Yggstyle

Scared? The journalists shouldn’t be. They’ll never have to write about it.

Every major news organization is owned by a small handful of people playing for the same team. Internet exposure? Maybe for a few minutes before your site is delisted/deranked and/or taken down by a barrage of nonsense DCMA takedown notices that are effective immediately (with no evidence) but to reverse them you need to painstakingly disprove each: to both your provider and the claimant.

Time to accept that we’re juuuust at the tipping point of freedom of speech and expression. Slip a bit more and we’re sliding right into an identical situation as seen in China, North Korea, and Russia. Remind me… who does the head apricot idolize? Neat.

Tragically we have a dried apricot ceding power to the highest bidder. There isn’t much for other countries to do directly unless they are paying for “sock puppet time” or getting in a pissing match with a clown that makes a juggalo look smart.

This is more about controlling (collateral) damage: in this case megacorps “kissing the ring” via stupid shit like Google is doing presently. Countries can fuck with corporations far easier than we can (guess who paid for sock puppet time…)

Google is clearly attempting to make themselves more “saleable” to the ruling party by dropping things like month names or renaming universally accepted names of global features. Right now their -baseline- is where we are at currently. A lawsuit does next to nothing. It’s an operating cost. A country threatening to blacklist their service will hit them cleanly in the only thing that matters: their shareholders. Our biggest corporations have time and again rolled over for this tactic. They may have elevated themselves to a godlike status within the states but they are vulnerable outside our shores.

Don’t sue- just threaten to block some of googles services in your country and they’ll come around real quick. Hit em where it hurts. Google isn’t hurting for lawyers.

It might be worth looking into what the affected serial # range is. From what I’ve seen / read (anecdotal) batteries are under the most stress when fast charging: you could reduce risk using lower wattage chargers in all likelihood… but I’d definitely explore all your options.

This is purely conjecture on my part but if I were a gambling man I’d say that this is an attempt to insulate a potential issue with a bad batch of cells. A bad battery charge that forces you onto another phone is probably better than a repeat of the Samsung battery issue. In essence it’s a sneaky recall without the bad press.

I can’t really come up with another reason that they’d be doing that.

…That are built into the generation pipeline in a way that pads numbers instead of augmenting real frames. It’s dogshit.

40 series Nvidia was still humoring the raster crowd. 50 they are literally providing tools to tell you what your “real” frame rate should be. It’s the same thing companies got burned at the stake for gaming benchmarks. This is what happens when you don’t have enough competition. The industry leader starts selling bullshit quality dives off a cliff.

Exactly. It’s a tired argument that’s been made in a lot of different mediums. It’s not worked in any of them.

People that know what ad blockers are frequently use them. The act of punishing the group that isn’t aware of adblockers simply will drive more users to discover/make use of them.

Dang I really hope culture stays on its side of the fence. Wouldn’t want to expose anyone to new concepts or something that wasn’t home grown.

I wish this wasn’t the first thing I thought when I saw the statement.

Whoa now. That’s crazy talk.

Next you’re going to tell me they want everyone to be registered online to our IDs so we can be tracked. I mean to save the children. 🇺🇸

And then you’d prolly suggest something wild like they are putting back doors in our encryption and communication networks so they can track us further … I mean to save the children. 🇺🇸🦅

I suppose then just for fun you’d toss in something utterly insane like keeping track of us with camera systems and arresting us using those cameras - purely on speculation alone… I mean to save the children. 🇺🇸🦅🫡

And you’d be an absolute comedian - Because what are we… some crazy country like all those bad ones we talk about? Nonono. Not only are we free - #Buy God™, we’re gonna save those kids. 🇺🇸🦅🫡🎇🎆🎇

(Yes the spelling was intentional)

Careful. That sort of smut is banned in our free country.

I’d feel pretty safe if I literally controlled the platform everyone was speaking on, too.

… WHAAAAAAAT

Sorry, where are you from? It seems like I should be either apologizing for a countryman or crossing a place to visit off my list.

I’m going to preface this response with: I will be consolidating / paraphrasing your responses I quote - I do not intend to misrepresent anything you said - it will simply be to manage post length. I have read your post in its entirety and am responding as such.

