After staring at it some more, I'd suggest perhaps switching places between the day of month and month of year circles. That way you would have consistently smaller unit of time=smaller circle.
That makes sense. I'm least happy with the (day-in-)month circle, but felt the calendar portion wasn't really useful without handling it somehow.
I wanted the year circle to evoke Earth's orbit, so it had to be near the Sun. Inserting another circle was breaking that intuition (already stretched, tbh) for me. I was flip-flopping between these two and finally decided on the current solution.
I'm even more unhappy[0] with the fact that the number of ticks and speed on that circle changes every month, depending on the calendar month duration. For a world clock, on month changes it also means that you can't represent the date correctly for all shown timezones.
I could have used some real-world phenomena that are close to our calendar month instead[1], as pointed out by another commenter. This would make it "more correct" but "less useful in everyday situations". Even though I don't plan to use it every day, one of the goals of the project was for it to aspire to being useful.
This is awesome! I kinda wanna make one that adapts even more to your location: lengthen and shorten the light part of the circle according to your local sunrise and sunset times! Unfortunately that kinda sorta breaks the neatness of displaying multiple timezones, since it won't line up nicely with different latitudes.
> lengthen and shorten the light part of the circle according to your local sunrise and sunset times!
It's really not obvious, especially in light mode, but if you switch to dark mode you can see the day circle has a "bolder" and a "thinner" part. Bolder is the daylight hours, and its length and position corresponds to the daylight hours (in this instance, of Zagreb, since that's the primary timezone for the clock).
You're correct in that it can't work if you have multiple lattitudes. I took the easy way out - I ignore that and just use the first one :X
Given the similarity in "inspired by" projects, how does this compare to iced? I've found iced to be surprisingly mature in every aspect I've tried, except the documentation, which is severely lacking
That tweet by Timothy Snyder is quite ridiculous. There's just no way that's the motivation behind all this.
Unfortunately it's also the only motivation anyone has presented that there is any real hope of actually achieving. And it's the kind of excuse trump could use to become glorious dictator. Or at least I wouldn't be surprised to learn he thinks it is.
No, I really don't think that's why this war was started. I don't think trump actually wants terrorist attacks in America. But it just might be what he will get, whether he likes it or not.
> I don't think trump actually wants terrorist attacks in America.
He might not but he's surrounded by christian evangelist lunatics who think bringing about the end times is their moral responsibility and, more importantly, they are in charge because Trump is an addled idiot who has fewer thoughts in his head than an orange cat.
The standard hotel experience is sitting wrapped in a towel and longing for my winter coat! Actually I would probably feel similarly in this study, 73°c is really cold for sauna. 90°c-100°c is the sweet spot
> Compare it to Swedish electricity prices in the winter which are around SEK 3/kWh, or roughly €300/MWh.
The averge electricity price in SE3 this winter, which had nuclear outages, was €100-110/MWh.
New built nuclear power requires €170-230/MWh for 40 years after the completion. Adding on taxes, VAT etc. means that to power the average Swedish home with new built nuclear power the average monthly bill needs to be €540. That is summer as winter.
Using extremely CAPEX heavy nuclear power to fix problems existing a few percent of the year is economic lunacy.
Where are you getting those numbers? I can't find a single source that quotes levelized cost of new nuclear above €150/MWH for newly constructed nuclear?
Below €100/MWh is pure fantasy. The proposed subsidy scheme for the French EPR2 fleet is a €100/MWh CFD for 40 years and interest free loans. Summing up to ~€200/MWh in total.
Your source provided several numbers for nuclear. One is $34/MWH, which is a average cost of existing plants, another number is $169/MWH a number they describe as "Represents illustrative LCOE values for Vogtle nuclear plant’s units 3 and 4"
Your source doesn't even support your statement!
As for Hinckley, I have 2 objections. A you have cherry picked the least cost effective reactor in the world, and are trying to pass it off as typical, and B, it's levelized cost of energy is £128/MWh which translates to €146.
Since we're apparently in the business of cherry picking, I chose Olkiluoto, with a levelized cost of €30/MWH.
Unfortunately the anti-nuclear crowd in Europe has a very loose relationship with reality, but I think it's only prudent we stick to actual numbers here on HN.
