Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | B1FF_PSUVM's commentslogin

> then of course, industrialize early.

It's extremely convenient to have coal, iron, and waterways in the region where you wish to achieve that early industrialization.

There's a map somewhere showing where those happened - England, France/Germany, eastern/great lakes US.


Also limestone, needed as flux for iron and steel making.

AMD was already in the CPU market with bit-slice LSI chips, the Am2900 set of chips: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Am2900

Those worked in 4-bit slices, and you could use them as LEGO blocks to build your own design (e.g. 8, 12 ou 16 bits) with much fewer parts than using standard TTL gates (or ECL NANDs, if you were Seymour Cray).

The 1980 Mick & Brick book Bit-slice Microprocessor Design later gathered together some "application notes" - the cookbooks/crib sheets that semiconductor companies wrote and provided to get buyers/engineers started after the spec sheets.


Intel has launched in 1974 both the NMOS Intel 8080 and a bipolar bit-slice processor family (Intel 3000).

AMD has introduced in 1975 both its NMOS 8080 clone and the bipolar bit-slice 2900 family.

I do not know which of these 2 AMD products was launched earlier, but in any case there was only a few months difference between them at most, so it cannot be said that AMD "was already in the CPU market". The launch of both products has been prepared at a time when AMD was not yet in the CPU market and Intel had been earlier than AMD both in the NMOS CPU market and in the market for sets of bipolar bit-slice components.

While Intel 8080 was copied by AMD, the AMD 2900 family was much better than the Intel 3000 family, so it has been used in a lot of PDP-11 clones or competitors.

For example, the registers+ALU component of Intel 3000 implemented only a 2-bit slice and few ALU operations, while the registers+ALU component of AMD 2900 implemented a 4-bit slice and also many more ALU operations.


> I mind when my Weather program

is changed into a stock ticker and tabloid news cornucopia... dagnabbit, I know where to get those, I just want the weather info.

"They have no taste" was right.


Also ...

> And news articles in 1990 said Sony dealers would not allow any bickering. [...] no discounts.

... that's probably "dickering", and an amusing typo. ("Hey, you can't squabble here!")


It's easier to figure out for people that measure power in watts and time in hours ... 1 kW for 1 hour is 1 kWh.

That camel's nose was already in the tent with the mAh thing in phone/etc batteries, now with electric vehicles we're firmly in kWh land.

Not to mention that's what the power utilities used all along ...


> big yikes for something coming out of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

Besides the unit flub, there's an unpleasant smell of sales flyer to the whole piece. Hard data spread all over, but couldn't find efficiency figures. Casual smears such as "even the best new grid-scale storage systems on the market—mainly lithium-ion batteries—provide only about 4 to 8 hours of storage" (huh, what, why?). I could also have used an explanation of why CO2, instead of nitrogen.


> provide only about 4 to 8 hours of storage" (huh, what, why?)

Because the most efficient way to make money with a lithium ion battery (or rather the marginal opportunity after the higher return ones like putting it in a car are taken) is to charge it in the few hours of when electricity is cheapest and discharge it when it is most expensive, every single day, and those windows generally aren't more than 8 hours long...

Once the early opportunities are taken lower value ones will be where you store more energy and charge and discharge at a lower margin or less frequently will be, but we aren't there yet.

Advertising that your new technology doesn't do this is taking a drawback (it requires a huge amount of scale in one place to be cost competitive) and pretending it's an advantage. The actual advantage, if there is one, is just that at sufficient scale it's cheaper (a claim I'm not willing to argue either way).


It ought to be cheaper at scale. Batteries' cost scales linearly with storage capacity. Cost for a plant like this scales linearly with the storage rate - the compressor and turbine are the expensive part, while the pressure vessels and gas bags are relatively cheap.

The bigger you build it, the less it costs per MWh of storage.


> Energy Dome expects its LDES solution to be 30 percent cheaper than lithium-ion.

Grid scale lithium is dropping in cost about 10-20% per year, so with a construction time of 2 years per the article lithium will be cheaper by the time the next plant is completed


LDES: Long-Duration Energy Storage

Grid energy storage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage


Metrics for LDES: Levelized Cost of Storage (LCOS), Gravimetric Energy Density, Volumetric Energy Density, Round-Trip Efficiency (RTE), Self-Discharge Rate, Cycle Life, Technical Readiness Level (TRL), Power-to-Energy Decoupling, Capital Expenditure (CAPEX), R&D CapEx, Operational Expenditure (OPEX), Charging Cost, Response Time, Depth of Discharge, Environmental & Social Governance (ESG) Impact

Li-ion and even LFP batteries degrade; given a daily discharge cycle, they'll be at 80% capacity in 3 years. Gas pumps and tanks won't lose any capacity.

These are LCOE numbers we are comparing, so that is factored in.

The fact that pumps, turbines, rotating generators don’t fail linearly doesn’t mean they are not subject to wear and eventual failure.


Lithium burns toxic. Carbon based solid-state batteries that don't burn would be safe for buses.

There are a number of new methods for reconditioning lithium instead of recycling.

Biodegradable batteries would be great for many applications.

You can recycle batteries at big box stores; find the battery recycling box at Lowes and Home Depot in the US.


i think it had something to do with CO2 can be made into supercritical state relatively easily, not for nitrogen or other common gases.

This pretty much

You can liquefy CO2 at a higher temperature than N2


You can do it easily with something like propane, or other larger molecules. But CO2 is non-flammable, largely non-toxic, and easily available.

I'm sat here thinking: why not compressed or liquefied air?

The basic issue is that they need a phase change at a reasonable temperature. Liquifying air requires much lower temperatures than CO2.

> only about 4 to 8 hours of storage" (huh, what, why?)

Or it's just so obvious - to them! that it doesn't need to be mentioned, which then doesn't make it an ad.

Lithium ion battery systems are expensive as shit, and not that big for how much they cost.


Because CO2 is a magic word. It can open free money doors. Or at least it used to.

The flight log data + visualizer is interesting. Apparently not into crossing the equator ...

P.S. feel like a private eye perusing the Amazon purchases. Nabokov and Nietzsche, oh my.


Why do I get reminded of Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells?

(Yes, I've heard the Ravel before, I mean the presentation style, e.g. Oldfield: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdMtqKZ6GrY )


I too was waiting for the 'grand together' announcement.

Good job. I caused the purchase of a couple of 720s (I believe they were, plus a few X terminals mooching off the workhorses, all with megapixel color displays). They served well past the demise of then-rival Sun machines. I think one of them was still in use with legacy software a few years ago.

Fun stuff: there was one year that HP-UX got so aggressive about using free RAM for file cache that, when you tried running another program, things would slow to a crawl because it was paging virtual memory to disk ...


"Pray I do not alter it further."

(some obscure movie quote, probably Mark Twain or Lincoln)


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

Search: