This situation becomes obvious when you want to use the search box to retrieve old conversations. I use Discord every day, so I fall in the first category in your post. However, every time I try to find an old conversation, Discord UX and search engine make it super hard, if not downright impossible. I can feel the pain of a user who would have just arrived on the server.
> I work at a company with >1000 google workspace users.
> That's enough that someone at Google will acknowledge what you're reporting is a bug on their end, and that they can reproduce it. But it's not enough to get the bug fixed.
I will try to remember that the next time I deal with an open-source project, either as a user raising an issue, or as a project contributor helping solve such issues.
Often, we do not realize how lucky we are that contributors to open-source projects help fix the bugs which we report.
It is clear by the mention of "several orders of magnitude" that we are talking about a database which fits in a few MB of disk space on a machine with a few GB of RAM.
If the interviewee has never worked with a database which would fit in the memory of the machine, and if the company only deals with such databases, then it is clear that it was not a good fit. Failing the interview does not mean that the interviewee is bad, just that they don't know how to count that low, and thus were not the person for the job.
> If the interviewee has never worked with a database which would fit in the memory of the machine, and if the company only deals with such databases, then it is clear that it was not a good fit.
Why? That's not clear at all to me. Most of the job is the same, and the parts that are different are themselves mostly removing steps that aren't needed at a smaller scale.
Yeah. Or they veer off and discuss setting up Redshift and designs a whole ETL pipeline and data warehousing solution and a Hadoop cluster when a local file and sqlite is much more appropriate.
From what I remember, the suspect is believed to be the leader of an anarchist group responsible for squatting places, to struggle against the move of wealthy people to North-Eastern Paris.
They have made the news for squatting one place in particular: the restaurant "Le Petit Cambodge", as it is one of the restaurants targetted by terrorists on November 13, 2015.
The government policy for a reduction to 50% is not based on issues with nuclear power itself. As far as I have seen, there are mainly 2 reasons mentioned in the public debate: i) a concern about the disposal of nuclear wastes and the long-term cost of their storage, and ii) the desire to follow other countries' policies, with a focus on wind, water and sunlight, rather than leading the way with the cheapest and most modern solution for electricity production.
The decision was written in the law in 2015 [1,2], with a statement that renewable electricity (wind, water) should reach 40% of the production, which implies that nuclear power should not account for 70% in the future.
Overall, I believe this is not a bad idea because i) renewable electricity is bound to get better thanks to worldwide research, and ii) it is smart not to put all your eggs in the same basket.
Where have you seen nuclear is the cheapest solution for electrity production? Nuclear has some benefits, but price does seem to be one of them (and actually one of the reasons for preferring renewable)
On a ‘basic capacity price’ type basis, nuclear is dirt cheap. When you throw in endless political tarpits and their side effects (like having no economies of scale at all despite the clear opportunity for them) then yes, it is very expensive. shrug
Most nuclear projects outside of China basically turned into exercises in endless planning churn and endless delays for no rational reason to appease anti-progress political factions long ago. For an example of a similar money pit/tarpit playing out in a similar way, check out “High Speed”
Rail in California.
You can make the case that regulation inflates the cost of nuclear power plants, and that's somewhat true, but the deep problem is the cost of the steam turbine and other facilities (e.g. heat exchangers) to accept energy at the low temperatures that the LWR works at.
All of that is so big and expensive it would be hard to make the economics work even if you got the heat for free.
A liquid metal fast reactor or a molten salt reactor or a high temperature gas cooled reactor could power a closed-cycle gas turbine
which would fit in the employee break room of the turbine house at a nuclear plant. Such a "fourth-generation" nuclear power plant might have compelling economics to build, but it's hard to believe anybody is going to start and finish an LWR outside of China.
It's little appreciated that the cost of the steam turbine is what killed coal circa 1980. Once GE adapted aerospace turbines for low-capital cost power plants on the ground, it made no sense to build more thermal coal plants.
In the late 1970s you see various attempts to save the coal industry, plausibly you could have gotten better capital costs pyrolyzing the coal and running the gas through a gas turbine. This kind of technology is making a comeback because it can be coupled with carbon storage to make CO2 free or CO2 negative energy.
