Womble

This one?

If so it would supply just New South Wales for only 20 minutes. Hardly seems to be on the verge of solving grid scale storage.

They are known to be bankrolled by James "Fergie" Chalmbers, American millionair heir, "communist" who by his own words "chants death to America every day" and is a supporter of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and has been on Russia state sponsored visits to the regions annexed by Russia writing glowing praises of them.

It seems likely that at least Palestein action are useful idiots for the Russian state. Which isnt to say that banning them as a terrorsit group isnt massive overreach and completely undemocratic.

If you are just talking transitor density I believe it still is, but even if not, my point was that it had exponential growth spanning over many decades.

That said, exponentials don’t exist in the real world, we’re just seeing the middle of a sigmoid curve, which will soon yield diminishing returns.

Yes, but the tricky thing is we have no idea when the seemingly exponential growth will flip over into the plateuing phase. We could be there already or it could be another 30 years.

For comparison Moores law is almost certainly a sigmoid too, but weve been seeing exponential growth for 50 years now.

From historical data, you can calculate the maximum lull where neither are providing enough.

The difficulty there is that there are a lot of places where you frequently get multiple weeks of both solar and wind at <10% capacity (google for dunkelflaute) that would need an implausible amount of storage to cover.

The OP article is already talking about 5x overbuilding solar with 17h of storage to get to 97% in the most favourable conditions possible. I dont see how you can get to an acceptably stable grif in most places without dispatchable power.

97% is great (though that is just for vegas) but it is still a long way from enough. Its a truism of availability that each 9 of uptime is more difficult to get to than the last, i.e. 99.9% is significantly more difficult/expensive than 99%

Then get it from the sources that already exist.

The problem here is that you cant simultaneously say "Solar is so much better than everything else we should just build it" and "we'll just use other sources to cover the gaps". Either you calculate the costs needed to get solar up to very high availability or you advocate for mixed generation.

None of which is to say that solar shouldnt be deployed at scale, it should. We should be aware of its limitations howver and not fall prey to hype.

97% sounds impressive, but thats equivalent to almost an hour of blackout every day. Developed societies demand +99.99% availability from their grids.

Cool, 13 years seems better than I'd expect for paying it off that far north. I'd be interested to hear how it does over winter.

I suppose the other variable is equipment failure and degredation rates, do the installers give you any guaruntees about those?

Yes, thats the exactly place to go hard left, full on no compromises. In the Democratic primaries.

Not in the presidential election when you know one of exactly two people will win and your choice is which one of them you favour over the other.

Just for reference, roughly where are you with this setup? What looks good for say Arizona is going to look very different for the Netherlands (for example)

One chat request to an LLM produces about as much CO2 as burning one droplet of gasoline (if it was from coal fired power, less if it comes from cleaner sources). It makes far less CO2 to talk to a chatbot for hours upon hours than a ten minute drive to see a therapist once a week.

Shit headline from the Guardian TBH, per the article body:

The judges said: “The issue is whether it is open to the court to rule that the UK must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration which is reasonably regarded by the responsible ministers as vital to the defence of the UK and to international peace and security, because of the prospect that some UK-manufactured components will or may ultimately be supplied to Israel, and may be used in the commission of a serious violation of IHL [international humanitarian law] in the conflict in Gaza.”

and

Dearbhla Minogue, a senior lawyer at Glan (the group bringing the challange), said: “The judges declined to review the defendant’s genocide assessment on grounds that it is not an area suited to the court. This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the government, but rather a restrained approach to the separation of powers.”

This is the court essentially saying its not our role to decide on geo-political affairs of the country, thats the governments job. In their own words:

The judges ruled that the “acutely sensitive and political issue” was “a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts”.