Hacker News: pfdietz

New comment by pfdietz in "Helium is hard to replace"

pfdietz — Sat, 11 Apr 2026 16:20:15 +0000

The balloon almost certainly contained a mixture of hydrogen and air (or possibly oxygen).

New comment by pfdietz in "Helium is hard to replace"

pfdietz — Sat, 11 Apr 2026 16:18:45 +0000

How necessary are party balloons?

New comment by pfdietz in "Previously unknown verses by Empedocles found on papyrus"

pfdietz — Sat, 11 Apr 2026 16:17:16 +0000

I'm hoping in these verses Empedocles complains about crappy copper from a Babylonian merchant.

New comment by pfdietz in "Microsoft hasn't had a coherent GUI strategy since Petzold"

pfdietz — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 14:47:10 +0000

That sounds like Goodhart's Law in action.

New comment by pfdietz in "Number in man page titles e.g. sleep(3)"

pfdietz — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 13:36:37 +0000

I'm feeling old now.

New comment by pfdietz in "Europe asks if reviving nuclear is the answer to energy shocks"

pfdietz — Sun, 05 Apr 2026 20:08:05 +0000

> I think nuclear should be pursued even when building the plants is expensive.

Why? Do you have a fetish for wasting money?

New comment by pfdietz in "Europe asks if reviving nuclear is the answer to energy shocks"

pfdietz — Sun, 05 Apr 2026 20:07:13 +0000

The best time to have given up on new nuclear construction was decades ago. The second best time is now.

New comment by pfdietz in "Europe asks if reviving nuclear is the answer to energy shocks"

pfdietz — Sun, 05 Apr 2026 20:06:33 +0000

Operational costs are more that just fuel, they are also the cost of staffing and fixed maintenance. These can also be considerable, especially if one amortizes the upgrades needed for extended service life.

New comment by pfdietz in "Europe asks if reviving nuclear is the answer to energy shocks"

pfdietz — Sun, 05 Apr 2026 19:39:04 +0000

Low temperature even makes PV slightly more efficient.

New comment by pfdietz in "Europe asks if reviving nuclear is the answer to energy shocks"

pfdietz — Sat, 04 Apr 2026 15:26:13 +0000

Achieving putative cost reduction from Nth-of-a-kind plants would involve large subsidies of large numbers of plants. The cost could well be in 13 digits.

New comment by pfdietz in "Europe asks if reviving nuclear is the answer to energy shocks"

pfdietz — Sat, 04 Apr 2026 15:16:43 +0000

I see. You make a claim, and your argument is "you haven't proved me wrong". Classic crank behavior.

You then back it up with the transparently nonsensical argument that "the sun doesn't shine at night." Batteries exist, you know.

You made the claim renewables require indefinite use of fossil fuels, you show your reasoning. An argument that ignores the existence of storage is not an argument, it's insulting verbal vomit.

New comment by pfdietz in "Europe asks if reviving nuclear is the answer to energy shocks"

pfdietz — Sat, 04 Apr 2026 11:35:40 +0000

You insult our intelligence by making such a transparently ridiculous argument. Try again.

New comment by pfdietz in "Europe asks if reviving nuclear is the answer to energy shocks"

pfdietz — Sat, 04 Apr 2026 04:27:57 +0000

They're hard to cost, which means that the numbers that are given are more aspirational than realistic. It's in the interest of those touting projects to be as optimistic as is tolerable when the estimate costs -- and everyone expects them to do this, so if they didn't and were more realistic they'd go nowhere.

New comment by pfdietz in "Europe asks if reviving nuclear is the answer to energy shocks"

pfdietz — Sat, 04 Apr 2026 04:17:16 +0000

> You missed the asterisk where endless dependence on coal, gas or oil is a non-optional requirement.

Please don't lie like this. Renewables do not require endless dependence on fossil fuels.

New comment by pfdietz in "Europe asks if reviving nuclear is the answer to energy shocks"

pfdietz — Sat, 04 Apr 2026 04:16:08 +0000

Geothermal is also looking promising, probably more so than nuclear.

New comment by pfdietz in "Solar and batteries can power the world"

pfdietz — Fri, 03 Apr 2026 23:36:08 +0000

It would be inaccurate in that it would not, in fact, be powering the world.

The bigger deceit in the statement was the implication that only batteries were needed to "power the world". This. Is. Wrong.

New comment by pfdietz in "The Technocracy Movement of the 1930s"

pfdietz — Fri, 03 Apr 2026 22:15:05 +0000

Efficiency was important in an environment where different civilizations were engaged in what amounts to a death struggle. Do we forget what won WW2?

New comment by pfdietz in "Solar and batteries can power the world"

pfdietz — Fri, 03 Apr 2026 21:53:28 +0000

So, about two orders of magnitude lower specific energy than Li-ion batteries. The extra cost per kg had better be damned small or this won't pencil out.

New comment by pfdietz in "Solar and batteries can power the world"

pfdietz — Fri, 03 Apr 2026 17:48:46 +0000

Compliance costs are there because the government takes up the burden of accident costs. If the government does that, you can expect the government to then have a say in how things are designed and operated.

New comment by pfdietz in "Solar and batteries can power the world"

pfdietz — Fri, 03 Apr 2026 17:46:12 +0000

The problem isn't technical dispatchability, it's economic dispatchability. A nuclear plant operated at 5-10% capacity factor would be ludicrously uneconomical, even to just operate.