If I wanted your clothes, I wouldn’t have left them at goodwill.

While a certain amount of pumped hydro energy storage is feasible, we will never have enough storage to

Uh… You might be confusing welding and heat treating concepts…

“Disrespectful” would be telling you that you in particular should continue to use windows or mac, and avoid Linux like the plague.

Do you actually want to run an application that doesn’t exist on Linux?

I use a virtual machines for the 2 or 3 times a year I need to use a couple garbage windows-only programs. Usually for configuring some arcane piece of proprietary hardware that people were getting rid of because it is incompatible with everything.

Well, yeah. I mean, help desk deals with users at their moment of peak incompetence. If 1 in 20 users can’t figure out that “Office” is now “Libre office”, help desk is going to be swamped.

The solution is to merge help desk and HR, so that something productive can be done about PEBCAK issues.

Also pressure regulators (like the one on the side of your house) have to vent to bring down the pressure when the network is too high.

No. They have to vent if your household pressure is too high. If, for example, cold gas was admitted into your lines, and that gas heated up, the pressure in your lines would increase. The regulator can’t push that gas back into the high pressure main, so the regulator would have to bleed off the excess pressure.

Uh huh.

I have zero doubt that you would call 911 should the “need” arise. So you’re a terrorist as well. As am I. There is literally zero distinction between you, me, and Mohamed Atta.

A puppy would qualify as a terrorist. A house cat. A sheep. A blackberry bush. An amoeba qualifies as a terrorist under this insane definition.

By that argument, a “no shirt, no shoes, no service” policy is terrorism. “$1000 fine for littering” is terrorism. “Keep off the grass” is terrorism.

The volcano is very likely causing the thunderstorm. Thunderstorms develop when convective activity pushes hot, moist air to high altitude. The high heat from the volcano very likely induces the convective flow necessary to generate the storm.

It’s not the IT folks who need to be pushed. It’s the users.

Hey buddy, no one serious thinks the way you do

The only people serious about widespread implementation of solar are, indeed, thinking the way I am. The general concept is commonly referred to as “demand shaping” in the industry. Anyone still focused on supply shaping in 2024 is supporting coal, gas, and nuclear infrastructure. The supply shaping model attempts to resolve the differences in the supply and demand curves through grid level storage: attempting to broadly time-shift generation.

“Demand shaping” understands that storing power is inherently inefficient, and attempts to solve the differences by moving the time of consumption to the time of production.

the industry is using more fossil fuel to meet the increased demand

The industry already has the solar capacity to meet the kind of demand I am talking about. They already have excess solar production that they can’t effectively utilize, and we know that they can’t effectively utilize it because it is regularly driving generation rates negative.

We are already producing (or capable of producing) the solar energy in question; we are wasting it due to a lack of demand. We are shutting down solar panels in the middle of the day due to a lack of demand. Solar rollout is stalling due to lack of demand for the specific power that solar is capable of producing.

When we create a demand specifically for solar energy, we increase the profitability of our existing solar infrastructure. We make it feasible and profitable to expand that infrastructure, which makes it pick up a bigger share of our normal load as well.

deleted by creator

You do realize we are already using demand shaping, but for the traditional baseload/peaker model, right?

Power companies offer steep discounts to industries like aluminum smelters and iron foundries to move their production to a night shift. Doing this increases the base load, which allows a larger percentage of the total power demand to be met by baseload generators instead of peaker plants.

The problem with this should be obvious: demand shaping on the baseload/peaker model drives demand to hours of the day that solar and wind cannot possibly meet.

Current peaks are higher than they need to be because people are wasting energy

Current peaks are not nearly as high as they should be. As much night-time demand as possible should be moved to daytime, where it can be met with solar. We need peak demand to correspond to peak generation. We can’t move peak solar production; the trick is to shift our demand curve to match the solar production curve. Both peaks need to occur simultaneously.

you want is to increase demand as if that had no environmental impact. I’m done here.

You’re still not comprehending. I’m meeting a far higher percentage of our current energy consumption with solar instead of dirtier and less efficient coal/oil/nuclear baseload generation, pumped storage, battery storage, etc. The “extra” demand I am asking for is 100% met by the excess capacity of our solar generation that arises under optimal conditions. That excess capacity is baked in. When we have enough solar capacity to meet normal demand with overcast skies, optimal conditions will give us massive surpluses.

Because it is met entirely with excess capacity that would otherwise be wasted, the “extra” demand I am calling for has zero additional environmental impact. It monetizes excess capacity that we wouldn’t normally be able to utilize.

Give me the benefit of a doubt for a moment, and actually consider what I am saying. Yes, it sounds paradoxical at first glance, but it will make a lot more sense when you realize I’m talking about how to move the overwhelming majority of our electrical production to solar/wind and virtually eliminating peaker plants.

Offer them ridiculously cheap power under normal conditions, but price them high during shortages. They aren’t “shutting down their infrastructure”. They will still be able to handle requests. They just won’t be incorporating new training data to their models until the sun comes back out.

You guys are fucking delusional. There’s so much efficiency to be gained by stopping all the energy waste

There is much, much, much, much more energy feasibly available when we focus on demand shaping instead of traditional supply shaping models. Ever hear the phrase “penny wise, pound foolish”?

You are either unaware that we are already regularly experiencing “negative rates” or you are not considering the ramifications. You are not considering how drastically “negative rates” are already stunting solar and wind development.

