The Linux kernel could be compiled in C++ mode for quite a while, a long time ago. The option was removed because g++ generated lousy code compared to gcc. (This is from memory, details may be wrong).
The problem is that when someone pays five figures for a piece of software, they don't mind so much paying six figures to get it working. On the other hand, if they pay $0 for the software, they REALLY mind paying four figures to get it working.
The funny thing is that Youtube music compression is often pretty terrible, no one should want to actually listen to that on a regular basis.
Conveniently (for the rippers at least) modern music is deliberately engineered to sound like a 32kbps MP3. After going through the Youtube compression, it still sounds like a 32kbps MP3, so nothing of much value was lost.
Yes, I noticed that. And I replied that you are just speculating. I have Bill Gates' word against yours that this can be done economically. I believe Bill Gates.
You are arguing that the Moon is made of cheese because Bill Gates said so. You have not refuted the basic argument that if you get something for free and people want it, it's stupid to throw it away.
The customer retail price in Denmark includes taxes spent on all sorts of things unrelated to the grid. At least use the price paid by the heavy users, such as datacenters.
Perhaps you are referring to the temperature of the fuel? If so, that is irrelevant, the relevant temperature is that of the steam that you can draw power from. APR-1400 is around 4000MW thermal to get 1400MW electricity, so the rule of thumb of having to cool away twice as much heat as you get electricity applies. Again, this is pitiful compared to fossil plants or even concentrated solar thermal (not that concentrated solar thermal is ever going anywhere for electricity purposes).
The articles on the DOE web site say that this MCFR can load follow, provide process heat and electrical generation, and more so I'm inclined to believe them.
Never once have I said that nuclear power plants have a technical problem doing load-following. The problem is entirely economical.
The price is right on top of the map of Denmark! What more do you want? Note that prices are often different in DK1 and DK2. DK1 has the highest wind penetration and the lowest prices.
Again, if the solar thermal facility in the desert at Ivanpah gat get sufficient water then any nuclear power plant can get water.
Ivanpah runs at 800K. Not 500K.
All steam power can load follow, including nuclear, but because of the stresses on the plant this is done only as a last resort. Load following with steam is very hard on the equipment, including combined cycle.
Load following on the hourly scale is being done by every Danish combined cycle power plant -- and until a couple of decades ago, Danish power generation was practically all coal-fired combined cycle. It is a non-problem. It is slightly more difficult with nuclear, but as France proves, that can be overcome.
Load following is simply expensive because of the fuel that is wasted. With nuclear, as you admit, the fuel is essentially free, so why not use nuclear to load follow?
No fuel is wasted when load-following! Where are you getting this from? The whole point of load-following is to NOT waste fuel. A power plant load-follows when the price of electricity is below the cost of fuel needed to generate this electricity. For nuclear power, solar, and wind, fuel is free, so it only makes sense to load-follow when prices are negative. As long as prices are positive, no matter how close to zero, those power plants keep producing because a tiny income is better than no income.
You are focusing on the technical challenges of hour-based load-following. Those were solved 50 years ago. Every type of power generation today can vary its output between reasonably close to zero and full output (with full being dependent on the available wind and solar insolation in the appropriate cases, of course) on an hourly basis. Solar can cut its power output in ms without needing warning beforehand. Wind and gas turbines need a few minutes of warning. Combined cycle needs a few hours of warning. The Nordpool spot market has no problems accommodating all of them.
Technically, nuclear is great at load-following. Just like everything else. But why would you throw away almost-free electricity? It must feel particularly terrible when the capital cost of building the power plant leaves a sunk cost of around 70EUR/MWh. Every hour that a nuclear power plant does not produce must be made up by raising the prices above 70EUR/MWh when it DOES produce. Otherwise the company goes bankrupt. Danish spot electricity prices rarely hit 70EUR/MWh, so the power plant loses money every hour it produces, and even more money every hour it doesn't produce.
If the complaint is the need for access to water then this is the same complaint for any thermal plant, whether that be coal, natural gas, or concentrated solar.
This is where you go wrong. Coal and natural gas can use district heating for the cold side where that is desired, turning the waste heat useful. This is only possible because they can deliver the waste heat at 400K and still produce decent amounts of electricity. For areas where the waste heat isn't useful, combined cycle power plants can get close to 60% efficiency. That means that for every 1W produced they need less than 1W of cooling -- and cooling something that is upwards of 400K hot is fairly easy on Earth.
