Buried in the 16th paragraph of the 17-paragraph story:
-- Instagram went from 30 million users pre-acquisition to over one billion today, while WhatsApp has more than 1.5 billion active users up from 450 million at the time of its deal. --
Growth of over 3,000% and 300%. What a failure. SIX YEARS later, one of the founders decided to retire.
The entrepreneurial founder decided they wanted to be entrepeneur again, not run an established company.
The average tenure of a CEO is 8 years, so these leaders stuck around about as long as one would expect in any structure generally.
Having them go on to other things isn't necessarily a bad thing, either. Like these founders, I enjoy starting companies, and I'm starting to not suck at it. I don't enjoy running a company after it's stable, and I'm not good at that. The people who started a company from zero aren't always the best people to be running a stable company later. For one, their appetite for risk and excitement probably isn't a good match.
That is of course something to be very careful about. Because it is, multiple teams have studied the issue thoroughly and there seems to be broad agreement that eliminating the specific species responsible for most malaria would have very little ecological impact at all. There are plenty of other mosquito species (and other insects) to fill the niche. There are over 3,000 species of mosquito, only three (0.1%) cause most disease.
A key there is something like chemical pesticides wouldn't typically target just the species. Hence the search for a very targetted approach.
You stated that Apple and all of the various Android-using companies and / or Google don't compete, right? They each have completely separate markets and each has a monopoly, correct?
My house has an iPhone, an Android phone, an iPad, and Android tablet, MacBook Pro, a Chromebook, and a Linux computer. Which market am I? Which company am I forced to buy from?
I had no choice, there was no competition when I bought the iPhone, and no competition when I bought the Android, phone, right? Wife wants to replace her iPhone and she's thinking she'll go back to Android, but she's not sure which manufacturer yet. Is that not allowed? Or she must switch back. Please let us know because it looks like competition to us, like we're choosing.
What exactly is bad about starting school at 7:15AM? For most people, that means drop the kids off at school, then head to work.
It's only a problem if you've organized your life around the 9:30 start time. The change would be difficult for some. (I suspect that for many it would be less difficult than they make it out to be. People often complain loudly about change, then when that doesn't work they make some simple adjustments to adapt to the change.)
Are you thinking of virtio auto memory ballooning?
I was talking about IO (disk and network) through virtio. It's faster and less resource intensive to just memory copy directly from the guest to the host rather than pretending to be an Ethernet chip, or a SATA card. It uses less memory, as the virtio driver is basically just a line of code - copy data from guest memory to host.
Memory auto ballooning lets the VM memory usage dynamically adapt. You CAN set it to allow the memory usage to go higher than you would go statically, or you can just set the max thr same as you would and allow it to go lower via ballooning when the guest isn't using that much RAM.
Maybe you missed this part in the summary, but the idea is to reduce the flow of warm water erode the ice from underneath. Nobody wants to stop the ice from getting bigger.
You spent a lot more time talking than you spent understanding, didn't you.
The difference between closed television and broadcast television is that it's not broadcast indiscriminately to everyone; to see it one must affirmatively connect.
The point is to try to make use of solar-electric. Trillions have been spent on solar-electric and now it can produce significant electricity - for a few hours, on sunny days. If the train only runs on sunny days you can just use wiring to connect the train to a the solar cells. If you want the train to run in the morning or evening, you're going to need a lot of batteries.
There's a political party which caters to people who spend their readimg time on Facebook, and there is a party which caters to people who spend their reading time with the Washington Times or National Review.
Nobody denies that brain chemistry exists. So it's not "a notch" for anyone. Drugs can make you feel different ways - yeah we've all known that for at least 7,000 years.
Well, I take that back - sometimes when someone is seriously under the influence of heavy drugs, they might think they are having a spiritual experience rather than a chemical experience. But they also think that they could walk through a wall if they really, really wanted to, think they ARE walking when they are actually sitting still, and think that Bernie Sanders makes sense. So we can disregard what they think when they're really, really high.