Eh, the basic economics of a PWR or even BWR are quite sound and you don’t need fancy tech to change that. Even with very expensive uranium and very expensive turbines, it doesn’t change that (depending on the number of orders of magnitude we’re talking about of course). And if you’re making 10x-100x of the things in a few years, it actually gets cheaper for both, since you can build a series of turbines, or reopen a sizable mine and just do it, instead of what we do now.
And now, instead of it taking a couple years to build with predictable timelines and approvals, you end up in decades long and impossible to predict legal fights that drag out construction; ruin any sort of economies of scale; and put everyone into a ‘meh’ state when it comes to actually getting anything done on a timeline. I know folks in Nuclear Engineering for some of the plants that literally have spent a decade plus generating paperwork and going in circles. Very, very, very well paid folks I might add.
A steam turbine doesn’t cost $5 billion dollars and 5 years per plant like these things do.
Nuclear is very expensive, that's why even countries very positive to nuclear aren't happily replacing their old reactors. France did the math recently, 100 billion euros for 10 new reactors. The old ones are better from an economical point of view so it's much better to try and keep them going.
(1) If you could build a nuclear reactor for the sticker price, there's the problem that other energy sources got cheaper, specifically natural gas fired Brayton cycle turbines. To justify nuclear power at the sticker price you need to price carbon emissions.
(2) Nuclear power plants cost many more times to build than the sticker price. Some people blame delays on opposition to nuclear power, but the delays seem intrinsic to the process in industry. AP1000 construction was hung up in the U.S. because it was hung up in China (where environmentalists get shot) and it was hung up there because the factory had trouble make a pump that was supposed to be easier to make.
On one hand you could make the case for a real accounting of the type (2) problem (which I suspect is a game of "Poker" where suppliers quote a lowball price because they know buyers will keep putting chips in the pot.) But I think a more radical approach to the type (1) problem is necessary.
There is no engineering reason for those reactors to cost $10bln. Literally zero.
There are lots and lots of other reasons why they will probably cost even more than $10bln/ea though.
Just like there is literally zero engineering reason for the ‘high speed’ rail in California to cost the insane sums it is currently consuming, and will continue to consume.
The reason why the old ones are ‘better’ is because they already are operating under existing approvals, so the tarpits don’t work on them.
Not sure how me pointing out that organizational and political dysfunction, corruption, and general bullshit is the reason why it is 'hard' now (and wasn't as hard 50 years ago when the currently active reactors were built since folks seemed to actually want to build them more than just siphon money out of the system or throw wrenches into the works for ideological reasons), and how it doesn't seem to have anything to do with any of the actual technical or engineering difficulty is living in lalaland - but you do you I guess?
If we wanted to build cost effective and safe reactors, we could, and have many times in the past. Near as I can tell, almost no one does (compared to some cool new idea, or what becomes a one off, or ends up going back to the drawing board 50 times - all while getting paid), so we don't.
Same with high speed rail (and a bunch of other pork projects in CA), same with subways in many big cities, etc.
There's nothing wrong with pointing out what you think is the problem. It's just that you can't ignore reality, in the actual world it takes much longer to build and it's more expensive for whatever reason that may be.
If building a house (as in actually building the structure) costs $100k-$200k - typical labor and material costs in the US btw - but end to end costs for the same house are roughly $1 million-$2 million(typical in the Bay Area), is it honest or disingenuous to claim that lumber or labor costs are driving house costs up?
Because in this thread someone was claiming steam turbine costs were why nuclear was ‘expensive’, which is about as legit. Also in these nearby threads have been discussions about waste disposal (similar levels of not actually a problem), etc.
You’re similarly ignoring and seem to want to pretend that these costs are somehow fundamental to nuclear, despite me providing evidence it’s a general problem we have with building several types of things now, and is more political BS than anything fundamental to do with nuclear as a technology.
If the same thing happens to building roads, is it because ‘roads are expensive’? Or because ‘we screwed ourselves up even more so now we can’t build roads without going bankrupt’?
I don't claim this is unique for nuclear? The same is true of all big infrastructure projects, although I don't see how that is relevant as a counterargument. These costs are the current reality, so that's what I base my opinion on. I'm interested in the actual cost, not the theoretical cost cause it's the actual cost that will ultimately impact us.