At 500K you need the cool side to be not too much higher than 300K (preferably even lower), to make building the power plant worthwhile at all. In practice you hit maybe 30% efficiency, which then means you have to cool 2W for every 1W of electric power output. Worse, the outside air might actually be hotter than your cold side, making any forms of air cooling unviable. Such cold water is obviously unsuitable for district heating. You need a nearby body of water to get rid of the heat.
To keep a 1GW nuclear plant running, you need to heat around 500 tons of water per second by 2K. If the inlet temperature goes up, as it might in a hot summer, the thermodynamic efficiency goes down and you hit the point where little useful power is generated while cooling needs rise. Hence the power plant shutdowns that happen in summer, when AC loads are highest.
Notice that nuclear is not the only type of generation with this problem. Denmark is in the process of replacing coal fired power plants with wood chip burning ones. The thermodynamic efficiency of those things is just as terrible, and unlike nuclear the fuel isn't free.
You are speculating. You can't say for certain anything on the economics of technology that isn't on the market yet. I've heard from nuclear power plant operators that current nuclear power can load follow just fine, and do so economically, if only the steam systems allowed for them to load follow.
It is basic economics. The fuel is free. The maintenance is practically unaffected by lowering load (or made slightly worse because of the problems with reactor poisoning with byproducts at low loads, but that is a minor distraction). If you run at less than maximum power you are throwing money down the drain. Don't do that.
The savings in having nuclear follow load is not having to burn natural gas. Natural gas boilers are very cheap to run but they also have steam systems that prevent them from following load.
Modern combined cycle natural gas (or coal for that matter) plants can certainly load-follow, as in they can be backup for wind or solar and handle the peak cooking load. They take up to hours to go from low production to full production, but that is not really a problem. Power demand and renewable production is well predicted on the hourly scale. They don't react fast enough to handle grid failure, for that you need gas turbines or engines.
I don't know where you got the idea that they are cheap though. You actually need to run them a decent fraction of the year to make them worth building.
Natural gas turbines can follow load but they burn twice as much fuel as the boilers for the same electrical output.
Those only need to run for a few hundred hours a year. It sucks that they waste energy, but for now the problem is more the methane they leak than the CO2 they emit. By 2030 they'll mostly be replaced by batteries.
In other words, consoles are circling the drain so fast its starting to look like the nineties blockbuster rental gaming scene.
I have switched TO console gaming. It is so much easier to not have to check compatibility or deal with installations or try to get controllers working for a PC. So far it has been a very pleasant change. The games I play have mostly come in for "free" through PS Plus.
Casual games work on the phone, of course, including World of Tanks Blitz. PC is great for single-player strategy of course, but I have actually been impressed by XCom-2 for the PS4.
Denmark has among the lowest electricity prices in the developed world, actually.
On top of those, consumers (and some businesses) pay taxes on electricity use. Those taxes have nothing to do with generating costs. I will happily debate tax policy, but don't use it to derail the debate on nuclear power.
First, there's plenty of good sites for nuclear power plants with current technology. These run on the same steam cycles as coal and natural gas so if that's a problem for nuclear then it's a problem for electrical power generation generally.
You are ignoring what I am writing. With current technology, nuclear runs at 500K whereas natural gas and coal runs at 1000K. At 1000K you can run the "cool" side above 400K if need be, so you can do things like district heating or use cooling towers. At 500K that is unviable.
As to load-following, economy kills that idea. There are no savings from running below full power output, so the owners would be idiots to load-follow unless electricity prices go negative. Solar has the same characteristics, except it manages to stay economical without producing unwanted power at night.
It's great that TerraPower has solved all the problems. They are hoping to be commercial in 2030.
You might get lucky and see prices above 60EUR/MWh. Feel free to look at the historical data if that happens. This has been an unusual summer so prices are very high. Even so, that compares well to the US wholesale prices.
With the punitive tariffs on solar cells going away soon, we should hopefully see some GW of new installations across the Nordic countries. That would have kept prices normal through the windless summer.
Not by dumping the energy, but by adjusting the plant output.
That is exactly my point. There is no difference between adjusting the plant output and dumping the power. The actual amount of money saved by running at below 100% is approximately zero.
Yes, there are additional physical challenges to actually adjust plant output. They can be ignored, as only idiots who don't know economy would be adjusting it in the first place.
Yes, thank you. Nuclear power is still a thermal power plant like coal and much of natural gas. As such most of the same structures and machines are used, like steam driven generators. The difference is in the source of the heat.