The question isn't whether or not brain chemistry exists and can affect our emotions. The question are:
Are our emotions linked to something eternal, or are they purely random happenstance?
Is their a *reason* we have brains and emotions, a purpose, or is it again totally random and devoid of any meaning or purpose?
When you use the words "religion" and "God", those words have thousand different meanings; everyone has different ideas about what this "God" thing is. What all the major world religions agree on, a common denominator, is that Exodus and Moses are Canon (plus and Exodus account also appears in Egyptian records). So the generally agreed part of what "God" is would include God's answer to Moses when he asked in Exodus who Had is. The Greek is really hard to translate accurately to English because English uses the word "is" for several different meanings, but a reasonable translation would be "I am the eternal", or "I (permanently) am", or "I am what is everlasting".
Given God's own answer as to who / what God is, in the book most agreed on, that's why I say the question is whether our spirits, our deepest emotional selves, are connected to something eternal. Because "the eternal" is the one definition of "God" that most agree on.
Clothes make it EASIER to stay warm. We can be warm sitting on our butt instead of needing to exercise or otherwise burn calories to stay warm. Clothes help us be lazy.
Computers make things easier. We can lazily click to have things delivered to our doorstep, rather than going to the immense effort of sitting in the car driving to the store. Computers help us be lazy.
We chose to build spaceships not because it is easy, but because it is hard;) Actually at first we built rockets because we were afraid of the Russians. We're hard-wired for lazy, but we're also hard-wired to be powerfully motivated by fear. Fear overcomes laziness.
These days satellites do make things easier, no need to actually red a nap, we can let our phone read the directions out to us. We can be lazy.
Static routes are okay with your building, if the building isn't too big. If a router goes offline, everybody waits for the network admin to get back from lunch and fix it. For the backbones, we currently re-route in milliseconds sometimes dpending on network conditions. No waiting around for a sysadmin.
> What is stopping someone anywhere within the RPKI to lie, mislead, or be misled through layer 2 and 3 attack
Routing is in layer 3, so this is preventing some layer 3 attacks. For securing layer 2, see http://google.com/search?q=lay... Routing protocols at layer 3 aren't supposed to address issues of layer 2.
Often hardware virtualization support defaults to off in the BIOS. With it on, there will generally be no noticable slowdown in a VM provided you give the VM a reasonable amount of RAM. You might see it called Intel VT-x or AMD-V in the BIOS. Enable it.
Sometimes people give a VM 256MB of RAM, then they are suprised that it's almost as slow as a machine with 256MB of RAM. If top performance is needed, a VM should have almost as much RAM assigned as you'd use in a bare-metal machine withh the same OS. IO buffer in the host reduce the RAM requirements a little bit.
The other thing that can happen is if you have a VM that does a ton of IO, you want to use virtio. Set the VM settings to use virtio rather than emulating a particular network card and hard drive. That can significantly faster, if the VM writes to disk a lot or it's pumping a hundreds of megabits through the network card.
Answering myself with one way of doing it, I order to have $1,000 per year plus get $10,000 10 years from now, you could either:
Put $10,000 into an index fund Or Put $10,000 into solar PLUS $4,000 into an index fund and withdraw the $4,000 after it grows to $10K.
So to get the same dollar return we have to put in $14,000 with the solar plan, only $10,000 with an index fund. $1,000 return on $14K is only 7%, vs the 10% average return of an index fund. AND the index fund is liquid - you can spend it when you get sick and can't work. Can't spend solar panels.
> And I'll even go as far as to say that if we want to save as many lives as possible, we build out nuclear as much as possible because the evidence shows that the deaths per kWh are less than any other energy source.
This is true.
In comparing solar-electric with traditional investments, one part is fairly clear, the other part I wonder how you calculate it.
