Does you wife shake well?

I think I actually did. I applaud your idealistic passion, but its met with cold chaotic reality of our society. We could go 100% renewable in a decade or two. There is no doubt about that. Just like we could end wars forever. We just dont have the motivation to do so. Its not just few people. Its all of us.

What we can do and what we are doing is using resources we have available to make the transition possible bit by bit. The renewables are going to win, its almost inevitable. But we have to make sure we are ready for it. An example of what we are doing to rely less on the dirty power plants is we share them with other countries. We are maximizing the utility of those remaining power plants. This is happening right now.

>As I said, and as you apparently missed.

You didnt say.

>And the cost of not doing so is even more astronomical.

You arent wrong, but its such a childishly naive thing to say. You are pretending the world is united in shared vision and shared responsibility. Power engineering is extremely fractured.

Let me give you the basic problem. The power generation is a private sector. Corporation that build power plants do so for profit. They dont care about earth, health, politics and whatnot. How exactly do you plan on getting them to lose money on their investment? Same thing apply to commercial batteries that we would have to build tons to support renewable power plants. To stress my point further. You are not paying for power plants right now and you dont get a say.

To look at the "big picture" as you say, you had to take a few steps back and your head ended up in clouds. Let me try it. Crime cost us a lot. All the damages, the cost of justice system and police. And above all, the priceless cost of lives. But I think I have a solution. How about we all just stop committing crimes. Wow, that was easy. And its absolutely free. Hurray for the big picture!

Everything you claimed about power engineering industry. Most importantly that its cheaper to go renewable and that the reason why we dont is because a conspiracy of presumably oil industry.

The cost to force renewables is astronomical and the reason why we dont go full renewable is because the power engineering industry is not even remotely ready and its economically unviable.

Thats because nothing is there. You have no idea about how any of this work.

I am absolutely certain that you have a field where you are very knowledgeable and immediately see though BS. But in this case you are the BS in power engineering.

>Tell me more about "people like me" and especially how you know this based on a two-sentence comment on reddit.

You are making it sound like I am projecting things onto you instead of stating the obvious fact that you dont care about the economic or power engineering factor. How do I know that? Because you ignored both in your post.

>Why would it not be an issue of both?

Because the way we generate, transmit and store power is literally what power engineering is. The main pillars of power engineering industry has been tasked by the state to ensure the maintenance, development and the stability of the grid. If the grid fails and people die, its their head, not any other departments.

>That's (one of) the engineering problems, yes. There are other problems too.

You just destroyed your previous post here. You went from "its the fault of big corporations" to "oh yeah, there are some engineering issues that prevent it too".

>That's a resource allocation problem.

The economy is resource allocation problem, yes. A very huge obstacle.

>Lots more assumptions that are also incorrect.

I met so many people that share their opinion on renewable energy without knowing anything about power engineering. You among them. I am not assuming. I am certain. You dont know anything about power engineering, if you did you would consider basic engineering challenges and restrictions. And you dont care. If you did, you would learn the basics.

>Draw a big box around the whole problem. Government problems, transportation, engineering, everything. Ask the question: what costs more? Switching to renewables, or not switching? The answer is not switching. The economic costs due to what you are hand-waving away as "ecology" are going to be orders of magnitude greater than all the engineering problems you are fixated on - and we're going to still have to solve those engineering problems, as well as solve a whole bunch of new ones.

No, that is not the answer. You have been fed propaganda from people that are just like you. People who ignore partial problems and make assumptions to make the math look like its works out in favor of renewables. However the main problem is that is not even the question.

Also let me specifically point out your attitude of "there will be problems, but other people can figure those out". This is the problem. The people you want to figure those out are constantly telling you its not viable, but you dont care about that either.

>This has been true the whole time...

That just dumb. But lets focus on the conspiracy theory. You know who likes money? Everybody. If renewable energy were profitable, the people who own oil companies would invest in them. They dont care about oil, the planet or anything. Its about profit.

This is exactly what happened in my country. My government gave solar energy large subsidy. The math was that if few take advantage of that, it wont matter and we will get more renewable sources. For few years nothing happened. Then huge amount of solar powerplants were build in just two years before the state was able to change the subsidy plan. Many of those that owned dirty powerplants went for it. It was free money if you had the capital.

VAR is a unit of reactive power as opposed to Apparent and Real power. You want to limit the reactive power as much as you can during transmission, to minimize natural loses.

How should I know that when you replied to somebody else who did not talk about reactive power. But alright, while this topic is not very important, you are still wrong on the price. Which is not a big deal, but just so its clear.

Jesus, time wasted because you couldnt provide simple information. You could have cleared this misunderstanding right away.

First off, you should have said so then. Second, why are you talking about Voltage stabilization when the frequency stability is the more pressing issue? Finally Voltage stability is tied to electricity demand/production just like frequency stability. The way you stabilize both the frequency nad Voltage on the gird level is by controlling the generation.

