notaviking

Me right now, thought I had mastered my hobby and lost interest in, only to realise I haven't skimmed the surface and now fully immersed back in my hobby

I do not really use journals for my daily work. But usually I have a quarterly project I tackle and then search if someone in the industry has researched the issue or something similar. So you usually get to read the abstract or executive summary and then have the option to get access.

My employer/company usually after I send motivational letter does pay. I also have a reoccurring yearly subscription to two professional bodies and their journals, even the one I specialise makes their research available for free and the other one usually has a month or so delay before it is free and available, usually to edit it and make it look nice.

But professional organisations and journals also need to be funded, and like my industry (mining) really invests in them because the knowledge from them benefits them. The journals do not fully guarantee quality papers, sometimes a malicious actor slips through and is usually redacted, but usually journals live on their brand of producing quality papers that can be used by the industry to improve it overall. And for this they do need a bit of resources.

But I also sympathize with OP because certain journals can make their barrier to entry prohibitive. If Nature Journal in this instance chooses to become a for profit entity I can see how this might stifle future progress especially for smaller players in the industry where cost margins are extremely tight and basically gives unfettered access to the giants to gain an edge.

Is there any peer reviewed published research that studied if this was effective and the best available option. This sounds like the Namibians clubbing baby seals because they eat their fish supply.

South Africa, you can read up on us if you want to learn about a country that really fucked up its energy supply, but that is a different story.

You do need a baseload, this is not something an argument of saying we do not really need a baseload can wish away, industries that run 24/7 like a smelting operation where if you cannot shutdown, or hospitals or traffic lights, there is a certain percentage of baseload that has to be generated.

Solar and wind are amazing and I really wish to see these systems play a major role in power generation, but you say the nuclear and coal plants are very inflexible. I do not know who this guy is but Nuclear and coal can very easily ramp up their power generation, both these are basically steam engines, both nuclear and coal can very quickly heat up and generate a lot more steam that powers generators, like an car engine but more accurately a steam train that you give more power to go faster. Solar and wind cannot ramp up on their own, cannot ask the wind to blow harder or the sun to shine brighter suddenly when the system requires it, they need costly backup systems like methane peaker plants or energy storage, be it batteries, pumped hydro, hydrogen electrolysis the list goes on. These things added to solar and wind plants are usually not allocated to the cost of generation, a total cost of generation including these additional backup systems are a better indicator of solar and wind systems cost.

Now what about waste. I agree coal is messy and is causing global warming and needs to be phased out. But nuclear waste is a solved problem, it has been for decades, the spent fuel is usually stored deep underground where it will never interact with the world again. Solar on the other hand, if it costs about $20-$30 to recycle a panel but like $1-$3 to send it to a waste dumps, what do you think will happen to the solar panels. https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power Harvard business did an article about how solar recycling has really been a point of weakness, where nuclear we have set guidelines on how to environmentally and safely dispose of nuclear waste currently. I am willing to bet you the environmental impact from pollution from nuclear, including all the disasters will be negligible compared to the waste impact from solar panels and batteries currently.

So my point is not to dismiss solar or wind, really where wind and sunshine are naturally plentiful it will be a waste not to harvest these resources, just like where geothermal resources are available it will be wasteful not to utilise it.

But nuclear, even with its high initial capital cost and long build time, still does provide energy cheaply and will last for a lot longer than solar panels and wind turbines, nuclear can be easily and quickly ramped up or down depending on the load required.

Well one easy one, in my country it is that nuclear plants need to emit zero radiation from their core, like nothing. This is incredibly expensive to achieve, a more sensible value would have been similar or less than normal background radiation.

Nuclear has a lot of advantages that are really low hanging fruit of producing safe clean energy that is perfect for a grids baseload.

It's worse than that, everything oil is set up like a domino mexican standoff. If the oil terminal from Iran gets destroyed, basically they destroy the other's oil infrastructure that is very vulnerable, and basically then there is not nearly enough oil globally and then the gears running the world infrastructure starts breaking down. Will be a climate activist's wet dream since up to 20% of global oil stops trading

Like I am also looking at how to upgrade and damn these handhelds look like such a win win. Full gaming system for the cost of a single decent GPU

Well this has been one of the major selling points for me with Xiaomi. Always looked at the custom ROM and modding scene, like it is not just getting stock ROM, it is having freedom to do to your device what you want. Like applying a firmware that undervolts your CPU for better battery life

Yeah agree, but maybe they could have like 4 categories: A-general B-power C-display D-specialised

And then have a second rating system like 1-10 for example 1-bare bones 5-decent 10-the bells whistle

Like on a computer monitor I state I need a C5 or higher to work. Or I buy a A4B4 cable that is for general purposes or something.

This is just a quick idea, horrible idea actually, but because currently I do not know if for example I can use this cable in my drawer to charge my phone or use it as a display cable. So I feel like with USB C they wanted to make a universal cable, but now I feel like there is even more confusion than with USB B

Can we have a way to tell apart the cables first. Finding out this cable is not compatible for this thing. USB C needs a distinctive and intuitive way for the average consumer to differentiate between different types of cables

Well America and the EU are probably Ukraine's biggest backers, economically and military aid wise. Thus we have a proxy war again and it is East vs West.