The average annual return pf the S&P since it's included 90 years ago is 10% (nominal). It tends to be higher when inflation is higher, and lower during periods of low inflation, for a fairly steady 7% inflation-adjusted annual return over any decade. Since inflation affects both equally, we can leave it out of the comparison and call the stock market 10%.
Suppose you put in a $13,000 solar-electric system, for which you directly paid $10,000 (after $3,000 kicked in by taxpayers). Suppose that $10,000 investment yields a net saving $1,000 / year, or $10,000 I ten years, after replacing batteries at the five year mark and maintenance. That part would be equal to the return from the stock market. Simple enough.
After having your money invested in the stock market for 10 years and getting returns, when your kid starts college you withdraw the $10,000 and spend it on college. You get your money back whenever you want, after getting your investment returns every year. You can't sell your solar panels for $10,000 after ten years. At best, you might get $2,000 for some ten year old panels. So that's an $8,000 loss vs any traditional investment. How did you figure that in?
I remember when rooftop solar was a big thing in the 1980s. Given the price projections then, in 10 years solar + batteries would be cheaper... I've read the projections from thr 1960s and 1970s. Given the price projections then, in 10 years solar + batteries would be cheaper...
We could have cut CO2 emissions in half during the 1970s, forty years ago, by switching from fossil fuels to nuclear. We didn't do that 40 years ago because "give price projections for solar...". If solar on a LARGE (nationwide) scale starts making sense in 10 years, or 20 years, or 40 years, great! In the meantime, we can cut CO2 I half using technology that we already have, plant designs we've already built and already work at scale.
I didn't say solar electric is a complete waste. I said seventy years of that hasn't worked to get us off fossil fuels. We agree that solar electric covers somewhere between 0.5%-3% our energy needs, right? Fewer than 1% of cars and trucks are even electric, much less powered by solar electric, and that's with the taxpayer paying half the cost. Waiting for solar has not worked to stop CO2 emissions. We could have cut CO2 emissions by 85% 40 years ago, but we didn't because Green and Peace were linked as Greenpeace (and those Peace people didn't believe that nukes just might discourage people from attacking, encouraging more peace).
Might solar electric be a big thing down the road? Sure! Wind perhaps more so. As I said, my plan calls for the (realistic, doable) goal to be about 65% nuclear and about 25% solar and wind.
Are you old enough to remember when rooftop solar was a big fad in the 1980s? I am, I remember lots of houses with rooftop solar. Affordable solar electric is just around the corner - and always has been. Until that happens, how about we quit burning coal, using stuff we already have, today, to cut CO2 emissions by half?
Daytime demand is about 50% higher than night time demand. Not surprisingly, demand rises about 7AM and begins to fall around 8PM. Coincidentally, the sun rises around 7AM and sets around 8PM.
So on clear sunny days, solar power becomes available right about when load increases and you need more power. (Of course full output only occurs for a few hours per day, there isn't much solar available for a couple hours after sunrise and a couple hours before sunset).
The minimum, night time load in this example is about 10GW and the peak is about 15GW. So you run your nuclear at 10GW and during the day for the extra 5GW you use solar or wind if it's available at the moment, natural gas to the extent you need it.
That means much of the day time load could be solar. Costs are of course a big factor (actual total costs, everybody can't make their neighbor pay for it via subsidies). So *when the right technology* is available, we could very well get 25% from solar. Until then, we are cost-constrained - it mostly only works if somebody else pays 70% of the cost, and if everyone were using a lot of solar we'd run out of somebody elses to pay for it.
Not surprisingly, demand rises about 7AM and begins to fall around 8PM. Coincidentally, the sun rises around 7AM and sets around 8PM. So on clear sunny days, solar power becomes available right about when load increases and you need more power. (Of course full output only occurs for a few hours per day, there isn't much solar available for a couple hours after sunrise and a couple hours before sunset).
The minimum, night time load in this example is about 10GW and the peak is about 15GW. So you run your nuclear at 10GW and during the day for the extra 5GW you use solar or wind if it's available at the moment, natural gas to the extent you need it.