The UK tried building gas cooled reactors that produced more useful and efficient steam temperatures on the output. They worked - in fact, they make up pretty much the entire UK nuclear generation capacity these days - but turned out not to be as practical as boring PWR reactors due to various annoying engineering issues. There are other reactor concepts out there which promise to do better but they're pretty untested and would also likely turn out to be harder to build than they look.
They're still running a steam turbine but it is more compact and efficient.
Fourth-generation reactors won't be easy, but the motivation to develop them is strong.
Arguably there is a lot of experience with liquid metal fast reactors, many of the problems like sodium fires and problems with inspection are probably solved. Think
Nah, those (if legitimate) aren’t tarpits. We’ve had, at various times, approved locations for waste, and we actually still approve the storage of waste on site - indefinite storage of ‘temporary waste’. Paying into an insurance fund in case of a nuclear disaster would be far cheaper than what has been happening.
What happens instead is 1) a set of requirements is made, 2) someone spends years figuring it out. 3) it gets approved, 4) before it finishes getting built (or started to be built in some case), someone files a lawsuit causing it to stop or changes the rules, 5) rinse and repeat, or;
Someone gets the bright idea to try something new and unproven, and then they pay all the R&D time, and then the first thing starts happening, and then you’re tarpitted again.
In California it even appears to be part of the plan for high speed rail; as the engineering firms get paid every time the plan needs to get redrawn, and they can keep juking between plans forever until the funds are gone. This happened with Caltrain electrification for a decade. Billions spent for literally a 45 miles’ish stretch of track to electrify it, with zero progress over that time.
If folks are being paid to make plans instead of make a project, that’s usually what they are going to do.
Also a situation I got reminded of near where my parents live - hydrogen plant being built in the middle of the desert. Developers get courted by city A who has cheap land available. City A has a city manager that works out a sweet heart deal that basically funds some of the planning costs (and cuts city revenue by a couple million/yr for a few years doing so), but in exchange for approval and at the last minute, requires they hook to the recycled water source he stupidly had run several miles away instead of the normal way to cover his ass for that bad decision. City B, literally borders on the other side of the street, has a recycled water pipe literally on the other side of the street.
After years of planning and millions spent on their side, the numbers don’t pencil out anymore because of this, so the developers go ‘wtf’, and buy a plot on the other side of the street that is in City B (more expensive, but still cheaper than running 5 miles of large diameter water pipe), cut and paste the plans, and are going to build next year after 3+ years of wasted time and millions in cash wasted.
And this is for a private, for profit project that they want to actually happen ASAP. When the taxpayers are footing the bill, the shenanigans get way worse. When no one seems to notice when the schedule keeps sleeping year after year? Even worse.
Fun fact: all the nuclear waste that the US has ever produced fits in football field at a height of 30 feet.
Currently, spent fuel just stays at the nuclear plants because there is so little of it and it's not a problem. You just put them in sealed casks and they sit there. You don't really want to lose access to the spent fuel either because if you develop breeder reactors that spent fuel is now just 'fuel'.
I know, but but your costs for both are going up, you're loosing your skills.
(The Macron -- Le Pen culture war politics might be even more depressing than here, too. At least I think the right side is winning here in that arena.)
For instance, it is discussed in this press article [1] published in 2016 and available in French. It is mentioned that nuclear power costs 60€/MWh, compared to 80€/MWh for wind power. It is also mentioned quite often in the French press: I have seen it mentioned a few days ago. The source mentioned in the 2016 press article is an official report [2] published in 2014.
However, it is true that the maintenance cost increases as the power plants get older.
Yeah I feel the end of life has not yet been factored in the price (ie the cost of dismantling the reactor or maintaining it alive forever). It would be very aligned with the general philosophy of nuclear ^^ (ie "the next generations will either figure it out or pay the price")
The dismantling cost has been factored in but given that they don't manage to reliably estimate construction costs I don't see why the estimate of the dismantling cost would be more accurate..
Most of the French nuclear reactors were built when they had the capacity to build many reactors and thus it was cheaper. The problem with a lot of current nuclear costs is that you have to reinvent the wheel every time. If you're mass producing then things get cheaper. We haven't mass produced reactors in decades.
Comparing non-dispatchable sources with dispatchable sources is comparing apples to oranges. Solar is cheap, until you saturate daytime consumption and have to start building storage. Similar with wind.
