Since others have answered this already I just wanted to take a moment to appreciate someone posting about npm. It works so great and helps make selfhosting quite easy. Have a good one.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. I was scratching my head for a few seconds looking at the thumbnail and the title. And even the post body didn’t clarify things. 🤷🏻
Multiple things have the same abbreviation, it’s really all about the context it’s used it imo. Considering Ngninx Proxy Manager being a very well known tool in the selfhosters toolbelt, I figured it would be familiar enough to use.
Yeah I had literally no idea what you were talking about until you mentioned the actual name in the comments.
NPM almost universally refers to node package manager in any developer or development adjacent conversation in my experience. Given that both the site, the command, the logo, and the binaries are “npm” makes that more appropriate.
Nginix proxy manager is far to niche to be referred to universally by acronym when it’s only ever used as an acronym when the context for it’s usage has already been defined (ie. In it’s documentation).
This becomes much more clear when you Google the acronym.
The author of this article would just love my friend. Total trendsetter. Last I saw her, she had this bald look going, looked sick af. But I guess it’s super trendy to splurge on drugs now. How last month she spent like 90% of her paycheck on some new type of chemotherapy pills? Like whoa, bitch, leave some for the rest of us. You know? Typical Cancer.
With the cost of groceries these days this is the only feasting many can afford. (And I would say there are a lot more dystopian concerns then business insider)
“Younger generations spend more on groceries than on other categories”
Maybe because the price of groceries and rent has gone up so much that there’s nothing left for anything else? I thought when the price of foods starts going up, that’s when societies typically start seeing riots as people are basically at the end of their rope at that point.
Man they really tried telling us that rent or mortgage should only be 30% of your monthly income if you have a really nice place and then turned around and got confused that we are complaining that even if you make $100,000 in most cities that still puts rent near 50% of your take home paycheck.
And now food is taking up more of the rest of a paycheck. But hey we just complain to much as the younger generations I guess because there is never anything to fix. It’s all perfect except for brown people or lesbians or some shit.
But the prices aren’t impossible yet and people aren’t starving just not eating well.
Don’t forget, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was just in China to protect US interests - this time because China has flooded the market with cheap solar panels.
We can’t have solar power becoming affordable and accessible for most people.
It’s nuanced. Domestic solar panel production is lagging and cheaper shit from China is gonna make it worse. It is not necessarily evil to want to have local production, and if we live under capitalism then it has to make money.
I agree though that for the most part even our good politicians do whatever they can to maintain the status quo, and that is generally bad for us and good for corporations and the billionaires
That doesn’t sound nuanced. That sounds like the free market, so capitalism, did its thing and the US doesn’t like the outcome. It’s almost like capitalism is a terrible system that the US’s lead economist is trying to subvert.
I don’t see the problem. Buy the underpriced Chinese Solar. If they raise prices, build a factory. It’s only a few years of overpriced panels, then prices go back down. If they are dumping panels, it’s the Chinese who are handing free money to US consumers.
After the US is 100% solar we can worry about domestic manufacturing for maintaining infrastructure.
except the U.S. needs solar panels for military industrial complex reasons too, and they don’t want to rely on a notoriously hostile power to build the groundwork of that structure. a big part of selling the U.S. on solar is the promise of energy independence, you don’t get independence if your entire foundation is built on another country’s tech.
The US exports oil and gas so we are already energy independent. If China sold Gold to US consumers at $1000 an ounce, should the US step in and stop China from giving Americans cheap gold?
Yes I understand the need for domestic production. Factories take a few years to ramp up. Domestic production can be started after everyone has solar panels and old panels need replacement.
Solar panels degrade over time, I don’t know what the numbers are but they used to be dysmal, like 30% reduction in generation capacity over 5 years. Whatever the actual numbers are, we will constantly be replacing panels. I am sure we can figure out refurbishing too at some point.
Yeah they’re definitely better now, I’m reading anywhere between 1% per year or 12.5% at year 25. There are other things that can pop up though, micro cracks causing localized overheating of the panel - to backing failures and other physical issues. I’m interested in standing some up at some point but the capital eludes me at the moment.
No worries at all. Like you said though, with advancements people will likely do upgrades over time anyways. I don’t have numbers off the top of my head, but even just the per panel efficiencies have grown fantastically since your last experience.
but they used to be dysmal, like 30% reduction in generation capacity over 5 years.
??? Monocrystalline silicon losses less than .4% a year. That means after 50 years it’s still producing 82% of when it was new. It takes 90 years to get a 30% reduction rate.
Monocrystalline silicon was used 20 years ago. It’s the oldest solar technology.
According to the source data in a link in the page I linked thin film CIGS rollable solar sheets was the least durable. Panels installed before 2000 had a degradation of 3.5% a year. That’s 10 years to lose 30%. But CIGS solar systems installed after the year 2000 show only .02% degradation a year. The document talks about manufacturing defects that were corrected.
States don’t serve the majority, per se, but whoever wields the state. Cheap imports are good for consumers, but producers struggle. Capitalists wield the state in America, so this is a bad thing.