Nuclear provides your steady 10GW you need all the time, solar can provide some of the additional 5 GW you need during the day - which conveniently is when the sun is up and solar may be available.
Not surprisingly, demand rises about 7AM and begins to fall around 8PM. Coincidentally, the sun rises around 7AM and sets around 8PM. So on clear sunny days, solar power becomes available right about when load increases and you need more power. (Of course full output only occurs for a few hours per day, there isn't much solar available for a couple hours after sunrise and a couple hours before sunset).
The minimum, night time load in this example is about 10GW and the peak is about 15GW. So you run your nuclear at 10GW and during the day for the extra 5GW you use solar or wind if it's available at the moment, natural gas to the extent you need it.
I see where you're finding.367, you were looking over a five month period, I was looking at slightly longer period. So we'll go with the most recent number, the 1% you found. Obviously the 1% you found is a lot LESS than the 3% I generously gave solar.
There are a lot of numbers in that other report. Where are you finding the $250 billion you are looking at? I'm noticing $250 total worldwide spending by governments and businesses combined on oil and gas infrastructure.
I'm not sure why you are acting like I'm attacking solar, and even accusing me of lying, while you also point out that solar's contribution is only around 1%, not the 3% I gave solar credit for. You can see, based on comparing the numbers I mentioned to what you're finding, that I'm being VERY generous to solar.
Slashdot Mirror
Buried in the 16th paragraph of the 17-paragraph story:
--
Instagram went from 30 million users pre-acquisition to over one billion today, while WhatsApp has more than 1.5 billion active users up from 450 million at the time of its deal.
--
Growth of over 3,000% and 300%. What a failure.
SIX YEARS later, one of the founders decided to retire.
The entrepreneurial founder decided they wanted to be entrepeneur again, not run an established company.
The average tenure of a CEO is 8 years, so these leaders stuck around about as long as one would expect in any structure generally.
Having them go on to other things isn't necessarily a bad thing, either. Like these founders, I enjoy starting companies, and I'm starting to not suck at it. I don't enjoy running a company after it's stable, and I'm not good at that. The people who started a company from zero aren't always the best people to be running a stable company later. For one, their appetite for risk and excitement probably isn't a good match.
That is of course something to be very careful about.
Because it is, multiple teams have studied the issue thoroughly and there seems to be broad agreement that eliminating the specific species responsible for most malaria would have very little ecological impact at all. There are plenty of other mosquito species (and other insects) to fill the niche. There are over 3,000 species of mosquito, only three (0.1%) cause most disease.
A key there is something like chemical pesticides wouldn't typically target just the species. Hence the search for a very targetted approach.
You stated that Apple and all of the various Android-using companies and / or Google don't compete, right? They each have completely separate markets and each has a monopoly, correct?
My house has an iPhone, an Android phone, an iPad, and Android tablet, MacBook Pro, a Chromebook, and a Linux computer. Which market am I? Which company am I forced to buy from?
I had no choice, there was no competition when I bought the iPhone, and no competition when I bought the Android, phone, right? Wife wants to replace her iPhone and she's thinking she'll go back to Android, but she's not sure which manufacturer yet. Is that not allowed? Or she must switch back. Please let us know because it looks like competition to us, like we're choosing.
What exactly is bad about starting school at 7:15AM?
For most people, that means drop the kids off at school, then head to work.
It's only a problem if you've organized your life around the 9:30 start time. The change would be difficult for some. (I suspect that for many it would be less difficult than they make it out to be. People often complain loudly about change, then when that doesn't work they make some simple adjustments to adapt to the change.)
Are you thinking of virtio auto memory ballooning?
I was talking about IO (disk and network) through virtio.
It's faster and less resource intensive to just memory copy directly from the guest to the host rather than pretending to be an Ethernet chip, or a SATA card. It uses less memory, as the virtio driver is basically just a line of code - copy data from guest memory to host.