The difference is that the source of the heat is either inadequately hot, as in current designs, or consists of a molten corrosive salt, as in the modern designs that no one can get to actually work.
In current designs, you are stuck trying to get a decent amount of energy out of low-pressure steam, rather than proper high-pressure 1000K steam from a nuclear or gas plant. Suddenly your major concern isn't dealing with the stresses from the power that you generate, it is simply to get rid of the waste heat that dwarfs the actual power output. It's doable if you have a body of water nearby, or if you can boil off water in cooling towers. If you build 2 every month you'll be out of suitable sites in a decade.
Add to that that you'll be littering the country with useless buildings that have to be guarded and maintained for a long time. Denmark is currently taking apart the tiny experimental reactors at Risø. The cost is astronomical. Thankfully Denmark does not have actual power producing reactors to deal with.
Get nuclear power plants up to a decent temperature and find a way to avoid the littering, then we can talk. Before 2030, so solar cells won't have taken over the world. Good luck.
By 2030 most of the world will have abandoned coal and most places outside the US will have abandoned natural gas for power generation as well. Even if it arrives on schedule (which nothing experimental ever does), we're probably talking 2040 until this design can be produced in the quantities needed to produce 1% of the world's power.
Nuclear power isn't on-demand, except in the sense that you can sometimes throw the output away.
Runnign a nuclear plant at 100% is not significantly more expensive than running it at 30%, and one running at 10% is generally dangerous. Running below 100% just means throwing money away.
This is unlikely to change in the new designs, nuclear fuel is cheap. Using nuclear power plants for base load is already uneconomical, using them for peak loads just adds another factor on top of that.
You can't produce nuclear plants fast enough. Nuclear has been around more than half century, and it has failed to outcompete fossil fuels. The new designs are still just finding better ways to boil water. Even if they improve costs by an order of magnitude, solar and wind are still going to beat them.
Solar and wind are still enjoying exponential cost decreases, and at least solar is likely to continue on that path for a long time.
Don't they have to provide source for the kernel they compile to run on the device?
My interpretation of GPL 2.0 says that yes, they have to provide the complete source code, including for device drivers. Alas, the companies disagree with me. I'm not going to sue them to force them to accept my interpretation. Are you?
I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA has a fairly generic way to take on IPSEC running aggressive mode IKEv1 with group PSK and XAUTH. Because all other options are still a pain...
The various *SWAN implementations of IKE showed us 15(?) years ago how to do secure roadwarrior VPNs with "raw" public key authentication, no insecure CA's or anything involved. No commercial implementation exist. IKEv2 can do cert-for-the-server + PSK-for-the-client, which is half way decent without relying on a full PSK infrastructure that ~noone gets right, but commercial implementations are generally broken or practically impossible to configure to do so.
Which leaves IKEv1 with group PSK and XAUTH as the obvious choice. Unfortunately that can be broken offline, if the attacker can watch an authentication attempt.
Denmark is around 50% renewable electricity. The total cost of Danish electricity imports is LESS than the total income from Danish electricity exports, despite the fact that Denmark imports MORE than it exports.
Yes, that's because Denmark is conveniently situated near neighbours which struggle to get enough electricity in winter, and wind power in Denmark just so happens to be produced mostly in winter. If you mix your renewables correctly, there are LOTS of places around the world that are in similar lucky situations.
Everything that Javascript does is sensitive. I don't want any site to be able to inspect what I am doing at any other site. That is the problem with Spectre, you cannot spot-mitigate it, everything needs hardening.
Nordea is best known for inventing new and innovative ways for doing money-laundering, tax evasion, and general financial assistance to high-level criminals. Although to be fair, despite their impressive efforts in those areas, they are still not close to leaders in crime-assistance such as Danske Bank.
I guess with everything automated, they can always blame a programming error the next time they get caught. And the next. And...
Slashdot Mirror
The Linux kernel could be compiled in C++ mode for quite a while, a long time ago. The option was removed because g++ generated lousy code compared to gcc. (This is from memory, details may be wrong).
The problem is that when someone pays five figures for a piece of software, they don't mind so much paying six figures to get it working. On the other hand, if they pay $0 for the software, they REALLY mind paying four figures to get it working.
The funny thing is that Youtube music compression is often pretty terrible, no one should want to actually listen to that on a regular basis.
