1,252 karma · joined October 24, 2023
On the other hand their nuclear share is declining. It peaked at 4.7% in 2021 and is today down to 4.3%. Entirely irrelevant.
For each plan they put out they lower their nuclear targets and push them further into the future.
Going from a French like buildout 10-15 years ago to having it as a token investment today.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/22/136020/how-greed...
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/renewables...
The example on the docs page is quite clear:
https://docs.rs/thiserror/latest/thiserror/#example
Including all kinds of errors: Strings, tagged unions and automatically converting from std::io::Error with added context.
That one page document is the entire documentation for the thiserror crate.
Also argparse for Clap:
Does any language, except like Java, exist with a standard library comprising matching that?
Also, keep in mind that Tauri itself is 14 crates, where each one shows up in your build tree.
https://github.com/tauri-apps/tauri/blob/dev/Cargo.toml
And Ratatui is 6:
An easy rule before you make a knowledge based choice is Thiserror for libraries, helping you create the standard library error types and Anyhow for applications, easy strings you bubble up.
Or just go with anyhow until you find a need for something else.
That is not a given when dealing with "machine learning".
They will need to have metrics for all these scenarious and ensure when they solve the 20th problem down the line this one does not regress, but instead it becomes more and more generalized.
And it's not like Bun when written in Zig has been a beacon of stability either. It has been segfaults all over the place.
For me the most annoying part are the footguns async Rust introduces, which Rust generally is blessedly empty of compared to e.g. Go or other languages.
Like for example, cancellation safety, dealing with "long running" futures, cleanly terminating a program, deadlocks at a distance [1] and others I'm forgetting now.
History:
This RFC proposes to remove the runtime system that is currently part of the standard library, which currently allows the standard library to support both native and green threading.
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0230-remo...
If they increase in price then firm production is stimulated to build to meet the gap.
We’re right in the middle of the transition with maximum volatility swinging between extremely cheap renewables and expensive fossil plants.
Docker/containers are great, especially for local development. But I feel the docker compose model quickly becomes a lot of messy brittle squeeze for little gain when multiple containers need to integrate.
Better then to just take the plunge for the "real deal" and set up a non-HA k8s/k3s cluster with the interactions between the workloads clearly specified.
In other words. I care care more about the interactions declaratively spelled out than the "scale to the moon" HA, auto-scaling, replicas or whatever people get sold on.
And LLMs make this even easier. If you love reviewing yaml manifests....
I still haven't seen you levy a single factual criticism to the methodology in the paper I linked. It is just you lashing out.
Again you don't care about cumulative emissions, or the grid size.
And this is the graphs if you assume that renewables never become perfect:
You do realize based on these graphs that every investment in nuclear power just leads to more emissions?
Now lets talk about your TWh per year figure, comparing apples to oranges. UAEs grid is 184 TWh. Why didnt UAE do like Germany and deployed 196 TWh renewabels in that time and completely decarbonize their grid?
Are you realize how absolutely stupid you sound trying to compare TWh per year figures without referencing the grid size?
Looking at what is happening gas usage is cratering all over Europe. What you are saying is someone assuming nothing will ever change. Even though BESS and renewables are completely reshaping the markets.
Justifying your standpoint by that the renewable industry in the early 2000s didn't deliver enough results.
But you do realize that we live in 2026 right? That is an entirely different beast. That is the industry that is delivering all new capacity globally and causing Indias and Chinas coal usage to decline in absolute terms.
And that industry will continue to scale. While you're stuck advocating for the technology that doesn't even complement it.
> If you don't build nuclear now, you'll have higher emissions when you use gas firming.
This means neither technology nor markets will ever change. I think here you have your issue. You assume everything is static.
> The solution is expanding both, like it's done in France, Sweden, Romania and bunch of other countries
You mean the zero commercial nuclear powerplants under construction in those countries?
Talk is easy. Running bidding processes are easy. Selling the public on tens of billions in handouts per large scale reactor and having to own the results for decades is hard.
Waiting until the 2040s for new built nuclear power or you know, just investing in renewables and storage?
You seem stuck in some imaginary perfect world, always looking back rather than daring to look forward.