Memory auto ballooning lets the VM memory usage dynamically adapt. You CAN set it to allow the memory usage to go higher than you would go statically, or you can just set the max thr same as you would and allow it to go lower via ballooning when the guest isn't using that much RAM.
Maybe you missed this part in the summary, but the idea is to reduce the flow of warm water erode the ice from underneath. Nobody wants to stop the ice from getting bigger.
You spent a lot more time talking than you spent understanding, didn't you.
TFS explains:
"placing 5G equipment such as small cells on poles, traffic lights"
Parking spots are 9 to 11 feet wide and 18 to 22 long, plus you need access to the spot. So it takes about 320 square feet per parking spot.
How many square feet does an antenna bolted to an existing pole take up?
The motto was "don't be evil".
Evil originally meant, primarily, Microsoft. Don't be Microsoft.
"Tele" means remotely. That's the T in CCTV.
The difference between closed television and broadcast television is that it's not broadcast indiscriminately to everyone; to see it one must affirmatively connect.
The point is to try to make use of solar-electric. Trillions have been spent on solar-electric and now it can produce significant electricity - for a few hours, on sunny days. If the train only runs on sunny days you can just use wiring to connect the train to a the solar cells. If you want the train to run in the morning or evening, you're going to need a lot of batteries.
There's a political party which caters to people who spend their readimg time on Facebook, and there is a party which caters to people who spend their reading time with the Washington Times or National Review.
Nobody denies that brain chemistry exists. So it's not "a notch" for anyone. Drugs can make you feel different ways - yeah we've all known that for at least 7,000 years.
Well, I take that back - sometimes when someone is seriously under the influence of heavy drugs, they might think they are having a spiritual experience rather than a chemical experience. But they also think that they could walk through a wall if they really, really wanted to, think they ARE walking when they are actually sitting still, and think that Bernie Sanders makes sense. So we can disregard what they think when they're really, really high.
The question isn't whether or not brain chemistry exists and can affect our emotions. The question are:
Are our emotions linked to something eternal, or are they purely random happenstance?
Is their a *reason* we have brains and emotions, a purpose, or is it again totally random and devoid of any meaning or purpose?
When you use the words "religion" and "God", those words have thousand different meanings; everyone has different ideas about what this "God" thing is. What all the major world religions agree on, a common denominator, is that Exodus and Moses are Canon (plus and Exodus account also appears in Egyptian records). So the generally agreed part of what "God" is would include God's answer to Moses when he asked in Exodus who Had is. The Greek is really hard to translate accurately to English because English uses the word "is" for several different meanings, but a reasonable translation would be "I am the eternal", or "I (permanently) am", or "I am what is everlasting".
Given God's own answer as to who / what God is, in the book most agreed on, that's why I say the question is whether our spirits, our deepest emotional selves, are connected to something eternal. Because "the eternal" is the one definition of "God" that most agree on.
We develop technology in order to use it, not to just throw it away without uaing it. The purpose is to use it, in order to expend less net effort.
Did you forget what the word "serial" means?
Clothes make it EASIER to stay warm. We can be warm sitting on our butt instead of needing to exercise or otherwise burn calories to stay warm. Clothes help us be lazy.
Computers make things easier. We can lazily click to have things delivered to our doorstep, rather than going to the immense effort of sitting in the car driving to the store. Computers help us be lazy.
We chose to build spaceships not because it is easy, but because it is hard ;) Actually at first we built rockets because we were afraid of the Russians. We're hard-wired for lazy, but we're also hard-wired to be powerfully motivated by fear. Fear overcomes laziness.
These days satellites do make things easier, no need to actually red a nap, we can let our phone read the directions out to us. We can be lazy.
Static routes are okay with your building, if the building isn't too big. If a router goes offline, everybody waits for the network admin to get back from lunch and fix it. For the backbones, we currently re-route in milliseconds sometimes dpending on network conditions. No waiting around for a sysadmin.