Unless you are talking about Voltage stability at local levels of end consumers. Which again, why would you do that? Then it is question of the actual wires.

Do you even know what you are talking about?

You left out the most important part of this plan, OP. Everybody knows that we have the capability to create huge amount of cheap energy. That hasnt been an issue for decades.

The problem is the grid stability and Elon's plan is for everybody to buy a tesla car and use that as a huge virtual battery to balance the grid. Now this is a logistic nightmare, economically unviable and maybe even plain impossible.

However if there is anything I want people to take away from this "plan". Its that Tesla is to profit big. As in BIG. As in becoming part of indispensable state infrastructure. The guy who owns Tesla came with a plan that will not only financially skyrocket Tesla, but make our civilization actually depend on it. That is the plan here.

>when it comes to stabilising the grid, those disadvantages are irrelevant.

Run that by me again? The stabilizing happens by charging/discharging those batteries. If you discharge the whole capacity of the battery, it will not stabilize anything. So how do you reckon that the capacity is irrelevant to grid stabilization?

Also to claim that cost is irrelevant to anything, ever, is just the dumbest thing. Cost is the ever present all important enabler. If the battery is not economically viable, it wont be there to stabilize the grid in the first place.

Yeah, no, stop spreading your pseudo conspiracy theories. People like you focus solely on the ecology of the renewables, not the economy and more importantly the power engineering. And make no mistake, this is an issue of power engineering, not ecology.

The problem was, is and for a long time will continue being the transmission and storage of electricity. The price of generation is an issue, but in the opposite direction than you would expect. Low electricity prices are harmful for the grid at the moment as conventional "dirty" powerplants are being closed due to not being economically viable. However we need these powerplants for now to stabilize the grid.

But people who only care about renewable energy dont talk about that. Not only because it goes against their claims, but also because they simply dont know or care about that.

The movie version is so much worse than the book its unreal. The difference is that in the book the line took place during prefight exchange. In the movie it was a stupid oneliner before a kill. It stopped the momentum of the battle and made the audience think she was able to kill him because of her sex.

Now knowing the whole context, I dont understand why they picked the first part of the quote that is about gender instead of the second part that is about standing up to protect your family.

>Éowyn I am, Éomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him

This is much better candidate for motivational line.

That just means I really didnt like it. I thought it so bad I googled what the hell that was about and found out that there is a cut from movies storyline in the books that explains that it had nothing to do with gender, but the hobbit who stuck the Witch King before her one liner did so with very special magic dagger that made Witch King vulnerable.

In my opinion it was a horrible line, but that doesnt matter. What matters is that "I am no man" is in no way motivational line.

I cant be objectively wrong in my subjective opinion. I could also do without the unnecessary personal attacks.

I liked the scene in the blueray 2.1 extended version where the scene continued:

>Witch King: no man can kill me
Eowyn: I am no man
*Eowyn stabs the Witch King*
Witch King: Ackshually, the word "man" signifies a person in this case, not gender.
*Witch King kills Eowyn*

Its baffling to me that there are no Ripley or Sarah Connor quotes in there.

Honestly "I am no man" was almost as bad as the quote from Rey. It felt out of place, unsatisfying, dumb and like a comedy bit. She was able to kill the most feared creature in the world because of language semantic. I have no idea how that ended up in the movie.

Thats a snarky comment that is in no way empowering. Its toxic, thats what it is.

Just giving you pointers on PC.

I hate the 2020s

Thats kind of sexist, my dude. If you wanted to join in the virtue signaling, you blundered.

Definitively not unique. Which is why it's not uncommon to find another key that fits.

The pattern makes big difference in trying to manually pick the lock pin by pin. Good locks will have very small room for maneuvering the lock pick.

Older locks, for example the one pictured above, have plenty of room for you to comfortably pick.

The reason you cant put keys into other keyholes is often caused by the zigzag pattern of the key being different to the lock. The zigzag is there to increase security.

Not sure if people explained the main principle properly. The key position every pin at the same time into the correct position to allow the lock to open. If all the pins were perfectly made there wouldnt be other ways to unlock it.

But they arent. They wont be. They cant be. And you can use this to position each of the pins into correct position one at a time. This is why you have the turning tool that you apply pressure to to make the pins press into the sides of their holes. At any given moment, due to the imperfection, only one will be pressed against the walls completely.

Once you position that first pin, the lock will turn ever so slightly and another pin will now be the one that is pressed. Do that for all pins and the lock will eventually turn open. All that is left is to find the correct order of pins being pressed into the side of the cylinder.

The pin that is pressed is the one that is "binding". When there is "nothing" on a pin, it means its not being pressed at all. When pin that was binding "clicks" it means it has been set into the right position, which made the cylinder rotate and now a new pin is "binding".

No, not really. There are better ways to destructively attack homes than the pins inside of a lock.