is wasteful/inefficient, etc. So, no, we have no good answer to that.

80% of this is just flat wrong. Chemical storage are not expensive at scale, enviromentally safe, not really problematic, and so outrageously efficient basically nothing comes close. Hydrolysis is more of a chemical reaction in organics and creating green hydrogen is done through electrolysis. It’s not wasteful or inefficient IF all of the power was surplus you had to get rid of because solar does that a lot. By your own statement solar panels are wasteful and inefficient because they only have efficiencies of what 22%?

I think private investment is awful but I’m being dogmatic in that stance.

If we want to split hairs, the US power grid is also privately owned and allowed bidders to set the price forever.

But one is decarbonizing and the other is not.

Yes and the bigger the difference the more potential energy you can store. Fortunately the US has lots of this naturally.

I’m perfectly fine with there being interstates that go 85mph I just don’t want people driving so fast in dense areas with mixed traffic. If I could have people just not be assholes that would be great but I feel like driving the speed limit now is just reason for someone to get angry with you and want to drive you off the road.

I’d love to ride a bike everywhere I can but every road I would be riding would have traffic going over 45mph with massive vehicles who have drivers so impatient they’d rather run you off the road than share the road.

I’ve heart NotJustBikes say similar things. I normally don’t favor control over everything but at this point I would be ok with cars having electronically controlled speed limiters to not exceed the speed limit of whatever road they’re on.

It’s really just created such an entitled, careless, and demanding mindset where bikes need to have speed limiters on them for safety but Fred can buy a 1200hp 3 ton weapon with no limiter.

I feel like most roads where you’d ride a scooter the cars would be less of a problem if they followed the speed limit. Scooters should be able to go down 45mph roads just fine but there’s always some massive truck going 60.