> What is stopping someone anywhere within the RPKI to lie, mislead, or be misled through layer 2 and 3 attack
Routing is in layer 3, so this is preventing some layer 3 attacks. For securing layer 2, see http://google.com/search?q=lay...
Routing protocols at layer 3 aren't supposed to address issues of layer 2.
Often hardware virtualization support defaults to off in the BIOS. With it on, there will generally be no noticable slowdown in a VM provided you give the VM a reasonable amount of RAM. You might see it called Intel VT-x or AMD-V in the BIOS. Enable it.
Sometimes people give a VM 256MB of RAM, then they are suprised that it's almost as slow as a machine with 256MB of RAM. If top performance is needed, a VM should have almost as much RAM assigned as you'd use in a bare-metal machine withh the same OS. IO buffer in the host reduce the RAM requirements a little bit.
The other thing that can happen is if you have a VM that does a ton of IO, you want to use virtio. Set the VM settings to use virtio rather than emulating a particular network card and hard drive. That can significantly faster, if the VM writes to disk a lot or it's pumping a hundreds of megabits through the network card.
Answering myself with one way of doing it, I order to have $1,000 per year plus get $10,000 10 years from now, you could either:
Put $10,000 into an index fund
Or
Put $10,000 into solar PLUS $4,000 into an index fund and withdraw the $4,000 after it grows to $10K.
So to get the same dollar return we have to put in $14,000 with the solar plan, only $10,000 with an index fund. $1,000 return on $14K is only 7%, vs the 10% average return of an index fund. AND the index fund is liquid - you can spend it when you get sick and can't work. Can't spend solar panels.
> And I'll even go as far as to say that if we want to save as many lives as possible, we build out nuclear as much as possible because the evidence shows that the deaths per kWh are less than any other energy source.
This is true.
In comparing solar-electric with traditional investments, one part is fairly clear, the other part I wonder how you calculate it.
The average annual return pf the S&P since it's included 90 years ago is 10% (nominal). It tends to be higher when inflation is higher, and lower during periods of low inflation, for a fairly steady 7% inflation-adjusted annual return over any decade. Since inflation affects both equally, we can leave it out of the comparison and call the stock market 10%.
Suppose you put in a $13,000 solar-electric system, for which you directly paid $10,000 (after $3,000 kicked in by taxpayers). Suppose that $10,000 investment yields a net saving $1,000 / year, or $10,000 I ten years, after replacing batteries at the five year mark and maintenance. That part would be equal to the return from the stock market. Simple enough.
After having your money invested in the stock market for 10 years and getting returns, when your kid starts college you withdraw the $10,000 and spend it on college. You get your money back whenever you want, after getting your investment returns every year. You can't sell your solar panels for $10,000 after ten years. At best, you might get $2,000 for some ten year old panels. So that's an $8,000 loss vs any traditional investment. How did you figure that in?
I remember when rooftop solar was a big thing in the 1980s. ... ...
Given the price projections then, in 10 years solar + batteries would be cheaper
I've read the projections from thr 1960s and 1970s. Given the price projections then, in 10 years solar + batteries would be cheaper
We could have cut CO2 emissions in half during the 1970s, forty years ago, by switching from fossil fuels to nuclear. We didn't do that 40 years ago because "give price projections for solar ...". If solar on a LARGE (nationwide) scale starts making sense in 10 years, or 20 years, or 40 years, great! In the meantime, we can cut CO2 I half using technology that we already have, plant designs we've already built and already work at scale.
Thanks, I see where you got the $257 billion.