Conveniently (for the rippers at least) modern music is deliberately engineered to sound like a 32kbps MP3. After going through the Youtube compression, it still sounds like a 32kbps MP3, so nothing of much value was lost.
Yes, I noticed that. And I replied that you are just speculating. I have Bill Gates' word against yours that this can be done economically. I believe Bill Gates.
You are arguing that the Moon is made of cheese because Bill Gates said so. You have not refuted the basic argument that if you get something for free and people want it, it's stupid to throw it away.
The customer retail price in Denmark includes taxes spent on all sorts of things unrelated to the grid. At least use the price paid by the heavy users, such as datacenters.
The APR-1400 reactor runs at 890K, so what are you talking about?
The APR-1400 actually runs at 600K. Read for yourself here: http://euanmearns.com/an-overv...
Perhaps you are referring to the temperature of the fuel? If so, that is irrelevant, the relevant temperature is that of the steam that you can draw power from. APR-1400 is around 4000MW thermal to get 1400MW electricity, so the rule of thumb of having to cool away twice as much heat as you get electricity applies. Again, this is pitiful compared to fossil plants or even concentrated solar thermal (not that concentrated solar thermal is ever going anywhere for electricity purposes).
The articles on the DOE web site say that this MCFR can load follow, provide process heat and electrical generation, and more so I'm inclined to believe them.
Never once have I said that nuclear power plants have a technical problem doing load-following. The problem is entirely economical.
The price is right on top of the map of Denmark! What more do you want? Note that prices are often different in DK1 and DK2. DK1 has the highest wind penetration and the lowest prices.
Here are there hourly prices for this year: https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/...
Again, Denmark is DK1 and DK2.
You can get all the information you want from https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/...
Again, if the solar thermal facility in the desert at Ivanpah gat get sufficient water then any nuclear power plant can get water.
Ivanpah runs at 800K. Not 500K.
All steam power can load follow, including nuclear, but because of the stresses on the plant this is done only as a last resort. Load following with steam is very hard on the equipment, including combined cycle.
Load following on the hourly scale is being done by every Danish combined cycle power plant -- and until a couple of decades ago, Danish power generation was practically all coal-fired combined cycle. It is a non-problem. It is slightly more difficult with nuclear, but as France proves, that can be overcome.
Load following is simply expensive because of the fuel that is wasted. With nuclear, as you admit, the fuel is essentially free, so why not use nuclear to load follow?
No fuel is wasted when load-following! Where are you getting this from? The whole point of load-following is to NOT waste fuel. A power plant load-follows when the price of electricity is below the cost of fuel needed to generate this electricity. For nuclear power, solar, and wind, fuel is free, so it only makes sense to load-follow when prices are negative. As long as prices are positive, no matter how close to zero, those power plants keep producing because a tiny income is better than no income.
You are focusing on the technical challenges of hour-based load-following. Those were solved 50 years ago. Every type of power generation today can vary its output between reasonably close to zero and full output (with full being dependent on the available wind and solar insolation in the appropriate cases, of course) on an hourly basis. Solar can cut its power output in ms without needing warning beforehand. Wind and gas turbines need a few minutes of warning. Combined cycle needs a few hours of warning. The Nordpool spot market has no problems accommodating all of them.
Technically, nuclear is great at load-following. Just like everything else. But why would you throw away almost-free electricity? It must feel particularly terrible when the capital cost of building the power plant leaves a sunk cost of around 70EUR/MWh. Every hour that a nuclear power plant does not produce must be made up by raising the prices above 70EUR/MWh when it DOES produce. Otherwise the company goes bankrupt. Danish spot electricity prices rarely hit 70EUR/MWh, so the power plant loses money every hour it produces, and even more money every hour it doesn't produce.
If the complaint is the need for access to water then this is the same complaint for any thermal plant, whether that be coal, natural gas, or concentrated solar.
This is where you go wrong. Coal and natural gas can use district heating for the cold side where that is desired, turning the waste heat useful. This is only possible because they can deliver the waste heat at 400K and still produce decent amounts of electricity. For areas where the waste heat isn't useful, combined cycle power plants can get close to 60% efficiency. That means that for every 1W produced they need less than 1W of cooling -- and cooling something that is upwards of 400K hot is fairly easy on Earth.