They do, but I was responding to someone that said Yellen went to China to address it, so they aren’t immediately starting with subsidizing production.
Id say the bulk of jobs being created in north america wont be in manufacturing the panels, but rather in the installation and upkeep of solar farms and solar panels on houses. If thats the case, then we want the panels themselves to be as low cost as possible to keep the overall cost of projects down.
If politicians had any balls at all (they dont) they’d be proposing publicly funded solar farms outside every major city. But we cant have that because that would be the government directly competing with oil companies, and thats why oil companies have bought one side of our entire political system to keep that from ever happening.
But then you have the issue of being dependent on China for the solar panels, which is why it is crucial to have domestic production. And we have already seen this demonstrated, as China has banned the export of solar panels recently in reaction to us banning electric cars from import (they would probably hurt our domestic car market).
in reaction to us banning electric cars from import (they would probably hurt our domestic car market
Which is an entirely different story that I don’t get. Sure, the protectionism, ok, but there’s no one even attempting to compete with them, and legacy manufacturers have backtracked even more in introducing any. Even Tesla appears to have given up on a reasonably priced EV. What’s the point of protectionism if there’s no equivalent market to protect and no one wants to establish one?
I’ve said it a million times, we had the opportunity to get into the market early under Bush JR, but he shot down investing in the tech. Now who is one of the top exporters?
It’s more complicated than that. Supply shocks cause short term instability in markets that require long term revenue streams to offer service.
Because we privatized our infrastructure, and because private firms divert a bunch of their revenue to profit, we have a bunch of material infrastructure that needs to be maintained by firms more interested in extracting profit than keeping them functional.
That’s the real threat of solar panels. If we cut into private profit margins, they’ll allow the infrastructure to collapse rather than maintain them with declining profit.
Negative prices are good for BESS. It also has no bearing on the consumption market, which is detached from the generation market (so they can charge consumers more).
For those not in the industry, the drivers for this are green tags and production tax credits (more common in wind).
Green tags are basically attaboys for funding the generation of renewable electricity, and are tradable.
Production tax credits are a $/MWH tax incentive for generating renewable power, and are, again, tradable.
In both cases, then, there are incentives for renewable projects to keep producing power even when the wholesale power price at the point of interconnection is negative, as there are generation incentives that still make it better than idling.
From an environmentalist perspective, this is fantastic, as virtually all of this renewable generation represents offset coal and gas peaker plant generation.
From an environmentalist perspective, this is fantastic, as virtually all of this renewable generation represents offset coal and gas peaker plant generation.
Aren’t prices swinging rapidly between negatives and high peaks a sign of volatility, where specifically fossil gas peaker plants flourish? (Since we have a notable absence of proper grid-level storage)
Yes, but if baseline generation goes up there are fewer peak demand events that exceed available baseline capacity so fewer revenue generating opportunities for peaker plants. But I agree the real answer is less overbuild and more storage- unfortunate given today’s Tesla news.
They say we have about 20 years to get to net zero, or face irreversible consequences, increasing exponentially to what is potentially species ending event.
let’s say we achieved nuclear fusion TOMORROW - solving all the planet’s energy need need immediately and forever.
Capitalism means we would be FORCED to drip feed the technology, because plentiful energy cheaper than water would crash the world economy.
Cynicism aside, there are genuine engineering and logistical problems with relying too heavily on solar power. Storage and distribution being chief among them.
Hard sell. Also, say through collective action we actually somehow get governments to pay for a $20,000 battery for every home. How will you make that many, who will install them, who will maintain and replace them? You need a very large number of trained electricians and manufacturing capacity to make that a reality. You also need to plan for and earmark funds for replacements to make it not a complete waste. Just throwing out batteries as a solution is way easier said than done. There are a lot of barriers. That is why things take time.
Nuclear is about $6k per KWatt. Solar with battery is about $5k per KWatt.
If it’s cost effective to build and maintain a nuclear reactor for $6k per KWatt, then it can also be done with the cheaper solar.
Yes it takes lots of money, people and planning. So does operating a coal mine. No one says, “We can’t have coal power, where are all the trained miners going to come from? Someone will need to drive that coal to the powerplant and that power plant will need trained electricians. It’s a huge problem!”
I hate to tell you, very few places are building new nuclear plants as well.
The Fossil industries have lobbyists and money on their side yes, but their infrastructure also already exists. That’s our biggest challenge. And it takes functional governments looking out for the interests of citizens to build and/or subsidize infrastructure. And functional government takes an educated and engaged electorate.
Yes it takes lots of money, people and planning. So does operating a coal mine
I think the problem from the capitalist standpoint is that its not a very profitable business model, well thats fine then the public sector should do it just like we do the roads and other essential services. But no politician in america would even have the balls to propose that.
*Hate to be nitpicky, but a lot of assumptions go into a “$/kW” LCOE. Your effective costs for the solar + battery are going to be very different in different parts of the world depending on factors such as seasons, land value & labour.
Also not a lot of nuclear is being built atm anywhere unfortunately.
