This, along with wind turbine bird death thing, is one of the more bizarre objections Ive heard emanating from the carbon + nuclear public relations lobbies.
There isnt a shortage of up. The geography to make it work isnt rare:
Geography plus water plus land usage concerns make it rare. The western US has plenty of sites identified but little water to spare. There is one pumped hydro storage project in process in the entire USA and it is being challenged on environmental concerns. If we are going to make pumped hydro work these issues do need to be acknowledged.
The paucity of projects in the US is because about 50% of your electricity comes from natural gas. If it's very cheap (and it was) and you dont care about CO2 (& the US doesnt) it renders most kinds of storage fairly pointless.
Pretty much the only place without suitable geography in the US for pumped storage is Florida.
In Europe hydropower in the alps is already being used as a giant battery.
Game can't run without a server and server owner decided to shut them down? Then game is a defective product and customer is eligible for full refund of the game. Those servers will be running forever or should not be necessary at all.
They don't have to architect their games to require that. Even for multiplayer games they can always choose to provide the server side parts for others to host.
That's a lot of money to write off when EV bubble will turn out to be unsustainable because raw materials are already through the roof and energy prices in EU are following same trend. It only gets better when Germans will switch off remaining nuclear power plants.
On the other hand we have chip crisis slowly fading away (thanks crypto crash) and prices for oil preparing for climb down as well.
I'm always a bit baffled by the amount of pro-renewables comments on HN. Is energy storage solved problem, or are people in northern latitudes going to freeze to death during winter?
It's also not really an issue that nuclear is free from. It's very difficult for nuclear to follow demand and it is not as reliable as can be seen with France's current struggles.
"Green" is an extremely politicized term. The nuclear aversion has nothing to do with rational thinking and everything to do with emotions. And since most people have emotions, you can get highly educated people to be "green" extremists. These people don't balance the equation with the suffering of the poor people (which rising energy prices absolutely bring to the table), and secondary effects of green extremism like shrinking economies and inflation is not something on their radar, all that matters is that there is less CO2 being produced (or so they think), everything else is secondary and temporary.
All of that would be fine, there will always be extremists (and to a degree, we need them) and if you seriously believe in the cause, more power to you...
... the real problem is that left wing has adopted this extreme green position as one of its core elements. Now all the left wingers have to adhere to green extremism, otherwise they're not part of the team. In 2022, it is not acceptable for any member of any left leaning party to be climate moderate.
The right wing has abortion and guns, the left wing has green extremism and critical theory. Try to be openly anti-gun or pro-choice on the right wing. Try to be openly climate-moderate or anti-woke on the left wing... see what happens. THAT's the problem. Nuance in politics went completely out of the window in the last decade. It's either extreme A or extreme B. And the other side is not only wrong, it is evil.
you either have wind or you have solar. most of the time in a country as big as france there is always a place where you have tons of either one.
storage is only needed for spikes, which btw. is also needed for nuclear (or you can use gas).
btw. your argument is the one I think is so stupid from the pro nuclear crowd, as if peak nuclear is a solved problem. (p.s. it isn't no country in the world does use nuclear for peaks not even france.)
For example this [0] They used non-automotive grade LCD, which due to heat in summer will go into yellow discoloration or LCD will start leaking adhesive or will just die.
And it's not like it's an isolated thing. Cars from all car makers are being recalled for things way worse than LCD discoloration.
The difference is how much press coverage even small Tesla things get compared to much more serious issues in other cars.
Like Mach E which was recalled for potentially shutting down the drive train, another recall for roof not being properly bonded to the car and another for loose bolts.
GM's Bolt had every single car recalled for a batter defect that could (and did) lead to explosion.
Jaguar i-pace was recalled for "The front passenger seat frame may be missing fasteners, resulting in a seat frame with insufficient strength."
Id.4: "An unreliable battery connection may cause a stall, increasing the risk of a crash."
One thing is mistake in process - i.e. Toyota or ID4 problems. Other thing is deliberate use of low grade, but cheaper parts, which can't long term survive in given environment. So your "perspective" makes no sense, only mudding waters.
What are these tests really trying to prove though?
90+ degrees C (194 F) for 408 hours is their "lowest" intensity test. That's 17 days of continuous solar radiation for 24 hours per day, which is hardly a consumer grade test.