Relevant excerpt from the Wikipedia article:
For example, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), based on undisclosed portfolio of projects, estimated nuclear power LCOE at €190-375/MWh which is up to 900% higher than the published LCOE of €30/MWh for an actual existing Olkiluoto nuclear power plant, even after accounting for construction delays in OL3 block, although this number is based on an average LCOE with new and old reactors.
My data might be old, but at least it isn't made up!
Did you even read the footnote of the number you linked?
> The analysis is based on publicly available estimates and suggestions from selected industry experts, indicating a cost “learning curve” of ~30% between Vogtle units 3 and 4. Analysis assumes total operating capacity of ~2.2 GW, total capital cost of ~$32.3 billion, capacity factor of ~97%, operating life of 70 years and other operating parameters estimated by Lazard’s LCOE v14.0 results, adjusted for inflation.
97% capacity factor for 70 years. Meaning for a "Vogtle" started today, i.e. entering planning in 2006 and operational by 2023 = 17 years we have:
2026 + 17 + 70 = 2114
Do you realize the absolute insanity of trying to predict the profitability of a new built nuclear plant into the 2100s? For anyone with a basic level of economic understanding that number is an admission that new built nuclear power is absolute insanity.
EDF is already crying about renewables cratering the earning potential and increasing maintenance costs for the existing french nuclear fleet. Let alone the horrifyingly expensive new builds.
And that is France which has been actively shielding its inflexible aging nuclear fleet from renewable competition, and it still leaks in on pure economics.
And now you see the next part. That 97% capacity factor is also insanity in a world increasingly driven by renewables. EDF is today having trouble with their capacity factors reducing. How do you think that will play out?
> Since we're apparently in the business of cherry picking, I chose Olkiluoto, with a levelized cost of €30/MWH.
You do know that's wrong? Olkiluoto is also sitting up there with Hinkley, Flamanville and similar, but there are no public figures on the total cost. Only the settlement half a decade before the plant was completed, as costs and interest kept accumulating.
The only difference is that they signed a fixed price contract and the French paid for the vast majority of the plant. So you can in some cases argue that the Finnish side had an acceptable cost.
Not sure how you'll get the French to pay for this new built nuclear plant of yours. But I'm sure you'll work something out.
Flamanville 3 is also sitting at ~180 per MWh. I also love that you quickly dimissed Hinkley Point C as the "worst project ever", even though the contract was signed before they even started building.
Why don't you dare face reality? Why must new built nuclear power be the solution no matter the cost?
Do you dare look up the proposed subsidies for Sizewell C? Even before they have started building the expect cost is almost up there with Hinkley Point C.
EDF is at this point refusing any notion of a fixed price contract and are instead forcing a pure cost-plus expected profit pay as you go financing scheme. Where the ratepayers today pay enormous sums to maybe get some electricity in the 2040s.
Have you looked at the Polish subsidy scheme?
- The state gives a direct handout of ~€15B
- The state takes all financial and construction risk
- The plant gets a 40 year CFD which is adjusted to guarantee a profit for the plant.
How can you square that with your view of nuclear power being cheap to build?
I am saying that trying to justify new built nuclear power by projecting an economic life into the 2100s is just accepting that nuclear power is horrifyingly expensive but trying to use economic terms the general public does not understand to smudge the picture.
You also do realize that to have a nuclear reactor be operational for ~80 years everything but the outer shell and reactor pressure vessel is replaced. How cheap do you think that is?
The French have projected the cost to operate their paid off fleet until EOL to be €65 per MWh.
Are you starting to realize the conundrum? Or will you cherry-pick another study to not have to face reality?
I think you should show some curiosity. You are using the few sentences you cherry-picked from that Wikipedia article to shield yourself from reality.
What I linked was not a lobby group, but one of the largest institutional investors in the energy space.
And you did the same thing in that document. Finding the lowest number where the calculations they are based on make their real world application near non-existent.
It’s the report authors saying: even if we assume absolutely insane numbers new built nuclear power is still horrifyingly expensive.
You can go through comments and ask your favorite chat bot about the statements I have made. You will find that all are true, within the margin of error of like this not remembering if the source number was euros or usd.
During the most expensive month in recent years, the price has (on average) been <150 öre/kWh.
Like prices of dinosaur soup at the pump, the majority of the cost for an individual end consumer is not the electricity itself. On top of the market price, you pay fixed two fixed fees, transfer tariffs, surcharges, sales tax (moms), energy tax and other things I have forgotten.
reply