Awesome work, have you looked into using Racket's fork of Chez? It supports some additional extensions and architectures from base Chez that would seem to beneficial as a compiler target, at least that was the case a couple years ago.
Thanks, and I have good news on that front actually. I recently factored out a portable Scheme layer and got Jolt to compile against Gambit as a backend. And given that Racket is basically an extension of Chez, it should be trivial to build against it now.
As much as I wish it were different I think this would be the outcome under any administration. Natural gas in the USA is just stupidly cheap inflation adjusted, is energy dense, power plants require few land resources, pipeline infrastructure exists, robust and deep supply chain, etc. I don't hold much hope of the USA kicking the habit as it is such a competitive advantage. If we don't burn it locally it will be exported at a huge margin for geopolitical advantage. 1/3 of the CO2 reductions in the US power sector are due to renewables, 2/3 are from natural gas. Renewables would need to be backed up by additional gas capacity, although the average capacity factor would be reduced with a more robust renewable build out.
Billions of OUR dollars. Dumped into the MIC for Iran, wasting billions more of our dollars by surging energy prices. Then spending billions more to kill wind projects. Adding at least a billion to his own wallet.
How many billions of dollars will we allow this clown and his cronies to steal from us?
During the Biden administration almost 40 trillion ft^3 of natural gas was produced annually breaking all records. I do agree the policies of energy were more all the above during Biden and renewable build outs were incentivized additional to record gas production.
I think the biggest material factor between the two administrations is coal capacity factors on the grid are increasing again which would not happen under an alternative admin. We were on a good path towards phasing out coal completely with natural gas and an increasingly significant amount of renewable energy.
How did the natural gas growth change from before? How did the solar/wind change from before?
The data you’ve presented indicates you think only reducing the natural gas number to 0 with no context about trend lines or alternates is an acceptable solution which is obviously nonsensical.
The whole idea that a solar panel needs to be backed up by gas is absolutely asinine. We live in a capitalist society if there is so much excess power in the day and little power during the night then that means there is money to be made by storing that energy then doing arbitrage with daytime vs nighttime rates.
Build the solar panels and the battery will come because there is serious money to be made as the differential increases.
I agree I don't think it will always be the case but in the 1-5 year term the economics dictate that is what you get, full battery backup to run something like a data center is expensive even if technically feasible. It is not 1:1 backup but significant additional marginal gas production is going to come online with battery and solar build outs, that is what you see in grid queues across the US.
You are ignoring the fact that batteries like many other flex grid assets have diminishing marginal returns to arbitrage power. That is why you see them in composition with other flexible base load resources in a market system. We could reform the system to have other objectives.
Recently posted on HN today. A very good example of the argumentation I was making
Because these batteries are grid tied home battery there isn't a need to have a huge land monolith in an area for massive storage. It just feeds back into the millions of kilometers of powerlines already existing
Some of the largest proposed data centers in the US are in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio. The electricity infrastructure is important so is cheap natural gas from the Marcellus shale, natural gas pipeline infrastructure and relaxed regulations.
Traditional physics based weather models also rely heavily on physical parameterization for sub grid scale processes (think clouds, microphysics of rain sleet snow, etc) so even the deterministic physics models are learned approximations from data.
traditional physics-based weather models also rely heavily on humans looking at the output and the evaluation of the output to discard wacky runs. Let's not pretend that existing physical models of the atmosphere stay on the rails all the time.
When you say runs that is an ensemble model forecast which is different than a deterministic model forecast. Any type of weather model sensitive to initial input state errors will have outlier model runs.
ECMWF has an experimental AIFS direct observational prediction model (AIFS-DOP) that has become competitive with their physics based IFS model on certain metrics just in the past year.
I'm interested in understanding wheater prediction models because accurate wind forecasts make a big difference to my personal life (sports).
Is there a good overview to learn about the current models, which all just seem like cryptic acronyms to me? in apps like Windy etc.
WRF, TRRM, IK-HRRR-3km, ECMWF-9km,...
I understand by now that small grid cells are better for local prediction and that thermic winds are mostly missing from them all.