I didn't say solar electric is a complete waste. I said seventy years of that hasn't worked to get us off fossil fuels. We agree that solar electric covers somewhere between 0.5%-3% our energy needs, right? Fewer than 1% of cars and trucks are even electric, much less powered by solar electric, and that's with the taxpayer paying half the cost. Waiting for solar has not worked to stop CO2 emissions. We could have cut CO2 emissions by 85% 40 years ago, but we didn't because Green and Peace were linked as Greenpeace (and those Peace people didn't believe that nukes just might discourage people from attacking, encouraging more peace).
Might solar electric be a big thing down the road? Sure! Wind perhaps more so. As I said, my plan calls for the (realistic, doable) goal to be about 65% nuclear and about 25% solar and wind.
Are you old enough to remember when rooftop solar was a big fad in the 1980s? I am, I remember lots of houses with rooftop solar. Affordable solar electric is just around the corner - and always has been. Until that happens, how about we quit burning coal, using stuff we already have, today, to cut CO2 emissions by half?
PS, my.plan calls for extensive use of solar and especially wind (plus hydro and geothermal in those places it's available).
As I mentioned here:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Daytime demand is about 50% higher than night time demand. Not surprisingly, demand rises about 7AM and begins to fall around 8PM.
Coincidentally, the sun rises around 7AM and sets around 8PM.
So on clear sunny days, solar power becomes available right about when load increases and you need more power.
(Of course full output only occurs for a few hours per day, there isn't much solar available for a couple hours after sunrise and a couple hours before sunset).
The minimum, night time load in this example is about 10GW and the peak is about 15GW. So you run your nuclear at 10GW and during the day for the extra 5GW you use solar or wind if it's available at the moment, natural gas to the extent you need it.
That means much of the day time load could be solar. Costs are of course a big factor (actual total costs, everybody can't make their neighbor pay for it via subsidies). So *when the right technology* is available, we could very well get 25% from solar. Until then, we are cost-constrained - it mostly only works if somebody else pays 70% of the cost, and if everyone were using a lot of solar we'd run out of somebody elses to pay for it.
Here's a typical hourly demand curve:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinene...
Not surprisingly, demand rises about 7AM and begins to fall around 8PM.
Coincidentally, the sun rises around 7AM and sets around 8PM.
So on clear sunny days, solar power becomes available right about when load increases and you need more power.
(Of course full output only occurs for a few hours per day, there isn't much solar available for a couple hours after sunrise and a couple hours before sunset).
The minimum, night time load in this example is about 10GW and the peak is about 15GW. So you run your nuclear at 10GW and during the day for the extra 5GW you use solar or wind if it's available at the moment, natural gas to the extent you need it.
Nuclear provides your steady 10GW you need all the time, solar can provide some of the additional 5 GW you need during the day - which conveniently is when the sun is up and solar may be available.
I pretty much agree with almost everything you said.
You may have noticed I said nuclear for *base load*.
Here's a typical hourly demand curve:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinene...
Not surprisingly, demand rises about 7AM and begins to fall around 8PM.
Coincidentally, the sun rises around 7AM and sets around 8PM.
So on clear sunny days, solar power becomes available right about when load increases and you need more power.
(Of course full output only occurs for a few hours per day, there isn't much solar available for a couple hours after sunrise and a couple hours before sunset).
The minimum, night time load in this example is about 10GW and the peak is about 15GW. So you run your nuclear at 10GW and during the day for the extra 5GW you use solar or wind if it's available at the moment, natural gas to the extent you need it.
I see where you're finding .367, you were looking over a five month period, I was looking at slightly longer period. So we'll go with the most recent number, the 1% you found. Obviously the 1% you found is a lot LESS than the 3% I generously gave solar.
There are a lot of numbers in that other report. Where are you finding the $250 billion you are looking at? I'm noticing $250 total worldwide spending by governments and businesses combined on oil and gas infrastructure.
I'm not sure why you are acting like I'm attacking solar, and even accusing me of lying, while you also point out that solar's contribution is only around 1%, not the 3% I gave solar credit for. You can see, based on comparing the numbers I mentioned to what you're finding, that I'm being VERY generous to solar.