Because HN was a forum for oil executives to gather and discuss prices? Big fossil isn't in the room here. It would surprise nobody if there were 0 people in the comments who even work in a fossil fuel company.
Hungary had the highest share of produced solar electricity of all the countries in the world 27.3%.
And even with this results nuclear energy is usefull for them and plan to build new reactors. (with help from Russia, so there may be same changes in this plan)
Starting this year, in Romania you cannot put new PV capacity online without the storage for it, is mandatory. Possibly for existing ones, but I am not sure.
Yes, absolutely colossal amounts of batteries though - what if it’s quite hot but also cloudy for 5 days in a row?
You either have to significantly oversize the PV (easier said than done, when its energy density is already not that high per m2), or have enough batteries to last for multiple days of full load. If you do the maths that’s a lot of batteries
>what if it’s quite hot but also cloudy for 5 days in a row?
The main idea is to then import power from somewhere sunny and/or windy or mountainous, using money you saved when they had the rain and you had the sun.
Batteries and other storage mechanisms will gradually reduce the need for doing so, but aiming to entirely eliminate all need for cooperation with others seems a bit paranoid.
"According to the adopted act, devices with a capacity of up to 30 kWh are exempt from any construction procedures; only reporting to the grid operator (OSD) is mandatory. Those between 30 kWh and 300 kWh in a building and 30 kWh and 2000 kWh freestanding are obliged to prepare a land development plan and make fire safety arrangements."
AFAIK the mountains are about as high as Wales? It looks like there's a 600MW storage scheme in the planning stages. That's about a third of the capacity of Wales's largest system (which is the biggest in Europe) and about twice the capacity of the second system.
It's a meaningful contribution I would have thought.
Can't speak for Hungary specifically, but the problem with flat terrain wrt hydro storage isn't just elevation difference - which can be offset with flowrate - it's the large surface area to storage and to depth ratios.
Large lake means more losses, mainly due to evaporation, but seepage is also to be expected. Now put this fact in the thread's context: water shortage/stress...
"Most of the country has an elevation of less than 200 m. Although Hungary has several moderately high ranges of mountains, those reaching heights of 300 m or more cover less than 2% of the country."
"Hydroelectricity is not prevalent in Hungary due to unsuitable geographical conditions and civil resentment. The country's capacity of hydroelectricity was 57 MWs in 2015."
It depends on the water balance.
Reservoirs would help you smooth out variability/seasonality and mitigate infrequent, short term droughts, depending on its size. They would not help with a long term drought or if you are water stressed (i.e. you simply don't have enough to meet demand). Quite the opposite, they may exasperate the issue as they consume (or lose) water themselves.
I'm fairly sure that when it's dark where I am (because I'm in the shadow cast by Earth), it's also dark in orbit above me (because it's in the shadow cast by Earth).
> "The moral of this story is not to fear robots that will take over, but the companies behind powerful AI agents who are making the decisions about what is safe for the rest of us," she said.
We really need democratic control over these things before the real scary stuff starts
Some would argue that voting with your wallet is democratic control, and that government regulation of private industry is anti-capitalism socialism only supported by unpatriotic communists
Small retail investors comprise 66% of the market in SK. It's usually single unmarried people who make ridiculously big bets to try and get enough money to buy a house or get married. It's something to be pitied not hated.
From my very shallow understanding of the Korean market it's common to invest in high risk shares because a big win is the only way to afford a nice home. Financial nihilism, risk appetite etc. So it's far from only rich people.
But if an investment doesn't pan out, and your response is "My life's screwed", you couldn't afford the investment either. "high risk" is right in the name -- the win isn't guaranteed.
If you are in the unfortunate position of not being able to afford a nice home, live somewhere less nice and try to build savings so that some day your children can afford a nice home.
Now I'm on very thin ice and just based on youtube videos so if someone from South Korea reads this feel free to correct me.
As I understand it the order of things for men* in SK is 1) housing 2) marriage 3) children
No housing means no wife means no children to afford a nicer home. So, they're incentivised to take big risks.
