Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | grumbelbart's commentslogin

> But electricity is under half (30%?40%?) and the rest of that energy isn't fossil-free.

The trick of course is that if you electrify heating and transportation they'll need much less energy. Your average car with an ICE has an efficiency of 20-40%, electric cars have 60-80%. Heating your house with gas has an efficiency of around 100%, heat pumps have 300%-500%.


In theory gas boilers for heating are above 90% efficient. Not 100% because to achieve 100% what you'd have to do is keep the exhaust gases (which are hot) inside, where the people are, and unfortunately the exhaust gases are poisonous so that's a terrible idea.

To hit 90% the boiler needs to be designed to condense water vapour out of the exhaust gases, this way we'll get back the energy needed to turn water into a vapour which is a large portion of the energy embodied by the exhaust gas. And to do that the vapour needs to pass a low temperature fluid, so we use the input fluid we were about to heat with the boiler anyway, we want this fluid to be cooler than about 55°C but that means if we're using the boiler to heat a home with radiators, rather than to make fresh hot water for cleaning etc. we need our return temperature from the radiators to be less than 55°C which means we need our flow temperature to be lower (than the typical 70-80°C programmed by builders, not lower than 55°©) or else the radiators can't possibly radiate enough heat to hit that number, which means we're actually doing much of the same heating efficiency work we'd have to do to use heat pumps anyway...


Not sure where you get your numbers but they are way off. Natural gas is 90% (nothing is 100%). Heat pumps are geothermal masquerading as electric. And the highest number I ever heard for a heat pump was 135% which was under nearly ideal circumstances. In Finland, heat pumps can't make nearly enough heat to handle a winter there so you need something else too or instead of.

Truth is that electricity is great for kinetic energy but terrible at making heat. Most forms of energy can be transformed into another form of energy at about 50%. Electricity is the weird one where its 90% to motion but only 10% to heat. So if you want heat, you want something that makes heat directly. That's why natural gas heating (for building and homes) is usually lower carbon any other method. When you try to switch to electric, it makes things worse because of these inefficiencies. And heat pumps are great when you are in the right environment for them (like say the UK down to say Spain or so). But in Finland, you are going to need more than just some pipes in the ground and a fan.


135% is quite low for an air source heat pump. For instance a Samsung HHSM-G600005-1 [0] claims to have been tested to be 485% efficient at heating water to 35°C and 283% efficient at heating water to 55°C, both with 7°C air temperature. For Finland you'd want to find a heat pump with a datasheet specifying SCOP for specifically the EN 14825 Northern Europe climate zone. I couldn't find one with some quick googling, but I found a Swedish site selling a air-to-air heat pump[1] claiming 222% efficiency at -25 °C.

0: The Cop numbers in this product spec: https://www.snhtradecentre.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/...

1: https://varmepumpshopen.se/luftvarmepump/panasonic-hz25zke


> Heat pumps are geothermal masquerading as electric

Air-to-air heat pumps are quite common 1-4 family homes. Even in Nordic countries such as Finland: https://www.sulpu.fi/heat-pump-sales-returned-to-a-growth-pa...

> And the highest number I ever heard for a heat pump was 135% [...] Truth is that electricity is great for kinetic energy but terrible at making heat. Most forms of energy can be transformed into another form of energy at about 50%. Electricity is the weird one where its 90% to motion but only 10% to heat.

Sorry but absolutely not, that's wrong on several levels. First off, in its most basic form of resistive heating, electric heating is already close to 100%. Heat pumps are even better, and I'll just quote Wikipedia

> At a cost of 1 kWh of electricity, they can transfer 1 to 4.5 kWh of thermal energy into a building.


Are you saying that, for a given amount of electricity, you can only convert 10% to heat? I can't even think of a way to make this correct, since all forms of energy end up as 100% heat, the question is just whether the heat ends up in your home or not.

So, what do you mean with the 10% metric?


> If you were to design an entire ATC system from scratch (pilot interfaces, sensors everywhere in the airport and planes etc) it can be automated.

Even then you'll probably run into the long-tail distribution issues, similar to self-driving cars. 99.9% of all situations are pretty standard, but once in a while something so abstruse happens that it's not pre-programmed and requires some creativity to solve.

> What you can probably do is create software which observes traffic and simulates it into the future and notifies the human ATCs about risks.

Fully agree. Some of the recent close calls really were "obvious" much earlier, meaning they were not caused by late course changes.


Is this some kind of calibration then? I'd expect that the probabilities automatically adjust during training, such that in "lock" mode, for example, syntax-breaking tokens have a very low probability and would not be picked even wich higher temperature.

I'm reasonably sure Russia would take you.

I rather doubt it, but - can you back that up by some examples at least?

Would using an actors face and voice as training data be fair use?

What it the model then creates a virtual actor that is very close to the real actor?


>What it the model then creates a virtual actor that is very close to the real actor?

"Likeness" is a separate concept from copyrights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights


I wish I lived in the alternative timeline where open source folks didn't look a gift horse in the mouth and actually used these tools to copy left the shit out of software to the point where proprietary closed source software has no advantage.

But instead we've got people posting "honey pots" that an LLM will immediately detect and route around.


now companies will get AI to do clean room implementation of what ever they like, open source is dead

get one AI to generate the spec using the source code of X project and then have another AI implement it....


or the open source ecosystem will go through a renaissance as people rapidly build amazing open source software that takes weeks instead of years to develop


I bet we'd cure all cancers in a month if everyone whining about slop actually went and did something about it.


The data behind the app is pretty solid, but lightningmaps.org has a much better visualization (based on the same data).


I use them as cheap-man's VPN. A ssh server on a public IP but a non-obvious port brings you into the network, and port forwarding allows you to connect to relevant endpoints in your remote network via localhost:12345.


> My Weird Hill is that we should be building things with GPT-4.

Absolutely. I always advocate that our developers have to test on older / slower machines. That gives them direct (painful) feedback when things run slow. Optimizing whatever you build for an older "something" (LLM model, hardware) will make it excel on more modern somethings.


Putting sulfur into the right layers of the atmosphere seems to be the currently best viable options. It's not overly expensive, either. It acts fast and is reversible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio...


Dumb question: would this also lower solar panel yields?


Thank you. This reading lowers my anxiety. I believe we'll rationally - and in a hurry - come down to this kind of solution. It makes solid sense.


I'm sure that are no adverse effects.

This reads like someone with the means to eat good food eating junk food and then putting themselves on weight loss drugs to counteract the effects. I'm sure temporarily it might work but I don't believe that the shocks that produce meaninful cooling effects are without consequence - in fact, I suspect they double the consequences by adding yet another factor to the destabilization.

I could be wrong, and it could a short term solution to stop the bleeding, but I have a deep suspicion of adding more things to the atmosphere given our history with the CO2 in question, tetrafluoroethane, etc.

Lookin at the wikipedia it does sound a lot like "chemtrails". They describe airplanes as being able to disseminate these aerosols and these days when I look up at the sky there is always a straight line of "cloud" forming behind airplanes.


The low prices of solar and batteries are a glimmer of hope. For many regions it's now the cheapest source of electricity.


You mean cutting into the profit/MONEY of these large corporations? How will they survive!?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: