Posts by codejunky 9477 publicly visible posts • joined 24 Oct 2011
@has been
"Even with similar capital costs per GW for construction, zero fuel costs are significant over 25 years or more..."
I have to admit to being more confused than before. Could you flesh this out a bit more. What are you trying to say with the above?
"With that in mind, it stands to reason that, even if the AI bubble bursts, a lot of oil and gas power is still going to end up making its way to the grid to offset potential losses, further hampering the transition away from fossil fuels and carbon pollution."
Can we get our idiots in charge in the UK to make the same mistake please? The AI bubble crashes and we could actually have cheap, plentiful energy.
@Goodwin Sands
"For a fuller picture here're some numbers
China approx 0 GW oil, 25 GW gas, 1190 GW coal.
US approx 0 GW oil, 570 GW gas, 200 GW coal."
But that doesnt fit the narrative. Fossil fuel bad for **reasons**. US has President Trump so double plus bad.
@Jamie Jones
"Stop doing this. Despite your embarrassing use of "demorats" you're not that stupid. You know full well that more immigrants were sent home under Obama than Trump. Even Biden beat Trump."
I am going to assume you are unaware the police want to help ICE manage the crowds, they are trained to do so but are not allowed. Illegals who have committed additional crimes in the state should be handed to ICE for deportation yet the mayor and governor have told them not to cooperate. This being the same state where the authorities are being investigated for the huge fraud against the US taxpayer. Tom Homan worked under Obama as well as Trump, its amazing this is only a problem under Trump. Particularly it is a major issue in a state undergoing a huge fraud investigation into its leadership.
@that one in the corner
"codejunky's apostrophes just have a habit of wandering from where most people would expect them to live and then randomly insert themselves in surprising places."
As thats the most pressing thought you have about my comments I dont see much of a problem.
@AC
I wasnt gonna reply but...
"Don't think I've replied to anything of yours recently- as an AC or otherwise- and certainly not in this thread."
Followed by-
"Your reply does back up my memory of you being someone who"
Finished with-
"pseudonyms are a matter of convenience and unless you're actually willing to post under your real name, you don't get a whole lot more credit for using one."
Damn you are stupid.
@ChodeMonkey
"Madam, as you are not royalty, you do not have the right to use "we". Please refer to yourself in the accepted manner. (It appears your schooling left a lot to be desired.)"
I am guessing you dont remember that at least 2 of us were explaining to you that you can put anything in as your user name? I wasnt stealing credit from the team effort of educating a moron.
@ChodeMonkey
"That I will not bore you with."
You are a troll. You started as a troll posting as AC until we explained that your reg name does not have to identify your real self but collates your posts so we can identify your comments in a conversation. You are still a troll. At what point did you think you are not a bore?
@AC
"As opposed to using a "name" like "Jellied Eel" that- we can safely assume- gives no meaningful clue to your real life identity." And... "Pretty sure you've made pretty clear elsewhere that you were British, despite your repeated grandstanding on US politics."
I know you are a trolling coward but are you the same moron that has been posting to my comments too? Please tell me you are the same moron otherwise it seems covid may have dragged some of your IQ's down a lot (even if its from a low bar).
Btw if you are confused what I am referring to just read those two lines quoted above as your justification for being a coward.
"whose employees signed their support for the ICEout efforts and asked if their CEOs planned to take any of the above actions. "
If see CEO's feel so inclined to respond the single word 'no' is sufficient. It is amazing how the state in a severe fraud situation from the ground to the top is all about resisting the federal government.
@Michael Strorm
"You're clearly someone who wants- and expects- to be taken seriously, while coming out with low-rent nonsense like that. Your problem, not mine."
You seemed a little over sensitive about your opinion being called that. Perhaps it is how I read your comment but I do know the difference between opinion and fact which is why I often get downvotes for the unpopular truth without rebuttal.
"I suppose technically it *isn't* your opinion if it's someone else's opinion you're repeating as fact!"
So which bit do you not think is a fact?
"I'm well aware of the irony- didn't need you to point that out, thanks!- that, yes, I *am* in favour of Europe spending more on its own defence."
And still they wont learn. Europe wants to keep the Ukraine war going but needs the US backing it. Europe wants to stick its nose in with Gaza after the issue was resolved by Israel and the US. There is a lot of work to be done and I dont see them taking it seriously.
@Michael Strorm
"Ever noticed that that people only ever feel the need to say that when they want to invalidate the opinion of someone they disagree with, yet never bother to apply it to themselves?"
it was a reminder in case you were confused. You make strange claims of "If America was prepared to listen to advice, they wouldn't have elected Trump in the first place- when he was already manifestly unfit to be president- let alone the second."
"I notice you didn't add "in *my* opinion" here."
Sorry did I hit you in the feefees? Want a widdle pwaster? And as much mocking as I give you there, it is now known about Obama's Russia hoax and violations related to it, known that Biden actually was unfit to be President after years of gaslighting, Kamala's lack of support is public knowledge too AND I assume you have at least half a clue to be aware of the fraud investigation going on around Walz. So no I didnt say 'in my opinion' and I wasnt giving an opinion. Which part do you disagree with?
"I make no apologies about having whatever opinion I want about them and the consequence of their choices- that's my prerogative- but I'm not the one telling them what they should think here."
You aint? Reread your comment and you may see why it doesnt come across that way. Especially when you claim they should be held responsible in relation to your opinion about Trumps fitness for President, if only Americans would listen to advice (who's? Yours?).
One thing I will say, I do agree with you on one bit-
"The rest of the world can't control or fix that, it can only control how it responds, minimise the damage to itself, beef up its own defences and reduce its dangerous reliance on the US, however hard that might be."
To which you agree with Trump starting from his first term telling European NATO to do so, this term telling them to do so and has the leader of NATO Rutte praising him for it.
@Michael Strorm
"If America was prepared to listen to advice, they wouldn't have elected Trump in the first place- when he was already manifestly unfit to be president- let alone the second."
In your opinion. The first term made sense considering people had lived under Obama. As people rightly suspected the state security serviced violated rules, protocol and the law to pretend Trump was Russian backed. For the second election the people had suffered the corpse Biden and his replacement was Kamala and Walz? Kamala instils no confidence anyway but as we see with Minnesota currently with both the severe fraud and his support for insurrection, the US dodged a huge bullet.
"In 2024, the majority of eligible voters either voted for Trump or didn't care enough about the consequences to get off their backsides and vote against him and can be held responsible regardless."
And they should be happy about it even if they chose him as the least worst option. Seriously, he was the least worse choice!
@AC
"Why do you post like a deranged stupid MAGA cult member then?"
Probably says a lot about your mentality.
"You admire cowards. Trump showed extreme cowardice 5 times: hiding whilst real men fought and died in his place."
I really dont admire you. Not only are you a coward but a stupid one at that. You complain about cowardice and cant even put your dumb-ass comment to your own account name.
"issue of refugees and irregular immigrants"
You mean refugees and illegal immigrants? Sugar coating the problem doesnt help. These are people illegally entering the country. They can be anyone with any intent and any background. They are already willing to be criminal by breaking into the country and refusing to travel legally.
@that one in the corner
"Spot the word? MORE. That is M - O - R - E. Is creating a MORE hostile world. The man who believes he should have won a Nobel Peace Prize."
I spotted the word, I just dont think you understand what it means. Or you are in one hell of a fantasy land. So go on explain...
@LogicGate
"Trump has not made Europe invest in weapons, Russias attack on Ukraine has done so."
The Ukraine war started under Obama. It paused under Trumps first term. In Trumps first term he told Europe to get their act together. So your claim doesnt add up. Either way Europe should be more ready to defend itself anyway.
"What Trump has done is to demonstrate that the US is an unreliable partner and that Pax Americana is over."
That would explain the pee stains on western world leaders. The grovelling to the US and even while inflaming the war in Ukraine demand the US protect us all from the nasty Russian.
"In a transitional phase, European countries will have to purchase some weapons from the US. This will not last, since Trump has made it abundantly clear that US weapons can only be used for US purposes, whoever has paid for them."
Buying the best is probably worth more than buying from one place. The problem is the lack of buying and maintaining.
"In the end, the lever that the US has had over European policy since WW2 is coming to an end."
And what steps in its place? You could be right but it looks more like the US is leaving Europe behind.
@that one in the corner
"They laughed (well, more chuckled nervously) because they were not quite sure that Trump was serious; now, we are all very well aware that Trump was serious"
This should horrify people living in Europe (including here in the UK) how severely under-prepared and unaware European NATO was. A war on their doorstep (which we keep encouraging) and yet laughed at the serious threat we faced.
And before some moron claims this is some defence of Trump it is a criticism of Europe.
"indeed Trump's US is the serious threat to NATO and is creating a more hostile world."
Trump didnt provoke the Ukraine war that was Obama/EU. Trump didnt sit back when Hamas kidnapped and committed atrocities to Americans. Obama feared the Norks not Ruskies even when they were embarrassing him publicly with Syria. Biden escalated the war in Russia. And so on. But go on about the hostile world.
"With all those critical rare earths under its ice sheets and frozen tundra, it stands to reason there's a good explanation for why they haven't been exploited yet"
But based on the 'we are all doomed' cult belief wont this be melting away soon so we can access it for the glory of a net zero subsistence? Or is it so so far away as not to matter? Or is it convenience of argument for the situation?
During Trumps first term he made clear that NATO needed to be serious about defence in a hostile world and not hide behind the US, and they laughed. Under Biden suddenly they panicked and started to do something when they couldnt pretend anymore. Now I think Trump is just motivating them to get on with it before waiting until the last minute. Even NATO head Rutt was praising Trump for this.
When looking at this it is wise to remember the fawning fools praising a truant little girl while Trump refused to bend to such obvious stupidity. Denmark, nor even Europe could defend Greenland and rely on the US. As we have seen with Ukraine, the wet paper bag of Europe insists the US must act yet cry and insist on having a say on the war/peace (even with Gaza ffs).
@AC
"Get back to us (with a better comeback) after you've done your own research and learned how the rich techbros actually finance stuff. (Hint: They don't use their personal wealth.)"
Get back to us when coward gets some faith in their own comment, maybe does some research but actually has a come back.
@cyberdemon
"You sound as if you think spending Trillions of dollars, foolishly, on projects that have near zero gross benefit and masses of net harm, is always a good idea, because money go round."
Not quite. Those silly flying machines were such foolish or even those horseless carriages space travel and the perpetual motion machine. The only way we find out which is not actually foolish and which doesnt work is to try. You can assume it has no benefit, but you can also be wrong. Also this is private money being used by those very well off or pools of money from the less absurdly rich.
For the people who complain about them being too rich, this is them wasting their own money by putting it into our economies that benefits us. For everyone else it is better their money trying to discover benefits to us all than our money taken by the gov.
"One might as well spend the trillions on building a giant tower, so tall that it touches Heaven itself.."
It aint your money. So why do you care if someone wants to do that? I can only assume you are even handed with this and rail against people buying branded goods or god forbid- the IPhone! (/sarc).
"Unfortunately in the real world, there are finite resources, and throwing money and said finite resources at vain follies is foolish, because it makes you and your country weaker, since you have less resources to spend on useful things that actually keep your country alive"
It might be foolish but this is where having a free market works best. Finite resources cost more as they are used and people use substitutions or develop other ways. Not exploring what is possible makes countries weaker and people poorer. We see how well such control over resources work through history. It never seemed to turn out well.
"It doesn't matter if it's public money or private money. Loans, credit default swaps etc mean that the whole economy is on the hook when this house of cards comes crashing down. It was bad enough when Lehman brothers went bang. But when Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, HSBC and all the other big banks and pension funds go bust all at once, because their nvidia, oracle, coreweave, salesfarce, openAI and even microsoft stocks are suddenly worth as much as Weimar Papiermarks, we are all in serious trouble."
'All your moneys belong to us'. Nope, Private property is a thing and it matters. Forgetting that will certainly tank economies. You cannot ban risk unless you want to be some backwater left behind civilisation that dies out because it cannot adapt.
@TVU
"Despite Trump's obsession with dirty fossil fuels, particularly coal and oil, sunny Texas is experiencing a free market boom in solar energy provision which is a good thing:"
Good for Texas I hope. The article doesnt seem to say if it is or isnt. Fossil fuels are attacked when regulations are created to try and get rid of it. Amusingly unreliables get attacked when subsidy and severe pro-bias is reduced or removed.
"Gas turbines also have the disadvantage of greenhouse gas emissions and noise, which could cause planning problems and impact net-zero plans by operators."
Compare that to the other problems listed such as government too slow, not power or the more expensive solution (the fuel cells). Its kinda easy to see why they would be on back order in huge demand. I wonder how the manufacturers will look at this however as sustainable to increase output, or if they expect the datacentre fad to fall over and so not worth the investment to increase production
@Doctor Syntax
"Still predicting the cliff collapse that justified us jumping off the cliff with Brexit."
We have already seen those thanks. Nothing to do with brexit at all. I am sorry to see you are still butthurt we left the little club. Maybe you can get a cream for that.
I was making what should be the clear observation that it isnt just the US hanging on precariously and we shouldnt assume the problem is only American. But I am sure your world stopped at brexit and nothing else could possibly be happening
@Darkedge
"as basically it's all 'AI' investment and when that bubble bursts the tariffs will hit home probably pushing it into negative numbers"
Along with the rest of us. Germany is already panicking due to their suicidal energy policies and needing to contribute to Europes defence which pretty much takes the EU with it. I assume Japan will be impacted by the tensions around China and here in the UK has been in managed decline until this government who are happy to drive us full force into decline.
Considering the financial incontinence of our governments I suspect we are all in for a rough ride at some point soon.
@doublelayer
"We don't agree on the important things. We agree on simple facts."
Yes, and that is a good thing. If we can agree on the simple facts we may still draw different opinions but at least we are still operating with reality.
"The difference in the parts that aren't reliable is extremely important and results in completely different next steps in research and policy ramifications for fusion power compared to wind and solar power, hence why pointing out that both do indeed have something unreliable is not a useful point."
I am guessing this is where you will have your differing opinion maybe, but my first response to you was agreement and I was honestly asking if anyone was relying on fusion at all. But just the facts you said for wind and solar are unpopular here.
"I don't know why you post. If you do for the same reasons I do, to try to understand what others believe and, where I think their beliefs are harmful, it can be useful to understand where you differ with them."
That is why I post, and being a tech website I assume a more detailed level of knowledge than I have on various subjects and for the group of people to be more aware of breakthroughs than I. I ask from the basic facts and for those who discuss I can pick up new information and sources to check out.
"I think those you debate wind and solar with will also agree that wind stops blowing sometimes and that is a problem"
This is where simple questions based on the simple facts upset people. But when/if solutions come about someone will happily come bragging about it and that would be great. In the early 2000's I believe it was the BBC was putting up incredible propaganda supporting windfarms. Years later they put up a small article I can only describe as a half baked apology for lying so hard for so long. It finally admitted what a lot of people knew, that the wind figures were lies. There is plenty propaganda out there for everyone's hobby but discussing with real people with an actual interest delivers better information.
@KittenHuffer
"The fact that you replied shortly after a reply to one of your posts that was more than 2 days old implies that you have some script (or other process) that is set to tell you when someone has replied to one of your posts, and that you spend all of your time trolling anyone that does reply to your posts."
Its called the MK1 eyeball and when I wait for stuff to run/compile/execute I pop onto the 'My Posts' link to see if anyone has responded anything. If its a particularly long job I will look at new articles first to see if anything interesting is going on. If you consider that some sort of incredible process then that says more about you.
"This kinda implies that you are a professional troll."
Because you were too stupid to write a good post or that I responded pointing out how stupid your post was? Low bar. Compared to you of course who admits to trolling as an experiment? I dont think you thought this through did you?
@David Hicklin
"For energy storage they don't need to be small and light unlike in Vehicles - that can be a big/heavy as you want, they just need to be cheap"
Absolutely. That is why their current situation of not holding enough charge and being expensive is an issue. If it can be made to be cheap that would be great.
"I guess it's time I gave Cinnamon another look given KDE are planning to betray those of us who want nothing to do with Wayland and its GNOME-like attitude towards users."
I do like Cinnamon and find it works pretty good. It is on my day to day system and far more stable than a few years ago. Best of luck
@that one in the corner
"and was EXECUTED within seconds. FTFY."
If thats the word you want to use sure. The US does execute violent criminals even at the time of violent confrontations.
"You never seem to be able to provide anything to indicate that that was a lawful killing and not an execution."
You dont provide anything to indicate it wasnt. I am also willing to wait for the legal outcome of this but the video shows the criminal hit the officer with her car and the officer shoots her. The build up being her refusal to comply with a lawful order, reversing the car (putting the officer in front of the car) and driving forward hitting him. Also in one of the videos you can hear the wife telling her to drive just before she drives at the officer.
"You just go back to repeating the same points, starting with she "disobeyed a lawful order" - so was she executed for doing that?"
And now you are clearly lying. She was shot for driving her car at the federal officer and hitting him with her vehicle. The buildup showing motivation for her criminal act. And I do repeat what happened in the video because your comments seem very different than the actual evidence from multiple angles. I also repeat to go watch the video because that clarifies your confusions.
"Which leaves us with - well, that you assert she was lawfully executed for making a violent confrontation AFTER that confrontation had ended WITHOUT fatal injury to anyone."
You say ended but how? If she had a gun and fired at the officer but missed the first shot missed but the confrontation did not end and I note you need to add the word 'fatal' to no injury. He hit the officer with a deadly weapon, do you somehow try to dispute that? Within seconds she was shot, she still had possession of the deadly weapon and the weapon was clearly not disabled and so she was still armed and dangerous (as proven by hitting someone with her car). You cant avoid that.
"The most intriguing part of this is - where are you drawing the line? At what point is an ICE officer allowed to execute somebody?"
Forget ICE for a moment. At what point is it a law enforcers duty to protect the people, which includes themselves, from violence. When a deadly weapon is in use against people, including the officer, is it appropriate for an officer to remove that threat even by lethal means?
"You keep saying that, but you are always very, very careful not to provide a reference to precisely *which* video you want us to watch. It clearly can not be any of the ones that Legal Eagle includes in his analysis"
Sorry for any confusion you might have, when I say watch the videos of the event I mean the actual freaking videos of the event. The multiple angles of the actual event. Not from any biased sources, no left right media or blogger biases etc, the actual event itself. From different angles. The key problem seems to be people telling you what to think. As I pointed out to you about your legal eagle video, he is contradicted by the video clip he plays at minute 5:28. The guy telling you what to think is contradicted by the evidence he puts on screen and he only made it to about 5 mins.
There are many interpretations and biases expressed about this event, I am just asking you to look at the actual footage, not someones dodgy opinion.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2026
