So what? First of all, was that even a Russian disinformation campaign? Second, and more importantly, so what? Imagine you're fighting the government of a powerful country that's trying to imprison you because they said you committed some crimes when you never even visited that country. Wouldn't you do anything you could to try and discredit them? Kim is fighting for his life.
> was that even a Russian disinformation campaign?
According to a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report and the prosecutor on the case[0], it originated with a document from the SVR.
> So what?
People (like Dotcom, who chose to pretend he had evidence), organizations (like Fox, etc who pushed this daily for months with zero evidence) and governments (like Russia’s who try to divide the U.S. by using freedom of speech as a weapon) who seek to muddy the waters of our collective information pool are scourges and should be treated as such.
Interesting. It is as bad as you say (21% coal), but after a decade of planning, coal is about to be phased out next year[0].
> The Agency planned to build the third unit of 900 MW capacity. This unit was expected to go online in 2012; however, the project was cancelled after its major purchaser, the city of Los Angeles, decided to become coal-free by 2020. [0]
> The plant includes a HVDC converter. It is scheduled in 2025 for replacement with an 840 MW natural gas plant, designed to also burn "green hydrogen."[0] (released by the electrolysis of water, using renewably generated electricity)
Yeah, I don't understand the use-case for hydrogen here. Why convert from electricity -> hydrogen -> electricity if everything is stationary? I suppose it could be useful for storage or long-distance transmission, but it seems like it would be much less efficient than other, simpler options.
The ACES project aims to use electrolysis to produce up to 100 metric tons of hydrogen per day, which will be stored in naturally occurring salt caverns at the site. The caverns have a potential storage capacity of 300 GWh of energy, according to Mitsubishi Power, which is developing ACES jointly with now Chevron-owned Magnum Development.
For comparison, last year the largest battery system in the world was the Moss Landing project in California with 3 GWh of capacity:
Do we need that much storage, though? Presumably we won't have the hydrogen-powered generation capacity to use that much energy quickly, so the comparison to utility-scale batteries isn't quite apples-to-apples.
From the article about the Chevron project:
> The project will initially provide fuel to the Intermountain Power Project, an 840-MW blended gas power plant also under construction in Delta, but Chevron believes there will be opportunities to supply hydrogen to the transportation and industrial sectors as well.
So even if the hydrogen storage facility was full, we're still limited to 840 MW of generation capacity. Sure, we get ~350 hours of runtime, but that's not really needed.
The Bath County Pumped Storage Station has 3003 MW of generation potential, with 11 hours of runtime from full.
Looks like the Moss Landing project is rated to be able to discharge 1/4 of its capacity per hour, so that 3 GWh facility can provide 750 MW. Batteries also have the advantage of being able to be sited much closer to the end user.
It's a demonstration project to show how a renewable powered system can cope with weeks of bad weather. If deep decarbonization doesn't actually require weeks of storage, not many systems like this will get built in the future. But if they are required at least we'll know how to build them.
There isn’t a simulator or digital twin for voyager. It has a bespoke processor made with 74* style logic. One guy will puts together a command and they will have a review where the other engineers will try and independently verify it. Then they copy and paste the command somewhere to “run it”. It happened, fairly recently, that the command had a typo that was caught in review, but the “wrong” pre-review command was used and the attitude became off by so much that they lost contact. It was only by cranking up the power at Goldstone that they got a command through. This fundamentally changed their understanding of the largest angle for which they could still communicate with the spacecraft. They just hadn’t wanted to try larger angles before because it was too risky.
Around 1000 of these double decker tank landing crafts were built during the second half of WWII to cross the Atlantic for the invasions. This one was sponsored by woman, Mrs. Pearl Magdalene Frick. [0] Fascinating. I don’t see mention of her elsewhere on the web.
reply