Nuclear isn't dispatchable - most reactors have a design output and are not intended to be ramped up and down. They require a big chunk of actual dispatchable power (natural gas mainly) to provide demand following. LACE is a measure which takes into account the value of the generated electricity as well as the cost of production but nuclear does poorly here also as much of its output occurs when wholesale prices are low.
French reactors can adjust their power outputs in 30 minutes between 100% and 20% their nominal power rating. I think we are actually the only country doing this.
(EDF: "In France, a nuclear power plant is able to ramp up or down between 100% and 20% of nominal power in half an hour, and again after at least two hours, twice a day.", source https://hal-edf.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01977209/document bottom of page 4)
A better term might be "non-intermittent". Nuclear plants produce the same amount of energy regardless of time of day or wind speed. And power output can be modulated with more aggressive cooling. Same thermal output of the reactor, but lessened electrical output.
By comparison, any plan for a renewable grid requires massive storage capacity. Most hand-wave this away by assuming some new technology will effectively make storage free.
Nuclear plants are also "intermittent" - the average US reactor spends 32 days offline per year.
Does that mean a grid relying heavily on nuclear needs massive amounts of storage?
No - it means you need to have redundant capacity which is the solution also used for wind and solar. The benefit of nuclear in this regard isn't that it's "non-intermittent" - it's that the most common failure modes for a nuclear nuclear are statistically independent (except when it's not like in a natural catastrophe situation - like Fukushima).
But as a grid operator trying to match supply and demand, it's just a variant of the same problem.
The solution preferred by grids heavily dependent on wind for example is simply to over-provision wind and use de-rating while maintaining natural gas capacity reserve (which is relatively cheap). This approach is relatively proven at this stage with some European countries deriving around half their electricity from "intermittent" renewables.
A capacity factor of over 90% is exceptionally good. Wind and solar are 35% and 25% respectively [1]. And this down time for refuelling and other tasks is scheduled in advance. This not at all comparable to solar and wind's uncontrollable intermittency. A nuclear grid requires vastly less overproduction than a renewable grid. As you point out, renewable sources end up falling back on fossil fuels to pick up the slack. That's not an option if our goal is zero emissions.
Hydrogen requires minimal modifications to gas turbines, notably the combustors need to be swapped out.
Storage and distribution works the same as for fossil methane (pressurized in cave systems/old gas wells).
Production is simple, and we yes, the efficiency is around 20-30% round-trip.
But that's enough to handle up to ~30% of electricity supply with less than 2x overcapacity.
And that's assuming you don't just slap carbon capture on a gas turbine you feed with fractionally distilled oxygen (>99% should be easily enough) and enough exhaust back-feed to not melt the turbine blades. A diesel would probably deal better with the combustion temperatures, though.
And Fischer–Tropsch can turn captured carbon into piston-engine-suitable liquid fuel, if you'd need to.
and in many places capacity factor for Solar is much lower than that
IIRC, for Poland, we're talking about needing to build 10GW worth of solar generation to get 1GW into grid on average, or 4GW of wind. Assuming ~24GWh of storage to make it capable of providing that 1GW continuously.
nuclear dispatching is mostly done over international distribution in UE. the requirements in more dispatchables power like gaz or hydro is'nt comparable with weather randomized energy sources with poor efficiency which usually require a 1:1 alternative dispatchables sources (gaz or hydro again). France electric energy mix is/was around 70-80% nuclear.
> i) a concern about the disposal of nuclear wastes and the long-term cost of their storage
I don't understand this concern. If you already have several decades worth of nuclear waste to manage/dispose, is it really more expensive to manage/dispose another several decades? For example, if you're disposing in a deep geologic repository, is it really much more expensive to put a little bit of waste in a big hole versus a little more waste?
> Overall, I believe this is not a bad idea because i) renewable electricity is bound to get better thanks to worldwide research, and ii) it is smart not to put all your eggs in the same basket.
I don't think anyone is advocating 100% nuclear energy, but nuclear is the only clean base load energy source. Without nuclear, we're putting all of our eggs in the "renewable energy" basket (assuming the goal is to move off of fossil fuels) and praying for a miracle breakthrough for base load. Considering that it takes decades to bring a new nuclear plant online, decommissioning a nuclear plant is the height of folly. It necessarily means more dependence on fossil fuels and the countries who provide them (in Europe, this largely means Russia).
DALL-E 2 spits as many outputs as you want. Then you choose the one you prefer.