←back to thread

410 points jjulius | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.674s | source
Show context
massysett ◴[] No.41885131[source]
"Tesla says on its website its FSD software in on-road vehicles requires active driver supervision and does not make vehicles autonomous."

Despite it being called "Full Self-Driving."

Tesla should be sued out of existence.

replies(9): >>41885238 #>>41885239 #>>41885242 #>>41885290 #>>41885322 #>>41885351 #>>41885429 #>>41885656 #>>41893664 #
systemvoltage[dead post] ◴[] No.41885290[source]
[flagged]
mbernstein ◴[] No.41885299[source]
Nuclear power adoption is the largest force to combat climate change.
replies(3): >>41885358 #>>41885366 #>>41885469 #
Retric ◴[] No.41885366[source]
Historically, hydro has prevented for more CO2 than nuclear by a wide margin. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s...

Looking forward Nuclear isn’t moving the needle. Solar grew more in 2023 alone than nuclear has grown since 1995. Worse nuclear can’t ramp up significantly in the next decade simply due to construction bottlenecks. 40 years ago nuclear could have played a larger role, but we wasted that opportunity.

It’s been helpful, but suggesting it’s going to play a larger role anytime soon is seriously wishful thinking at this point.

replies(4): >>41885405 #>>41885435 #>>41885448 #>>41894615 #
mbernstein ◴[] No.41885435[source]
History is a great reference, but it doesn't solve our problems now. Just because hydro has prevented more CO2 until now doesn't mean that plus solar are the combination that delivers abundant, clean energy. There are power storage challenges and storage mechanisms aren't carbon neutral. Even if we assume that nuclear, wind, and solar (without storage) all have the same carbon footprint - I believe nuclear is less that solar pretty much equivalent to wind - you have to add the storage mechanisms for scenarios where there's no wind, sun, or water.

All of the above are significantly better than burning gas or coal - but nuclear is the clear winner from an CO2 and general availability perspective.

replies(1): >>41885536 #
Retric ◴[] No.41885536[source]
Seriously scaling nuclear would involve batteries. Nuclear has issues being cost effective at 80+% capacity factors. When you start talking sub 40% capacity factors the cost per kWh spirals.

The full cost of operating a multiple nuclear reactor for just 5 hours per day just costs more than a power plant at 80% capacity factor charging batteries.

replies(1): >>41885579 #
1. mbernstein ◴[] No.41885579[source]
> Seriously scaling nuclear would involve batteries. Nuclear has issues being cost effective at 80+% capacity factors.

I assume you mean that sub 80% capacity nuclear has issues being cost effective (which I agree is true).

You could pair the baseload nuclear with renewables during peak times and reduce battery dependency for scaling and maintaining higher utilization.

replies(1): >>41885648 #
2. Retric ◴[] No.41885648[source]
I meant even if you’re operating nuclear as baseload power looking forward the market rate for electricity looks rough without significant subsidies.

Daytime you’re facing solar head to head which is already dropping wholesale rates. Off peak is mostly users seeking cheap electricity so demand at 2AM is going to fall if power ends up cheaper at noon. Which means nuclear needs to make most of its money from the duck curve price peaks. But batteries are driving down peak prices.

Actually cheap nuclear would make this far easier, but there’s no obvious silver bullet.