• 0 Posts
  • 17 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
cake
Cake day: July 6th, 2024

help-circle

  • But a huge part is conditioning because people are forced to use Windows early and get used to it.

    I have made the exact same “oh, this just works and is quite intuitive and convenient”-experience with Linux installs… for people lacking that prior forced contact with Windows (say older relatives with their first PC for example…).


  • The wiki is actually good for beginners, too. As you are often forced to reallylly read through subpages and cross-referenced topics until you somewhat understand why you are doing something instead of just how. Doesn’t make it easy ofc but a beginner can totally handle the wiki, it just takes more time.




  • 130% production on average, with excess being stored, minus losses in conversions, transport and storage = 100% demand covered all the time.

    Or the longer version: For a stable grid I need to cover 100% of the demand in next to real-time. This can be achieved with enough long- and short-term storage, plus some overproduction to account for storage losses. The 115% to 130% production (compared to actual demand) are based on studies for Germany and vary by scenario, with the higher number for the worst case (people strongly resisting all changes to better balance consumption and south Germany keeping up there resistence to diversify by only building solar while blocking wind power).

    The question now is: How much storage do I need? And that answer is varying by much greater amount based on scenario (for example between 50 and 120 GW capacity needed as electrolysis for long term-storage or battery storage between 50GWh and 200GWh).


  • Why is nuclear+short term storage not an option

    Because cold winter days exist. Yes you can only build nuclear capacities for the average day and then short-term storage to match the demand pattern. But you would need to do so for the day(s) of the year with the highest energy demand, some cold winter work day. What do you do with those capacities the remaining year as throttling nuclear down is not really saving much costs (most lie in construction and deconstruction)?


  • How much renewable production, and bess, does one need to achieve 90% grid uptime? Or 99% grid uptime?

    About 115% to 130%. Depending on diversification of renewable sources and locations. The remains are losses in storage and transport obviously.

    But shouldn’t you actual question be: How much storage is needed?

    For a quick summary of those questions you can look here for example…


  • Another important note about France: They are the second country alongside Germany heavily pushing for an upscaled green hydrogen market in the EU. Because -just like renewables- nuclear production doesn’t match the demand pattern at all. Thus it’s completely uneconomical without long-term storage.

    The fact that we seem to constantly discuss nuclear vs. renewables is proof that it’s mostly lobbying bullshit. Because in reality they don’t compete. It’s either renewables+short-term storage+long-term-term storage or renewables+nuclear+long-term storage. Those are the only two viable models.




  • You don’t need lithium. That’s just the story told to have an argument why renewables are allegedly bad for the environment.

    Lithium is fine for handhelds or cars (everywhere where you need the maximum energy density). Grid level storage however doesn’t care if the building houising the batteries weighs 15% more. On the contrary there are a lot of other battery materials better suited because lithium batteries also come with a lot of drawback (heat and quicker degradation being the main ones here).

    PS: And the materials can also be recycled. Funnily there’s always the pro-nuclear argument coming up then you can recycle waste to create new fuel rod (although it’s never actually done), yet with battery tech the exact same argument is then ignored.


  • “85% of used fuel rods can be recycled” is like “We can totally capture nearly all the carbon from burning fossil fuels and then remove the rest from the atmosphere by other means”.

    In theory it’s correct. In reality it’s bullshit that will never happen because it’s completely uneconomical and it’s just used as an excuse to not use the affordable technology we already have available and keep burning fossil fuels.





  • This would -at least as far as I understand it- limit your swap’s functionality for hibernation etc. Because there your swap needs to be available early. You can still do it in theory, but the key file then would need to be included in you initrams, which kind of defeats the purpose.

    There is however a much more easier option: either use LVM on luks (so the volume is decrypted with the password and then contains both, root and swap) or just use the same password for root and swap while switching over to the systemd hooks (as those encryption hooks try unlokcing everything with the first provided password by default, and only ask for additional password if this fails).

    EDIT: Seeing that you crossposted this from an archlinux-specific community: You can find the guide here. It’s for using a fully enrcypted system with grub as bootloader, but the details (in 8.3 and 8.4) are true for all boot methods. Replace the busybox hooks with their systemd equivalents (in minitcpio.conf for archlinux but again this isn’t limited to that init system), then add “rd.luks.name=<your swap’s uuid=swap” to your kernel parameters and also replace the “cryptdevice=UUID=<your root’s uuid>:root” that should already be there for an encrypted system (that’s the syntax for the busybox hook) with “rd.luks.name=<your root’s uuid>=root”. On startup you will be asked for your password as usual, but then both root and swap will be decrypted with it (PS: the sd-encrypt hook only tries this once… so if you screw up and misstype your password on the first try, you will then have to type it again two times, once for root, once for swap…)