What I am talking about is boosting intermittent demand so that rates don’t go negative. We need ways to soak up every available watt when we have more than we would normally use.

Think of it this way: our current, “supply shaping” model requires extensive use of expensiv , inefficient “peaker” plants. Peakers give us the ability to match an unregulated demand with a variable supply.

A “demand shaping” model, if enacted effectively enough, eliminates the need for inefficient peaker plants, leaving us with a moderately efficient baseload plant for overnight, and extremely efficient solar and wind during the day.

“Oh, you were misinformed about something worthy of a snopes article, have you considered that you might also be wrong in opposing murder?”

Yes. That is my question. Is it possible that the same sources and methods by which you came to be misinformed about his mother have also caused you to be misinformed about the actual circumstances of the attack?

12 jurors all heard the same evidence, and concluded that his use of force was justified against all three of the people he hit, and a fourth that he fired upon and missed. What do you know about the case that leads you to believe differently?

Were you aware that there was a fourth person to attack Rittenhouse?

Were you aware that Gaige Grosskreutz (“Byecep”) was live streaming, captured Rittenhouse stating he was going to police, observed him running toward police, and still called for mob violence against Rittenhouse?

These are all from primary sources: people and video directly involved. They aren’t from reports or commentary. If any of this information is new to you, how confident are you that you now have all the relevant information? How confident should you be?

Hydro is irrelevant. It has long since peaked. The water sources that can viably produce power are already utilized. Relatively little additional hydro capacity is feasible. Even if there were, hydro is easy to incorporate into any generation structure. It can be used as baseload, peaker, storage, etc. We don’t need any special considerations to utilize hydro. There is little point in discussing hydro in this context.

Solar is underutilized. It will always be underutilized. There is more solar power available than humanity could ever hope to use. It is far more abundant than hydro.

Hydro will remain useful no matter what we do, but if we want to be able to effectively utilize solar (or wind), we need to focus on demand shaping. We need more load on the grid, not less. Without additional load, solar rollout will stagnate long before it successfully replaces traditional generation methods.

Like the other projects I mentioned, AI can create an intermittent demand for excess power produced under ideal conditions. The majority of AI power is consumed while learning, training the model. Responding to queries takes very little energy. AI data centers can burn power when it is readily available, and shut down under adverse conditions, conserving power for more essential services.

Without extra demand during optimal conditions, there is no economic incentive to build enough solar capacity to meet demand during suboptimal conditions. The greater the extra load we can add, the worse conditions have to be before solar cannot meet normal demand. We need much more “extra” demand for intermittent generation to economically justify additional solar and wind.

I don’t think you’re actually understanding my argument at all.

Early morning and late evening, or under cloudy skies, a given solar array produces only a fraction of the power that it can at noon on a clear day. You might get 20 times as much power from that array at noon as under those degraded conditions.

So how big of an array do we build? Do we build a large array that can easily meet demand even under degraded conditions? Or do we build a small array that will rarely fully meet demands, but will rarely produce unsaleable excess power?

The supply shaping model we currently have uses that second strategy. In certain areas, we are already producing more solar on ideal days than needed to meet demand. Even with pumped storage facilities to time-shift demand, we occasionally have far “too much” solar. Increasing the size of the arrays further will decrease profitability by increasing the amount of negative-rate power we put on the grid.

The environment is far better served by the first strategy: building out so much solar that it still works in the early morning, late evening, and under overcast skies. And figuring out some way of using excess power when conditions aren’t degraded.

The only way we can use that first strategy is if we can come up with a way to shape demand such that we can make use of that excess. So, we will need massive, energy-intensive projects that can be switched on and off depending on weather conditions. Desalination would work. We can use the massive excess power to recharge aquifers from the ocean anytime the skies are clear.

Hydrogen electrolysis would work. We can fill massive storage tanks with hydrogen any time we have excess sunlight, and shut down production when we don’t.

Fischer-Tropsch synfuel production would work. Produce synthetic jet fuel from biomass.

Direct Carbon Sequestration would work. An energy intensive process to pull carbon directly out of the atmosphere.

We need beneficial ways of utilizing the excess power we get from solar arrays sized large enough to fully meet normal demand, and we need a grid capable of handling the excess production.

What type of source would you be willing to accept?

I know that your claims do not arise from primary sources. No audio or video recordings from Kenosha show her to be present. No witnesses for either the prosecution or the defense ever testified to involvement that could be construed as proving your claims. I cite the trial transcripts in supporting mine.

I will note that you have provided no source for your claims. I know they did not arise from any primary source, but I do not know what secondary source you are relying on. Are you willing to accept major news organizations, such as Associated Press? They reported that false claims of her involvement were widely reported in social media.

Fact check.org also refuted claims of her involvement.

Politifact concurred.

Are you as certain of Rittenhouse’s culpability in the killing of Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, and the wounding of Gaige Grosskreutz, as you are about your claims about Wendy Rittenhouse’s involvement?

The mother did not drive him to Kenosha, or across state lines, and she was not involved in acquiring the rifle.

He drove himself to Kenosha. Dominic Black acquired the rifle. It’s unclear whether it was Dominic Black or Rittenhouse who drove him home, but his mother was not in the car. Hours later, his mother drove him to the police station in his home town - not in Kenosha, not in Wisconsin - where he finally surrendered himself.

Frankly, it’s disgusting that even basic facts of this case are so poorly known. I am still seeing claims that Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz were black.