Yes, that is one of the ludicrous arguments that I acknowledged OP is making.

Consider that OPs statement used a LOT of the same language and recommendations but was horribly off base. I was re-asserting the fault in his views to remind you that he was - without question - completely wrong. This doesn’t mean that you are. It does mean that you shouldn’t give him a pass because he expressed interest in a solution you support. If anything this is a teaching moment where you confirm that he, is in fact wrong, but this is how x works.

With regard to storage…

I’m glad we see eye to eye on its presence in a working solution. Please understand that this has largely been the contentious point throughout the thread so this is where I focused when you asserted that OP wasn’t wrong in (even a particular) capacity. It needs to be clear so information isn’t misrepresented.

With regard to Demand shaping …

This is my view coupled with some basic knowledge of how things work - with a healthy dose of extrapolation: that is to say this response is opinion and not an area of expertise for me… but is where things logically ended up with this particular subject.

I understand the focus you are taking with demand shaping - but from my perspective I do not think the net result will be as great as you believe it to be… but for tangentially related reasons. Before I get into the meat of that - yes, I wholeheartedly agree that optimizations in any form are a good thing. Many gains in the field of energy generation and storage are measured in small steps so ~2-5% still matters.

With that said:

Generally speaking price/kWh is determined by usage overall at that time… Now factor in that these industrial factories you are moving are contributing to the current price (at their current time slot) - which is lower than where you want to move them.

A couple things to consider:

• Assuming their usage is significant enough to move the needle: (at scale) most factories would then have their workers on a standard workday as well. Remember that 2nd/3rd shift workers are probably sleeping through at least 1 of the “peak usage” periods which in its own way is also offsetting demand. This in all probability would be a dampening effect on the shift that would be expected from the primary “move.”

• Assuming no major effect from the workers changing schedule (which based on my understanding would not be the case) - and indeed a sizable move from the factories proper… you’d still need the factories to be willing to take on the increased energy costs associated with moving into the more expensive energy window. While this is the “ideal” you are looking for: This feels… unlikely. (see utopia comment)

With regard to peaks and troughs:

I believe we both agree that storage is a necessary component of most solar / wind installations. Presently (to my knowledge) most battery systems are used primarily as a “smoothing” buffer for incoming energy as neither sun nor wind are constant resulting in variable returns. Secondarily, they function as a substitute during extended periods on non-generation (nighttime.) Now these battery systems are going to exist regardless what usage is occurring when - they exist to make the solar/wind systems reliable and efficient.

Lets factor in our constants:

• Energy generation: The sunlight isn’t changing nor is the solar installation’s size. Daytime generation + nighttime generation should not change functionally at all here as (to my knowledge.)

• Daily energy: this should not change - the factories continue to use “roughly” the same energy as before.

Functionally this solution isn’t changing how much energy is in the system, nor is it changing energy consumed. It may be changing how much the batteries are cycling… which, sure, would be an environmental impact… but not production. To resurrect my rain example: we haven’t changed the barrel size, the rain amount, or the plants that require said water. We’re just changing when we water them.

Dude. We are already doing exactly that.

(This is loosely referenced knowledge - but it passes the sniff test:)

Making the change you and OP are referring to works in a bubble but not in the way you are envisioning it. Presently at least. A grid, as you observed, is a series of power stations working together to provide the sum of energy required. The grid, as I asserted earlier, is very exacting in its requirements to function (pressure system example.) It stands to reason that the intermittent producer be locked to a rate they can “safely” achieve based on averages and their storage capacities. They will not be the first pick nor the lions share of “reactive energy” provided. We can’t produce more “sunlight” without robbing Peter to pay Paul - a battery dump during the day to assist with reactive energy results in less energy to provide at night. This system is optimized and sized for a set “average” generation during the day with an expected offload at night. (rain example again)

So who picks up the slack for the move to prime hours? You provided that answer:

But ultimately, the solar, nuclear/coal, storage, and steel plants are all on the same grid.