Ask your favorite AI to give you a crash course, but to start the main models you need to know are the GFS and the ECMWF. In the US where available in high res, the HRRR is excellent, but doesn’t forecast very far out. The PWG/PWE 1km PredictWind models are also very good at picking up land based features and other more precise patterns. If you are in the US everything else is probably not super relevant.
Any advice will really depend on where you live and the dominant source of local error. These are all good options for the US and if the one main source of error is near surface winds around complex terrain then you can also look into WindNinja from the National Forrest Service.
Heat domes are already killing off cattle and reducing crop yields, even in western countries? There was significant cattle die off in the US during 2022/2023. Europe just experienced 10,000 excess deaths due to heat impacts and a reduced grain yield by almost 8-10%. There have not been correlated heat dome events over multiple regional bread baskets (yet) but those are going to get increasingly more probable. We have a lot of adaptability on the food side though as reducing meat consumption is an easy behavioral change. Climate change impacts is one reason why beef is currently so expensive in the US.
Its a bit more complicated than that, you have a period during the spring called the spring persistence barrier that makes skillful prediction of a developing el nino difficult. What is impressive is that multi month model predictions before this spring barrier had a historic el nino developing which turned out to be correct (an out of sample prediction).
Its regionally complicated because increased tree cover can lower albedo (reflectivity of radiation) which offsets the co2 removal benefits. Forrests can tip from co2 sinks to co2 sources which is happening in different regions of the world currently.
But in PJM they are almost entirely being powered by natural gas and coal? Even if you contract out power from a nuclear plant some other plant on the grid is now enjoying a higher capacity factor, at the margin natural gas.
The data center in question in Utah was marketed as a 9GW full build out natural gas facility more than twice the electrical generation of the entire state. Coal electrical production in the US increased 13% last year.
I don’t defend every data center everywhere. I’m talking about the proposed data center about 11 miles from my door.
In my area we have a nuclear generating station 16 miles from that site. It sells 80-85% of all power generate wholesale to other markets. We have the power infrastructure here.
The amount of nuclear generation is roughly fixed (minus the refurbishment of three mile) in that region. If you add additional large load to the grid and outbid other demand for that power you are just shifting the load you replaced to other sources, which in PJM region would be mostly gas (new or existing) and delaying the decommissioning of existing base load coal plants. Renewables in that region are unfortunately a small percent of electrical generation.
I do agree that other demands like water consumption are overblown and could be largely regulated to enforce best practices. What infrastructure we are building as a society to meet this load demand is going to be the lasting impact of this generational infrastructure investment and it's looking like that will be mostly fossil fuel based in the near to mid term.
It is much more than the Colossus sites, I would look at the capacity additions in the regional grids you are apart of and what is being funded to meet these increases in demand from data centers. The majority of it is natural gas generation and a sizeable but minority amount of battery storage. Just outbidding people for a relatively fixed amount of clean nuclear ignores the second order effects of adding large loads like these. What happens in your area does have larger impacts.
Again, I’m talking about my region. We have a nuclear generating station 16 miles from the proposed site of the data center. That station sells 80-85% of the power generated wholesale to other parts of the state and grids regionally.
The nuclear generating station is part of a larger system. Say you build enough data centers in your local area to use up all the station power so that 80% is no longer exported, what is getting built somewhere else to make up for that missing generation the data centers now use? Its not new nuclear. When you add data center load to a grid how the additional generation is supplied is really what matters in terms of impacts.
We should have been building additional nuclear capacity for the past 50 years. The kinds of anti data center activism we’re seeing now was directed at nuclear back then.
It would take decades to build enough data centers to use 100% of the station’s capacity.
We can build capacity as we build consumers. It’s all about balance.
I also don’t believe that we’re going to be building all of the 1200 proposed data centers in the US.
Being next to a nuclear power plant but attached to a regional grid is not that relevant in terms of total additive emissions from a data center build out. You have to look at the change in emissions of the grid as a whole. Companies are incentivized to care about disclosing a narrow boundary view of scope 1 & 2 emissions but we live in the real world not a spreadsheet.
US electrical emissions YOY increased in part due to data center build out and energy demand.
