Waryle

my take is that 1. you don’t need equal supply year-through because big consumers should be able to sleep and reduce their energy intake in the winter. yes i know that is complicated, but sleep is also complicated in nature and evolution still pulled through with it because it does pay off in the long term.

So you’re trying to advocate we should put millions of people on virtual unemployment during winter to save energy? Who will pay for that?

Do you think it’s honest to compare nuclear price all-included LCOE to the solar and wind LCOE* (* = not accounting for the tens or hundred of billions of unemployment subsides each year to account for forced shutdown because of power drought)?

secondly, storage can also be renewable biomass. i have some napkin math sitting around somewhere on my disk that says that about 5% of the yearly energy demand can be covered with basically non-cost “waste” biomass that’s basically being burned to get rid of it today. I actually wanted to write a longer post about it in the [email protected] community, i just couldn’t figure out how to properly present my calculations yet.

First thing: biomass is about 200-250g of CO²eq per kWh. Burning biomass is polluting, and thus is not a viable alternative to nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, and the other low-carbon power sources we should aiming for.

Even if your calculus are correct, if I take the example of a country like France which has a +30-50% increase in power consumption for 5 months during the coldest months than in the rest of the year. And it’s not because of industry, it’s because we heat up with a lot of electricity, even if we still need to convert a lot of fossil-based heating to low-carbon electricity heating.

But the solar production at the time has a -75% decrease. Wind is basically non-consistent through the year.

So when we need solar the most, to heat up in winter, a phenomena that will get even worse when we decarbonize heating, it just does not follows up. And wind drought during very cold weeks definitely happens regularly.

So we NEED interseasonal power storage to make full-renewable working, at least without huge capacities in hydro-electricity.

And we’re not even close to achieving this kind of gigantic power storage, which is why Germany, the biggest advocate for solar and wind with more than 40% of its electricity coming from it, and has no hydro, is still one of the dirtiest electricity in Europe. Because it still burns gas and coal to compensate for solar and wind lack of reliability.

But will Fusion ever be cheaper than solar?

Will solar with interseasonal storage ever be even feasible?

People like to throw LCOE around, occulting that running countries with solar (and wind) power is plain science-fiction and nowhere close to change, while nuclear (at least fission) is empirically proven to work reliably, even for cheap, costing less than 200 billions of euros in the span of 60 years in France for example.

When you don’t have enough sun (or wind), you either have sufficient backup in hydro or solar, or you burn coal and gas.

Loud pipes save lives.

They truly don’t

And one of the highest payers, Qobuz, is missing

but right now renewable energy is by far cheaper and faster to build than nuclear energy.

No. Building a solar or wind plant is cheaper and faster than building a nuclear plant, sure, but that’s not what we’re aiming for. The goal is to decarbonize electricity by phasing out fossils.

Replacing all fossil-based electricity production nationwide is quite cheap for nuclear when done right (e.g. France, planning for decades and multiple reactors at once, while actually politically supporting your industry, instead of throwing a project once in a while and letting it fight in courts by itself against NIMBY and anti-nuclears).

Replacing fossils with solar and wind power is science fiction. There is not a single country in the world that has decarbonized its electricity without significant decarbonized and controllable electricity capacities, or to name them: hydro or nuclear. Except that you just can’t build hydro anywhere, and most countries’ capacities are limited.

You can’t claim that solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear, because solar and wind just can’t do what nuclear can, and can at best be complementary to other controllable power sources.

Nuclear has never been cost-efficient, it’s just that the costs have been buried in state subsidies to the industry and its supply chain.

A lie repeated again and again.

French Cour des Comptes has released a report, back in 2012, the costs of the french nuclear fleet, everything included: 121 billions of euros between 1960 and 2010.

2,4 billions a year. To provide decarbonized and reliable electricity for decades.

To put in perspective, Germany is more than a trillion of euros in for their Energiewende, or about 40 billions of euros a year for ~25 years, and they still have one of the costliest and dirtiest electricity or Europe, while still not being close to stop coal and having no plan to get out of gas.

And for more perspective, EDF had 118 billions of dollars of revenues in 2024, mostly coming from nuclear, and 11 billions of net results, including the payback of the interests of the debt that the french government imposed on EDF.

Anyone claiming nuclear has never been or can’t be profitable or cost-efficient is either uneducated or a liar.

When done right, nuclear is profitable as fuck, that’s empirically proved.

Which is an ecological measure, not a technical one, and can be circumvented by existing technologies like cooling towers

Nope, it’s a Spotify alternative made in France which emphasize on paying a fair share to the artists and providing a great music quality.

Oh you insufferable rawgabbit. Even in the face of definitive proof, the only thing you care about is throwing a 4 paragraphs tantrum trying to twist every single word just to not say “OK, maybe I was wrong on that thing”. I’m out.

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000030635061/

Case law from the Cour de Cassation, where the defendant was convicted, by Articles 323-1 and 323-5, of having extracted data freely following a proven failure of the protection system.

