Apply the ones in a star shape to distribute pressure evenly

That’s hardly surprising

Not in this specific age group. Overall men are overrepresented, not by 90% but they are, but less so in younger people

While I guess that’s true and it’s often surprising that the AfD is polling that well in the younger cohorts let’s not overstate their success. There are also a lot of people in that cohort very vehemently disagreeing with the AfD.

That is such a bullshit point. “The youth” doesn’t want one homogeneous thing. The youth is just as diverse in opinions as other cohorts, maybe even more so. It is also more likely to be on more radikal Sides of the political spectrum.

Make sure it isn’t just the Pomeranians. Some Pomeranians are definitely going to be in the mix.

Did you just expect people that call random devs at random times to actually read any information on a website?

Servo exists

Yeah they were experimenting with 64bit exploitation when this signal handler got some focus regarding a (likely related) deadlock so they rushed to disclose their findings to the project to minimise the possibility of having eyes on this vulnerability

I guess it’s also my bad. After reading the text with a more neutral mindset it’s not that clear cut as I initially read it. My bs detector tends to get a bit sensitive when AI comes up and I interpreted the wording in the worst way possible.

As the first AI-based mutation testing tool, Mutahunter surpasses traditional “dumb” AST-based methods. Our AI-driven approach provides a full contextual understanding of the entire codebase,

This is where I call bullshit. The AST is a precise representation of the code which should be easier to analyse and modify instead of the raw text. If you only rely on processing the text I have a hard time believing your AI has a deep understanding of the contextual interdependencies of the different parts of the code.

Edit: it kinda does use the AST if one of the preconditions is a treesitter grammar? Maybe the marketing wording is just very unfortunate?

No I didn’t miss that but taking an explorative pilot project as the defacto standard and then rejecting that it might be possible to build something more space efficient is not how the world works

Have i Not Just calculated that the storage for one day for berlin would be like a few soccer fields? How many days do you think is necessary to be prepared for completely no power input? 10? That’s 100ish soccer fields with 2020s battery technology. Stop spreading that bullshit.

Your tldr does not follow from any of the things you wrote above. Considering current energy densities it doesn’t seem unfeasible to me to build that storage. And I was honestly surprised how little space this would have taken back in 2020, not to mention that, again, this has been reduced by about 4x today. And it’s going to go down further. Your only argument here seems to be space and I don’t see that as a big problem. A few soccer fields worth of land distributed in the vicinity of each bigger city doesn’t seem like a lot to me.

I do see your point that it is in the interest of fossil fuel to stop nuclear power from replacing them. But I don’t agree that we won’t be able to build an energy grid without fossile fuels. I believe we can have a grid without both of these technologies.

You seem to be influenced by the “well we won’t do anything until we are already burning” mentality which is coincidentally pushed heavily by the fossil industry. It’s meant to defer people from believing that change is possible and taking action so we all stay at home and bicker about how cool it would have been if we started change 20 years ago.

Okay so your comparison has a few flaws there. The square meters I calculated were just a reference. The important thing is the volume taken up. If you stack your batteries only 1m high that’s gonna cover a lot of ground. You also completely failed to take into account that energy density has apparently 4x since 2020 which shrinks the required volume significantly.

I’m gonna argue that 4000 of these facilities distributed around the whole USA isn’t that much. Spacewise the USA is in a very comfortable position compared to European countries.

As for the price: taking the price for a pilot project and assuming that every facility is going to cost that is very wrong. If you’re going to build 4000 of them, cost is going to go way down.

But if we are talking numbers here I too have a question. How much land would nuclear plants (and the intermediary storage and final storage for the waste) use to fulfill those 12TWh per year? And how much would those cost to build and maintain? I imagine that a battery facility is way cheaper to operate than a nuclear plant.

I did the calculation for you in a different answer, it isn’t as unreasonable as you seem to think. Aside from that:

It’s extremely uncommon for the whole powergrid to experience zero wind. That’s not happening.

What pro-nuclear people are just waving away is so much more though. Space for storage is nothing in comparison.

For the fun of it I did do the calculation. Berlin uses about 12TWh per year. That’s about 33GWh per day.

Assuming an energy density of 450Wh/l (a number car batteries apparently were able to reach 2020) that’s about 80.000 m³.

A soccer field is about 4000 m². So a space of 10 soccer fields with 20m high battery stacks would do that.

Now assume that energy density will have improved in the last 4,5 years and that maybe storage batteries can be different from batteries in cars and that can go down by a lot. Seems reasonable enough for the biggest city in Germany.

The premise of powering a complete city just from one singular facility is a false one. It’s unnecessary to build such a facility. You can build multiple smaller ones to supply sectors of a city according to the needs of that sector. The answer also depends on how smart the usage of the power is. Are people using power when it’s available? Are people trying to use a lot of power when it’s not available but must come from storage? There are so many factors your scenario doesn’t take into account. The answer has to be: it depends.

This also feels a lot like a gotcha question not posed in good faith. Because again: you won’t need to power anything solely from storage. Wind and sun will always supply a base level of energy.

Why would you want to do that? Do you fear that there might be absolutely pitch black days with absolutely zero wind?

Or they would have known that they don’t work. Thats the thing. It is very much possible that further operation of these reactores would have been economically insensible. Maybe the repairs would have been so expensive and timeintensive that it would be easier to build new ones. The point is noone knows.

We can argue all day if what the CDU decided together with the owners of the plants was a good decision or a bad one. Nothing productive for the discussion around renewable energy will come out of that discussion. The plants are closed and they wont be able to get up and running in the forseeable future.