![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/CJ7moKL2SV.png)
And 5 years is what nuclear projects have promised at the start over the years. Everyone involved knows this is a gross lie.
And 5 years is what nuclear projects have promised at the start over the years. Everyone involved knows this is a gross lie.
Nuclear is nothing bog standard. If it was, it wouldn’t take 10 years. Almost every plant is a boutique job that requires lots of specialists. The Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design was meant to get around this. It didn’t.
The experts can stay where they are: maintaining existing nuclear power.
Renewables don’t take much skilled labor at all. It’s putting solar panels on racks in a field, or hoisting wind blades up a tower (crane operation is a specialty, but not on the level of nuclear engineering).
Then we just move the problem. Why should we do something that’s going to take longer and use more labor? Especially skilled labor.
Money is an imperfect proxy for the underlying resources in many ways, but it about lines up in this case. To force the issue, there would have to be a compelling reason beyond straight money.
That reason ain’t getting to 100% clean energy in a short time. There is another: building plants to use up existing waste rather than burying it.
… it’s currently not possible to store the renewables anywhere
Every time someone argues this, it’s immediately obvious they haven’t actually paid attention how the storage market has been progressing.
Next, you’ll probably talk about problems with lithium, as if it’s the only storage technology.
If you’re going to do that, then also consider the co2 output of all the concrete needed for nuclear power plants.
No, you just pay out the nose up front.
If I had money to invest in the energy sector, I don’t know why I should pick nuclear. It’s going to double its budget and take 10 years before I see a dime of return. Possibly none if it can’t secure funding for the budget overrun, as all my initial investment will be spent.
A solar or wind farm will take 6-12 months and likely come in at or close to its budget. Why the hell would I choose nuclear?
But the technology to rely entirely on renewables isn’t really there either.
Yes, it is.
This is a book by a professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering that goes into the details. We don’t need nuclear. All the tech is there.
Except we have better options than we did 10 years ago.
I’d be all for nuclear if we rolled back the clock to 2010 or so. As it stands, solar/wind/storage/hvdc lines can do the job. The situation moved and my opinion moved.
They have x86_64 models.
Yes, everyone forgets them. Mostly for good reasons.
Arm is better because there are more than three companies who can design and manufacture one.
Edit: And only one of the three x86 manufacturers are worth a damn, and it ain’t Intel.
Edit2: On further checking, VIA sold its CPU design division (Centaur) to Intel in 2021. VIA now makes things like SBCs, some with Intel, some ARM. So there’s only two x86 manufacturers around anymore.
They primarily use evaporative cooling. Way less energy use, but no, it doesn’t get returned.
Datacenters moved to using evaporative cooling to save power. Which it does, but at the cost of water usage.
Using salt water, or anything significantly contaminated like grey water, would mean sediment gets left behind that has to be cleaned up at greater cost. So yes, they generally do compete with drinking water sources.
There’s no way nuclear gets built out in less than 10 years.
Unlike purchasing things for imaginary gods, carbon credits could work in theory. At least well enough to be part of the solution. That is, if they were properly regulated around strategies that actually absorb carbon and everyone is forced to be honest and transparent.
Which none of them do, of course.
So here’s two links about Alan Wake 2.
First, on a 1080ti: https://youtu.be/IShSQQxjoNk?si=E2NRiIxz54VAHStn
And then on a Rog Aly (which I picked because it’s a little more powerful than the current Steam Deck, and runs native Windows): https://youtu.be/hMV4b605c2o?si=1ijy_RDUMKwXKQQH
The Rog seems to be doing a little better, but not by much. They’re both hitting sub 30fps at 720p.
My point is that if that kind of handheld hardware becomes typical, combined with the economic problems of continuing to make highly detailed games, then Alan Wake 2 is going to be an abberation. The industry could easily pull back on that, and I welcome it. The push for higher and higher detail has not resulted in good games.
Lot of those games are also hot garbage. Baldur’s Gate 3 may be the only standout title of late where you don’t have to qualify what you like about it.
I think the recent layoffs in the industry also portend things hitting a wall; games aren’t going to push limits as much as they used to. Combine that with the Steam Deck-likes becoming popular. Those could easily become the new baseline standard performance that games will target. If so, a 1080ti could be a very good card for a long time to come.
Yeah, if anything, Apple is behind the curve. Nvidia/AMD/Intel have gone full cocaine nose dive into AI already.
Eh, they’ll have plenty of demand for their nodes regardless. Non-AI CPUs and GPUs are still going to want them.
You can buy them new for somewhat reasonable prices. What people should really look at is used 1080ti’s on ebay. They’re going for less than $150 and still play plenty of games perfectly fine. It’s the budget PC gaming deal of the century.
China built a few Ap1000 designs. The Sanmen station started in 2009 with completion expected in 2014 (2015 for the second unit). It went into 2019. The second, Haiyang, went about the same.
This is pretty similar to what happened in the US with Volgte.