Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)M
Posts
0
Comments
20
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • If I remember correctly from when the regulation was originally discussed, there are a lot of restrictions on the natural gas plant before it's considered green. Its only green if it replaces an existing coal plant, and if the new plant is not larger than the one it replaces, and if it has very low emissions.

    Edit. Found a source:

    https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/698935/EPRS_BRI(2022)698935_EN.pdf

    Conditions for natural gas to be classified as green.

    life-cycle emissions are below 100 g CO2 e/kWh; or

    until 2030 (date of approval of construction permit), and where renewables are not available at sufficient scale, direct emissions are below 270 g CO2 e/kWh or, for the activity of electricity generation, their annual direct GHG emissions must not exceed an average of 550 kg CO2 e/kW of the facility's capacity over 20 years. In this case, the activity must meet a set of cumulative conditions: e.g. it replaces a facility using solid or liquid fossil fuels; the replacement leads to a reduction in GHG emissions of at least 55 % over the lifetime of the newly installed production capacity; the newly installed production capacity does not exceed the capacity of the replaced facility by more than 15 %; the refurbishment of the facility does not increase the production capacity for co-generation of heat/cooling and power from fossil gaseous fuels; the activity takes place on the territory of a Member State which has committed to phasing out the use of energy generation from coal; the activity ensures a full switch to renewable or low-carbon gases by 2035; and a regular independent verification of compliance with the criteria is carried out.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • I'm surprised it isn't already illegal to install software on someone's phone without their consent or knowledge. Sounds like a form of property damage.

  • I've listened to Jordan Peterson a lot in long form conversations. This is my generous interpretation of his views.

    Peterson believes that all humans have a hierarchy of values and desires.

    Eg you go to work in order to get money in order to get food in order to live in order to play tennis in order to enjoy yourself....

    At the top of this hierarchy is the thing that you're ultimately after in life. Jordan defines this thing as "god" and defines the pursuit of it "worship". Therefore, everyone has a god and everyone worships.

    He also believes that the past doesn't really exist, as much as our societal memory of it. He would say that the story of Cain and Abel in the Bible is "True", because it is the archetypal brotherly rivalry that we all embody in some sense.

    Putting this together. The Bible is "True". Everyone has a "God" they have a personal relationship with and that they "worship".

    He is essentially defining things such that everyone is a Christian. Then he says that people just don't understand what Christianity really is.

  • Maybe im just dumb. But when I read "shrink the economy", I thought it meant negative GDP growth. But they actually mean a 0.06%-pnt reduction in the positive GDP growth. i think they should have used a better word.

  • I don't see the political charge. How do you mean?

  • Someone secretly recorded their private conversation and leaked it? How does that happen?

  • What does it mean that it's an Indonesian hospital? Is that just it's name?

  • I've been told he's really concerned about additives in food, pointing to the regulations in the EU favorably. Im also concerned about the poor quality of food regulations and enforcement in the US. So I've been cautiously optimistic on that front.

    Should I not be optimistic? Am I misinformed? Has he said/done things to undermine this position? I haven't followed RFK particularly close.

  • They do. But one thing that bugs me about the nutrition labels in the US is that they show "amount per serving", rather than per 100ml or per 100g, which they have in the EU (at least in Sweden). it makes it a step harder to compare nutrition labels in the US.

    I also feel judged when they tell me a bag of chips contains many servings.

  • Nice try FBI

  • I recommend the podcast Jack by MuellerSheWrote for those who want to follow the case

  • His family should put him in a home

  • National rent control

  • Good thing it's stern. I don't think they'll stop otherwise.

  • Don't know much mythology. Do Thunderbird and Firefox count?

    Edit. Just realized those aren't version codenames.

  • The electrons can not be stored stationary floating in the vacuum of the bottle. They will immediately attach to the internal surface. The entire bottle is now negatively charged and will accumulate positive charge on the external surface until it is electrically neutral. Now you have a funny looking capacitor with extra steps.

    The closest thing in existence are the magnetic bottles used for different fusion reactor designs and particle accelerators. In these, the charged particles are kept moving in a closed loop contained by electromagnets that contiously adjust to keep the system pseudo-stable. These certainly cant store energy.

  • I don't see the point of nanoelectrofuel flow batteries. I'm sure there are niche applications that I can't see. But not anywhere near what that author is describing.

    Flow batteries are good because they're so cheap per mAh and W, and if you're using them for grid scale storage, size and weight doesn't matter. The energy density is greatly increased when you add nanoparticles, to the point where it competes with EV batteries. This includes the extra weight of pumps and membranes. I think the addition of pumps and membranes make it really unfit for personal vehicles, even if it increases the energy density. The article talks about military applications, but doesn't really explain what it could do better that Li-ion except for fire safety. And they'd be dependent on the fuel of this one company.

    I think its major selling point is that it's cheap and very modular, so you can easily choose what capacity/power your grid scale facility should store/output, and change it after the fact. But if your building a facility, then the weight doesn't matter as much and you might as well skip the nanoparticles.

    As a technology I think it's really clever. It's not a very well studied idea. They're tight lipped and I assumed it was some sort of Vanadium flow battery, but judging by the articles they're citing in their patent and their conference talk abstract I'd speculate the cathode nanoelectrofuel is a water based slurry with lithium iron phosphate nanoparticles and carbon powder. The particles discharge like they would in a conventional Li-ion battery. But then instead of charging them you pump the slurry to your big tank, replacing them with charged particles. You need the carbon to conduct the electrons from the suspended particles to the current collector plate.

  • I feel the same way when I read these articles. They make it seem like everything is an earth shattering breakthrough when in reality, they're making a small (albeit worthwhile) contribution towards solving a problem that already has 20 other solutions with other trade-offs.

    But I like it when I read about any new battery tech being scaled up do industrial scale, like the article here. That's the hard part.