So yes, the shaping could move demand into the peak hours - and then would re-apply stress to the exact producers that the mills were moved originally to relieve. This feels like a non-starter to me: Task failed successfully …at least in our current conditions - which leads us to:

Again: Storage is important, yes. But, demand shifting is far more important.

Absolutely using solar to offset steel mill energy consumption is an outstanding concept - but it requires build outs, regulation changes, and a lot of different parties to agree to make that change. I may have been hyperbolic in my utopia / teleporter examples but the point is: those changes are neither quick nor easy and may as well be the stuff of science fiction for now. I agree its important to phase out legacy producers like coal / oil - I firmly believe nuclear is here to stay until it is replaced by the next “big” producer. Will renewables eventually be our primary source of power? We see examples of it working - so sure. Its possible. But renewables will continue to be a package deal with storage. The technology may change but the storage requirement will remain constant. (This part is, again, aimed at op- not you.)

Final thoughts: I spent far longer on this than I anticipated - but I think your post warranted it. You provided facts to the best of your knowledge and clearly were compelled to state the case for something you believe in. Ultimately - I wouldn’t say we disagree: I think we are both looking at different time horizons. Currently, in the here and now, your solution isn’t readily available nor easily achieved. That said- it is clear that at least some people are seeking what you presented as an eventuality. ~10 years from now it may well be reality. I still believe that you shouldn’t have defended OP’s position as you did. A partial affirmation likely will be received as “Oh, see! I was right- mostly…” and they will carry on; learning nothing.

This is just factually ridiculous.

Filling a reservoir during the day to run a steel mill overnight is a complete waste of a reservoir: move the steel mill to daytime hours and you don’t need the reservoir.

This isn’t a logical comparison. Here’s an apples to apples: It’s the rainy season - my plants have water … I take excess water and keep it in a rain barrel. An unexpected dry spell occurs: My plants have water.

We’ll return to this in a moment.

And yet, we are doing this now: We are driving consumption to overnight hours that can’t possibly be met by solar.

Being night I’d imagine that’s a tough fight for solar… I’ll give you that. 🙄

…But, those same incentives are killing solar/wind efficiency and artificially increasing the need for storage.

No.

Storage - or a buffer if you will - is simply a requirement of many systems. Electricity is no different. Renewables benefit substantially by having it and would be horribly inefficient without it.

…Shifting demand to time of production (demand shaping) is much more efficient than shifting production to time of demand (storage).

Demand shaping when we’re taking about the grid is largely the result of seasons, the availability of light, and our day to day actions. We turn lights on at night, the heat on when we are cold, and the air on when we are hot. We cook meals before and after work. Demand shaping on the scale that is being suggested requires a positively insane amount of change and has an infinitesimally small chance of occuring.

Now: we have solar during the day and turbines for when it’s windy. This is your production. You cannot shift it. It is raining - my plants are getting water. How then, do you water your plants when it is dry? This answers itself.

OP’s position is rather ludicrous for a number of reasons, but they are not wrong on this particular point.

Op believes that energy storage shouldn’t be necessary. At all. They have clearly stated elsewhere that their opinion is not based on research and it shows. A grid requires a buffer - or a series of fast acting production which effectively simulates one. Solar / wind without that buffer would be nearly unusuable.

Op is misguided at best and while technically not completely wrong: for them to be right we’d need to live in some utopia with vastly different technologies that we have presently. I like sci-fi too… but I’m not going to lobby congress to get rid of planes in favor of teleporters.

OP is… trying his best, I guess.

I commend your faith in … ehm… the human spirit we’ll say.

PS Gravity, except pumped water, is hilariously bad.

Keenly aware. I got a good laugh out of it when I saw it mentioned.

Practical Engineering is great. He does a fantastic job of explaining things simply and frequently provides models to demonstrate things.

100% on the combination of things statement. Many different storage mediums have different advantages and disadvantages. The right tool for the right job. Flawed though it is I always loved reading about molten salt… It just seemed like such a metal way to store energy. 😂

Realistically - I don’t mind people being incorrect or even just leaning into their particular beliefs or preferences… but OP emphatically stating incorrect information and then arguing as people corrected him was irritating.