But I'm going to step out of this minefield now with the hope of someone who actually knows things providing some information. It just seemed like the original comment didn't give enough weight to context.
*Women in SK are as I understand it fighting a whole other battle.
>But if you get caught stealing bread, and your response is "My life's screwed", you couldn't afford the risk either.
>If you are in the unfortunate position of not being able to afford bread, eat something less expensive and try to build savings so that some day your children can afford bread.
See how this works when you conveniently dismiss the effects of severe structural problems in society as evidence of poor financial literacy?
I recognize that there's something I'm severely misunderstanding here. In order to "win big" in the stock market, you generally need to invest big -- i would assume people investing big in the stock market aren't literally homeless; they likely rent some kind of room or apartment. Equivocating it to "stealing bread" seems a little extreme.
If the supply/demand curve of housing is so extremely upside-down that the only way to get ahead of it is gambling, then maybe they shouldn't be increasing the population -- at the risk of sounding a bit heartless, it seems to me like the only real choice is to leave; a peninsula that's locked from the mainland by an enemy like north Korea means that resources must be too scarce for their population.
It's all relative, you seem to think that rich people can't get "as depressed" as poor people but you are genuinely wrong, rich people also commit suicide, money isn't everything and for the most part, people have worked quite hard and smartly to become rich, such a basic take.
PS (ready for the downvotes): A ton of people are not wealthy by choice as well, I don't want to over generalize because this isn't true for all, but a LOT could master a new topic every month by just stopping Instagram for 1 hour a day and instead use that time to study and make money, so what, if they start in the direction of building wealth, suddenly they are assholes?
The notion that poor circumstances somehow justify poor choices is extremely counterproductive, as the context of this thread should make abundantly clear.
Just saying rich people betting and losing is much more funny than poor people making bad financial decision in the hope of maybe living a better life.
State intervention has a reasonably good history of getting what the state pushes for. It just has a poor history in everything else the state needs/wants but doesn't realize and so doesn't push for. Also people often miss what the state is pushing for (for example: most of the people pushing transit are really interested in expensive contracts to push money to their friends - any transit that results is a side effect they don't care about. If you are interested in transit most of the people who appear on your side are a long term negative even if you must work with them)
If I go to the police evidince locker and pick up glawk fawty with the switch used in a drive-by and I put it in the hand of a biathlon athlete will he hit the target or will he spray the crowd? He'll still probably hit the target. He might be a little worse at it but the nature of the tool and the task it's optimized for isn't gonna fundamentally alter what happens because the goal is still the same, hit the target.
Both the US and China engage in copious amounts of "state intervention". They have different characteristics but it's fundamentally the same tool even if they're optimized differently. The US has no problem steamrolling people and interests, it just takes more time and money. At the behest of various interests I will not piss everyone off by naming and shaming because who they are is somewhat beside the point, the US has spend the past 50yr wielding state intervention in pursuit of policies that will kick out industrial activity at the margin. China has intentionally done essentially the opposite in the same time. Both have essentially accomplished what they set out to do.
Cheerleading for "more/cheaper/faster state intervention" is stupid when the goals being pursued are what's responsible for the lion's share of difference in outcome. Giving a glawk fawty to a biathlon athlete isn't gonna make him want to indiscriminately pepper the crowd any more than giving US policy more teeth to tear shit up is going to change the fact that the policy is pursuing de-industrialization.
The U.S. will have to come around to that. I'm not sure how low it has to sink relative to China , but there will come a time when it will be seen as the obvious strategy.
Perhaps Great Depression II will be the spark as Great Depression I was the spark for the limited socialism in the U.S.
Anthropomorphising a system to give it attributes such as cruelty is silly.
Entertaining a lump of monolithic production fallacy is also silly.
There are any number of detailed and specific problems that need to be solved to solve the greater economic problem you describe. A system that promotes direct effort to solve specific problems is required.
It's very obviously not in the interests of "big fossile" to go either solar or nuclear.