Even the French are wholly unable to build new nuclear power in 2026 as evidenced by their zero commercial reactors under construction and the state of the EPR2 program. The French fleet will shrink due to all plants hitting EOL without replacements in sight.
Looking at cumulative emissions any investment in renewables, even if they are imperfect, extends our timeline for reaching perfect by decades. Due to their deployment speed and how effective they are at decarbonization per dollar spent.
> Check out how TWh/y of clean power evolved in Denmark vs UAE with Barakah built by Korea
This tells me you are entirely out of your depth.
You do realize that what we care about are cumulative emissions? You also have to compare it by grid size.
The shining beacon in UAE you lift have a horrendous gCO2/kWh of 468 while Denmark sits at 114. Starting at 650.
Calling that what UAE achieved a success means you don’t care about decarbonization, only trillions in handouts to your pet technology.
How do you know it wouldn’t become worse than Chernobyl when you have lost control?
This is all hindsight speaking trying to downplay what risks nuclear power poses, because accepting them means letting go of your precious.
All nuclear planes plan ahead. Evacuation zones. Handing out emergency radius, iodine tablets.
When faced with a situation that is out of control you execute the plan. You don’t second guess if it is actually needed.
That for the incident report to specify, and then update the plan.
The response to Fukushima was even wider evacuation plans. Stress testing them. Better resiliency for the plants.
We did change. But not in the direction you want when attempting to downplay Fukushima.
Why are you so afraid of renewables and storage?
You also link another of the typical studies desperately trying to shove new built nuclear power into contention.
It looks like this: ”If we assume nuclear power is cheap and fast to build”.
Do the same for renewables and storage and the comparison becomes even more lopsided.
Radiation data was known. But that assumes that it can’t change.
How can you assume that nothing will change for nuclear plant undergoing hydrogen explosions which you’ve lost all control over?
I think you know this, which is why your stuck in hindsight and trying to shift the discussion to other topics.
Knowing the outcome that happened and perfectly slicing the decisions to fit that.
How do you expect to be the politician ordering not to evacuate when you have a nuclear plant in unstable condition undergoing hydrogen explosions while you’re flying blind about the true state of things. You know, the hindsight.
All recent research coming are showing that BEV batteries last longer than expected in real world conditions.
You do realize that with 60 TWh we’re arguing about which decimal of 99.x% renewables the grid sits at?
We have in a few years scaled BEVs to 3 TWh per year. For grid duty batteries last 10-15 years. They are essentially the same batteries. Some have different form factors and whatever, but the core is the same.
This seems like grasping for the straws. Denying what’s infront of your eyes because we still need a few more years of scaling until it will happen no matter what, just assuming a continued buildout to saturation.
The grid works on timescales of decades. With the current deployment rate, no matter how you try to belittle it, we’ve already locked in a complete revamping of our grids.
And this also disregards that second life automotive batteries are incredibly hot on the market. All those TWh of batteries will become available for stationary use when the cars are scrapped.
Maybe not in western markets due to labor costs, but definitely in developing economies.
For the general public no harm can come their way.
Unless they through some mechanical failure manage to walk underneath a wind turbine shedding or collapsing.
Same with solar. Which is even less risky.
For nuclear power the about all effects from a large scale failure will impact society through either radiation or life changing evacuations.
And then society is on the hook to pay for the entire cleanup work.
For renewables the only people who get harmed are those who work in the industry. The risk for the general public is zero.
Within a generation costs lowered, but between generations they exploded.
And the reductions were to small to make a dent in how horrifyingly expensive new built nuclear power is in 2026.
Like I said. The costs are 40% lower than Flamanville 3 and 70% lower than Hinkley Point C.
Imaginary cheap and fast to build nuclear power is amazing. It also does not exist. In South Korea those costs are from before the corruption scandal.
In China they are barely building nuclear power. It peaked at 4.7% of their grid mix in 2021 and is now down to 4.3%. For every plan they release the nuclear portion shrinks and is pushed further into the future.
Then I just see you trying to handwave the study away. The entire point is literally to prove that Denmark does not need to rely on its neighbors, and still get a cheaper result.
And like I said. Denmark is the hard case due to the winter sun being awful. As soon as you go south in latitude the problem becomes vastly easier. We’re talking like 99% of the worlds population having more sunlight than Denmark.