Sources? Anyway, to get a good sized grid to smooth out intermittency, you’ll need to connect all Europe or more. I think there’s already some of that, but the longer distances you go, the more loss. I agree pumped hydro is a good option, but the promising sites tend to be quite limited when you try to scale up to a full grid. Plus the ecological concerns that come with dams need to be weighed too.

Finite resource goes for battery minerals even more so, and solar production capacity is also limited.

Agree on offshore wind, but it’s also got intermittency.

You can save money with solar and batteries, but only after about 30 years. That’s a much longer payback time than any other forms like nuclear. Plus you wouldn’t have representative grid loads overnight.

The costs you cited are just for the panel electricity, not taking into account any storage.

Right now it costs about $400/kwh. You’ll need about 12 hours storage to cover over night, which means about $50k/kw. If the lifespan is 20 years, (which is generous) that means the added cost is 28 cents per kwh just for the storage. I’m sure the batteries will get more efficient, but they will also be in more demand, so that price could go up or down.

Do you have better numbers showing 100% solar is cheaper than nuclear? Why is nuclear bad? It’s less deaths than even wind energy and is a proven technology to minimize emissions. Why limit yourself?

I have no idea. But maybe the gravitational location would appear to asymptotically approach the event horizon similar to how light from an object would appear to just approach the horizon and then stay there.

I’ll need substantiation on the cheaper. Batteries are expensive! And transmission loses get excessive after very long to distances.

Batteries plus solar to equal a constant output power is much more expensive than nuclear. It’s when you have other sources that you can have less storage that solar gets cheaper.

It’s still to be determined if at a 90% renewable grid whether adding nuclear or wind/solar will be cheaper. You’ll need a whole lot more energy storage the closer you get to 100% intermittent renewable, so having some reliable base load with nuclear is likely cheaper.

Someone has a proper respect for sticks!

Do you think you can have effective communism with only self interested parties? That was my take away from your comment, that you can get communism as a logical extension of greedy motives?

When someone says capitalism is human nature, I don’t think they mean that industrial automation allowing unskilled workers is human nature. So they’re using a different meaning of capitalism. To address their concern, you would show counter examples of large groups of people working together for a common good rather than their own enrichment. Rather than just saying they’re using the word wrong.

When you survey people on the street, would they use that definition? English isn’t a prescriptive language, the definition is what people use it as.

I don’t think the Marxist definition of capitalism lines up with the colloquial definition. Colloquially, it’s thought of as systems in which money is exchanged for goods and services. As opposed to communism, where it is not. (These are both oversimplified)

When people say capitalism has been around for thousands of years, what they mean is the colloquial definition. Redefining their terms with the Marxist version doesn’t address their actual point.

I don’t think the Marxist definition of capitalism lines up with the colloquial definition. Colloquially, it’s thought of as systems in which money is exchanged for goods and services. As opposed to communism, where it is not. (These are both oversimplified)

When people say capitalism has been around for thousands of years, what they mean is the colloquial definition. Redefining their terms with the Marxist version doesn’t address their actual point.

But you’d say that capitalism requires the technological advancements of the industrial revolution by definition?

I was asking to clarify, because it sounded like your definition of capitalism was something like ‘uses industrial machinery to allow for unskilled work.’ By that definition, I agree that by definition capitalism didn’t exist till after the industrial revolution, since industrial machinery didn’t exist yet. But I disagree that capitalism requires industrial machinery.

Ceramics (roof tiles and pots) were manufactured on an industrial scale in Rome for example. They employed workers and produced massive numbers of products.

What is your distinction between employing people for money and capitalism?

What would you call employing people for wages around 0AD? I don’t think it’s feudalism.

Please do!

I hope they took it with them to publish.

Trans reactionism sounds political to me. Is it not?

https://hexos.com/ is also trying to be a low skill low effort version of truenas, but it does have a one time payment. I didn’t think you’d need a nas specific OS for just one storage laptop though, it’s more meant for large home storage servers.