At 500K you need the cool side to be not too much higher than 300K (preferably even lower), to make building the power plant worthwhile at all. In practice you hit maybe 30% efficiency, which then means you have to cool 2W for every 1W of electric power output. Worse, the outside air might actually be hotter than your cold side, making any forms of air cooling unviable. Such cold water is obviously unsuitable for district heating. You need a nearby body of water to get rid of the heat.
To keep a 1GW nuclear plant running, you need to heat around 500 tons of water per second by 2K. If the inlet temperature goes up, as it might in a hot summer, the thermodynamic efficiency goes down and you hit the point where little useful power is generated while cooling needs rise. Hence the power plant shutdowns that happen in summer, when AC loads are highest.
Notice that nuclear is not the only type of generation with this problem. Denmark is in the process of replacing coal fired power plants with wood chip burning ones. The thermodynamic efficiency of those things is just as terrible, and unlike nuclear the fuel isn't free.
You are speculating. You can't say for certain anything on the economics of technology that isn't on the market yet. I've heard from nuclear power plant operators that current nuclear power can load follow just fine, and do so economically, if only the steam systems allowed for them to load follow.
It is basic economics. The fuel is free. The maintenance is practically unaffected by lowering load (or made slightly worse because of the problems with reactor poisoning with byproducts at low loads, but that is a minor distraction). If you run at less than maximum power you are throwing money down the drain. Don't do that.
The savings in having nuclear follow load is not having to burn natural gas. Natural gas boilers are very cheap to run but they also have steam systems that prevent them from following load.
Modern combined cycle natural gas (or coal for that matter) plants can certainly load-follow, as in they can be backup for wind or solar and handle the peak cooking load. They take up to hours to go from low production to full production, but that is not really a problem. Power demand and renewable production is well predicted on the hourly scale. They don't react fast enough to handle grid failure, for that you need gas turbines or engines.
I don't know where you got the idea that they are cheap though. You actually need to run them a decent fraction of the year to make them worth building.
Natural gas turbines can follow load but they burn twice as much fuel as the boilers for the same electrical output.
Those only need to run for a few hundred hours a year. It sucks that they waste energy, but for now the problem is more the methane they leak than the CO2 they emit. By 2030 they'll mostly be replaced by batteries.
The link was right in the post you replied to!
Here it is again: http://www.statnett.no/en/Mark...
And what do the Dutch prices have to do with anything?
It only takes a few clicks from the link to download historical hourly Nordpoolspot prices for any part of the Nordics you are interested in.
I also told you why the household prices are irrelevant. They consist almost entirely of tax and transportation costs.
In other words, consoles are circling the drain so fast its starting to look like the nineties blockbuster rental gaming scene.
I have switched TO console gaming. It is so much easier to not have to check compatibility or deal with installations or try to get controllers working for a PC. So far it has been a very pleasant change. The games I play have mostly come in for "free" through PS Plus.
Casual games work on the phone, of course, including World of Tanks Blitz. PC is great for single-player strategy of course, but I have actually been impressed by XCom-2 for the PS4.
Oh stop the disinformation.
Denmark has among the lowest electricity prices in the developed world, actually.
On top of those, consumers (and some businesses) pay taxes on electricity use. Those taxes have nothing to do with generating costs. I will happily debate tax policy, but don't use it to derail the debate on nuclear power.
First, there's plenty of good sites for nuclear power plants with current technology. These run on the same steam cycles as coal and natural gas so if that's a problem for nuclear then it's a problem for electrical power generation generally.
You are ignoring what I am writing. With current technology, nuclear runs at 500K whereas natural gas and coal runs at 1000K. At 1000K you can run the "cool" side above 400K if need be, so you can do things like district heating or use cooling towers. At 500K that is unviable.
As to load-following, economy kills that idea. There are no savings from running below full power output, so the owners would be idiots to load-follow unless electricity prices go negative. Solar has the same characteristics, except it manages to stay economical without producing unwanted power at night.
It's great that TerraPower has solved all the problems. They are hoping to be commercial in 2030.
Its pretty simple, countries that have invested heavily in wind have high electric costs.
Look at this power map of the Nordics. Denmark is extremely heavily invested in wind.
You might get lucky and see prices above 60EUR/MWh. Feel free to look at the historical data if that happens. This has been an unusual summer so prices are very high. Even so, that compares well to the US wholesale prices.
With the punitive tariffs on solar cells going away soon, we should hopefully see some GW of new installations across the Nordic countries. That would have kept prices normal through the windless summer.
Not by dumping the energy, but by adjusting the plant output.