The complainant just had to show that the data SHOULD have been inaccessible, by expressing this “with a special warning” :

"3°) alors qu’en l’absence de dispositif de protection des données, la maître du système doit manifester clairement et expressément manifester, par une mise en garde spéciale, sa volonté d’interdire ou de restreindre l’accès aux données ; qu’en déduisant de la seule présence d’un contrôle d’accès sur la page d’accueil du site de l’ANSES que M. X… s’était irrégulièrement maintenu dans le système contre le gré de son propriétaire, la cour d’appel a violé l’article 323-1 du code pénal ;

Translated :

“3°) whereas in the absence of a data protection system, the master of the system must clearly and expressly manifest, by means of a special warning, his intention to prohibit or restrict access to the data; that in deducing from the mere presence of an access control on the home page of the ANSES site that Mr. X… had irregularly maintained himself in the system against the owner’s will, the Court of Appeal violated article 323-1 of the French Penal Code ;

In my case, the first thing you see when you arrive at my Jellyfin instance is a login form blocking your entry, and you have to go through a backdoor to access my data, so there’s no ambiguity on this point.

You’re wrong, period. Stop trying to debate laws interpretation of a country you don’t even speak the language of.

I live in France, and these are the relevant laws :

• Article 323-1 : you access my server without my authorization -> 3 years of prison, 100k€ fine
• Article 323-3 : you touch my data in any way -> 5 years of prison, 150k fine

Using a flaw in a software to retrieve data you should not have access to is illegal where I live, the same way as you’re not suddenly allowed to enter my house and fetch my drawers just because I left a window open. I won’t debate this point further.

Keeping that copy on a web accessible platform that is accessible by anyone on the internet(unauthenticated) isn’t covered by your rights at a bare minimum.

It’s as accessible as my DVD collection in my living room: anyone can get into my home without a key by illegally breaking a window.

Using a flaw in my Jellyfin to access my content is illegal and can’t be used against me to sue me, period. The idea of rights holders who would hack me to sue me is just plain ridiculous.

Depending on the content “timing” if they trigger on something that doesn’t have a physical/consumer release yet… or all sorts of other “impossible” conditions. This is obviously reliant on what content you actually have on your server.

And again, the only proof they would have could not be used in courts.

For real, you’re just fear-mongering at this point.

I was sincerely hoping someone would bring some real concerns, like how one of these security breaches listed in the OP could allow privilege escalation or something, but if all you got is “Universal might hire hackers to break through your server and sue you”, you’re comforting me in my idea that I don’t have much to fear

Where I live, I have the legal right to have a copy of a film of which I have a legal version, they can watch my media library as much as they want, it’s not enough to prove that it’s illegal.

And hacking my server is illegal, they can’t go to court by presenting evidence obtained through hacking, they would risk much more than me.

My Jellyfin server is behind Cloudflare with IP outside of my country banned.

I got Crowdsec set up on Cloudflare, Traefik and Debian directly.

I got Jellyfin up in a docker container behind Traefik, my router opens only 80 and 443 ports and direct them to Traefik.

Jellyfin has only access to my media files which are just downloaded movies and shows hardlinked by Sonarr/Radarr from my download folder.

It is publicly exposed to be able to watch it from anywhere, and share it to family and friends.

So what? They might access the movies, even delete them, I don’t care, I’ll just hardlink them back or re-download them. What harm can they do that would justify locking everything down?

Now let’s do intercity trains and tramways then

So we can have autonomous metros, buses and taxis that allow people anywhere when they need it so they don’t rely on having a car?

You must add the repo first using this link

While true, how is that any different to the arguments that were used for TV?

Television is bad because it is a passive activity, but it is less harmful than the continuous ingestion of micro-videos. But I don’t see what it has to do here.

Additionally, Lemmy is a social network in the same way that Reddit is. Is this not also dangerous?

What’s the connection? I didn’t mention Reddit.

As has been the recommendation for practically everything for the four decades I’ve been on this earth, moderation is key. Instead of hating new media, either regulate it (if the evidence is truly that great) or treat it with healthy moderation.

This would be to ignore the particularly addictive nature of this kind of content. It would be like comparing apples to Snickers: both are sweet, yes, but one is much more problematic.

Let’s be blunt here. Most of the people in this thread aren’t worried about health

That could be a point, but I’m pretty sure that if you ask anybody, the main reason given would be that it makes you stupid. But I can agree that this opinion would not necessarily be based on anything other than the eternal contempt for novelty as video games or manga were, for example, before they became popular.

ITT: People in their mid-twenties or later, who feel superior to those that like one form of media over their preferred media.

You’re just waving away an important fact, which is that shorts and their equivalents are notoriously known for killing attention spans and disrupting the management of dopamine in the brain, causing depression in particular.

We are no longer simply in the traditional custom of the elderly who despise the activities of the younger generations, we are talking about health.