Genuine question out of curiosity, do people think it would be more efficient to have some sort of battery substation for a neighborhood that’s funded publicly? I just think it would be really inefficient to have everyone fund their own private batteries. It’ll be way easier to balance a neighborhood than each individual house.
I’m by no means an expert just trying to think things through logically I could absolutely be incorrect in any of my assumptions.
That being said I believe inverters go up in efficiency as their capacity increases, add this the fact that they need to be over provisioned to allow for peak draw times and it makes sense that a substation that averages a neighborhoods demand would be able to cut down on cost by averaging.
You start running into major issues with regulation and ownership of equipment that there isn’t a vested interest in solving. If a local battery isn’t owned by the utility company, who owns it? How do you track power input and use? Can one house use another house’s power?
It is a lot less complicated to keep things separated.
The benefit of everyone having their own batteries is resiliency. If I have batteries I have power in an outage whether the downed wire is in my front yard or miles away.
There’s probably also some free market benefit in purchasing decisions - some people will choose to spend for more capacity while others have an incentive to save money/power usage
Redundancy could be achieved by multiple power stations run municipally, moreover buying in bulk gives the city more leverage to negotiate price than individuals.
Also supposing that the cost of the battery was fielded by individuals it’s just not feasible for the 65% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck to have an additional $20,000 expense and this is something that needs to happen now not down the road.
If the municipal government is going to foot some of that cost it’d be really inefficient to do so in each individual’s home as apposed to a centralized site and project
In addition to other comments here, I think that there’s added risk to having such a starkly segmented way of running things. Having neighborhood stations (publically owned/owned by the utility service provider) reduces a lot of redundancy and hedges some risk for families. If a battery fails and gets spicy it’s less likely to put a family out of their home, when a substation could be highly specialized for managing that kind of risk so that even if a battery or several batteries fail, it doesn’t impact the whole. There’s also some specialization that goes into handling them at end of life, and trusting normal every day laypeople to both maintain and manage them is a tall ask when most people find themselves in a position to be unable to do larger maintenance on their homes already (it cost me 20k to put in a sump pump and encapsulate my crawl space to treat and protect it from mold and pinhole beetles, which I could only do by taking out a loan that I’m still paying for).
I don’t give a shit, and neither should anybody else (except power company engineers). Not only are those problems incredibly minor and surmountable compared to climate change, bringing it up is almost exclusively done in bad faith. And even if your intentions aren’t nefarious, it still doesn’t add anything of value to the conversation.
In other words, stop being a ‘devil’s advocate’ for the fossil fuel industry’s propagandists. They don’t need your help!
Manufacturing and installation manpower are very real problems that take many years to solve. We needed to start working on them a long time ago. And they should be the first step in moving forward.
They are both problems. They both can and do exist. Decentralizing like you suggested reduces the problems from my first comment, but it brings a whole new set of problems that are arguably bigger. Either way the capacity needed to attempt it will take huge leaps in manufacturing and installation capacity. And we need to get started on that yesterday if we want this to happen in a decade.
Problem here is that the engineers are saying “this problem is hard for these reasons” and people like you are screaming that you don’t care, fix it. And when they say it’ll take X years, your scream that it isn’t good enough. Or that the goal posts are moving (problems are complex and involve more than one thing). There standard you’re setting is unreasonable.
Calm down (helpful I know). Stop yelling at people when they are trying to work the problem. It isn’t going to get done the way you like but it can get done if you stop asking for impossible.
Really? I’m an electrical engineer and your understanding of the problem indicates you aren’t an engineer or you suck at your job (or did you not just positively assert production capacity and storage are minor problems?). Any decent engineer wouldn’t call out moving goal posts on a complex problem. Public awareness of difficulties is a way to get support for decidedly unsexy problems (nothing gets people hard like utilities). And layman screaming about shit they don’t understand is also a problem.
your understanding of the problem indicates you aren’t an engineer or you suck at your job (or did you not just positively assert production capacity and storage are minor problems?)
I said that they’re minor compared to climate change.
Failing to understand context is a way bigger indication of an engineer sucking at their job than anything I did.
And that comparison is worthless. Fucking everything is minor compared to the destruction of the planet, but that doesn’t help. It’s dismissive of real issues and only makes things harder.
Thus I hold that you suck at your job if you aren’t lying on the Internet. I also note that you neglected my other points.
I splurged on spring onions last week even though I knew I was only going to use half of them before they started withering and turning slimy. I know I am a typical wasteful millennial, and promise not to buy any more spring onions until next month.
Get a jar and put the spring onions bottom down and add a little bit of water every couple of days dumping any left as needed and they should last for weeks.
That or you could wrap them in paper towel and a plastic bag. I also don’t cook with them often enough but make a couple dishes that really need them.
You can also chop them up and put them in an ice cube tray, cover with water and freeze. They won’t be crunchy, but they’re fine for cooking (if you don’t cover with water they turn black and dehydrated and are gross when thawed).
Yeah they desperately need water and I think it’s an easy miss when trying to store them in any way. I find the freezing route only works for soups and the like and take up space in my freezer.
But if it helps someone avoid wasting money and food a little bit more it’s probably worth it.
slrpnk.net
Oldest