That is exactly my point. There is no difference between adjusting the plant output and dumping the power. The actual amount of money saved by running at below 100% is approximately zero.
Yes, there are additional physical challenges to actually adjust plant output. They can be ignored, as only idiots who don't know economy would be adjusting it in the first place.
Yes, thank you. Nuclear power is still a thermal power plant like coal and much of natural gas. As such most of the same structures and machines are used, like steam driven generators. The difference is in the source of the heat.
The difference is that the source of the heat is either inadequately hot, as in current designs, or consists of a molten corrosive salt, as in the modern designs that no one can get to actually work.
In current designs, you are stuck trying to get a decent amount of energy out of low-pressure steam, rather than proper high-pressure 1000K steam from a nuclear or gas plant. Suddenly your major concern isn't dealing with the stresses from the power that you generate, it is simply to get rid of the waste heat that dwarfs the actual power output. It's doable if you have a body of water nearby, or if you can boil off water in cooling towers. If you build 2 every month you'll be out of suitable sites in a decade.
Add to that that you'll be littering the country with useless buildings that have to be guarded and maintained for a long time. Denmark is currently taking apart the tiny experimental reactors at Risø. The cost is astronomical. Thankfully Denmark does not have actual power producing reactors to deal with.
Get nuclear power plants up to a decent temperature and find a way to avoid the littering, then we can talk. Before 2030, so solar cells won't have taken over the world. Good luck.
By 2030 most of the world will have abandoned coal and most places outside the US will have abandoned natural gas for power generation as well. Even if it arrives on schedule (which nothing experimental ever does), we're probably talking 2040 until this design can be produced in the quantities needed to produce 1% of the world's power.
Nuclear power isn't on-demand, except in the sense that you can sometimes throw the output away.
Runnign a nuclear plant at 100% is not significantly more expensive than running it at 30%, and one running at 10% is generally dangerous. Running below 100% just means throwing money away.
This is unlikely to change in the new designs, nuclear fuel is cheap. Using nuclear power plants for base load is already uneconomical, using them for peak loads just adds another factor on top of that.
You can't produce nuclear plants fast enough. Nuclear has been around more than half century, and it has failed to outcompete fossil fuels. The new designs are still just finding better ways to boil water. Even if they improve costs by an order of magnitude, solar and wind are still going to beat them.
Solar and wind are still enjoying exponential cost decreases, and at least solar is likely to continue on that path for a long time.
Don't they have to provide source for the kernel they compile to run on the device?
My interpretation of GPL 2.0 says that yes, they have to provide the complete source code, including for device drivers. Alas, the companies disagree with me. I'm not going to sue them to force them to accept my interpretation. Are you?
I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA has a fairly generic way to take on IPSEC running aggressive mode IKEv1 with group PSK and XAUTH. Because all other options are still a pain...
The various *SWAN implementations of IKE showed us 15(?) years ago how to do secure roadwarrior VPNs with "raw" public key authentication, no insecure CA's or anything involved. No commercial implementation exist. IKEv2 can do cert-for-the-server + PSK-for-the-client, which is half way decent without relying on a full PSK infrastructure that ~noone gets right, but commercial implementations are generally broken or practically impossible to configure to do so.
Which leaves IKEv1 with group PSK and XAUTH as the obvious choice. Unfortunately that can be broken offline, if the attacker can watch an authentication attempt.
Denmark is around 50% renewable electricity. The total cost of Danish electricity imports is LESS than the total income from Danish electricity exports, despite the fact that Denmark imports MORE than it exports.
Yes, that's because Denmark is conveniently situated near neighbours which struggle to get enough electricity in winter, and wind power in Denmark just so happens to be produced mostly in winter. If you mix your renewables correctly, there are LOTS of places around the world that are in similar lucky situations.
It isn't for travelling. It's for having a work account and a private account without having to deal with two phones.
Dual SIM is a must-have.
The S9 is available in dual-SIM by the way, and it isn't exactly dirt cheap.
Everything that Javascript does is sensitive. I don't want any site to be able to inspect what I am doing at any other site. That is the problem with Spectre, you cannot spot-mitigate it, everything needs hardening.
Nordea is best known for inventing new and innovative ways for doing money-laundering, tax evasion, and general financial assistance to high-level criminals. Although to be fair, despite their impressive efforts in those areas, they are still not close to leaders in crime-assistance such as Danske Bank.
I guess with everything automated, they can always blame a programming error the next time they get caught. And the next. And...