You’ve finally posted something that makes your username seem tame in comparison 👏

Removed by mod

Yea if you can DM me the email you used to sign up I can try to resend the verification email.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/

The main problem with gravitational storage is that it is incredibly weak compared to chemical, compressed air, or flywheel techniques (see the post on home energy storage options). For example, to get the amount of energy stored in a single AA battery, we would have to lift 100 kg (220 lb) 10 m (33 ft) to match it. To match the energy contained in a gallon of gasoline, we would have to lift 13 tons of water (3500 gallons) one kilometer high (3,280 feet). It is clear that the energy density of gravitational storage is severely disadvantaged.

It seems the problem is not necessarily one of conversion efficiency, but rather of scale. In order to store significant amounts of electrical energy using mechanical means, you need to move a lot of weight. Manufacturing the concrete blocks requires money and raw materials, and a pulley system robust enough to move them around wouldn’t be cheap either. The pumped storage hydroelectric systems which currently provide the vast majority of our grid energy storage partially circumvent this expense by taking advantage of natural bodies of water and advantageous topography.

That being said, it’s definitely a fascinating concept and one worth exploring. But there are well established difficulties that explain why this type of energy storage isn’t already widespread.

That being said, you could also edit your comment to avoid confusion.

Tfw you see a bunch of big words and long paragraphs that oversaturate your capacity for critical thinking and immediately become a cultist tankie. Another victim of shock and awe tactics.

Btw the previous comment is sophistry in its purest form, calling that a “well laid out and good faith argument” is the height of irony

I complimented your name though. 3/10 is pretty solid, we can’t all have elite handles. And yeah they were bragging about inventing a lot of names so naturally I assumed there were alts in the picture.

Y’all are weird fr.

Perhaps you don’t recognize what it’s meant to sound like?

I’m a cutie pie

cough OKC

Because it’s clever and I like it.

Your handle sucks 😅. I could invent 30 mediocre usernames in a few minutes, it takes you all day?

Assuming you upvoted yourself, @mathemachristian is like a 3/10. So good work on that one I guess. Thatsnomayo is just abysmal though

Wemby really embracing the heel/villain arc lately

Washington was followed by the Utah Jazz (tied for the fourth-best odds) at No. 2, the Memphis Grizzlies (sixth-best odds) at No. 3 and the Chicago Bulls (ninth-best odds) at No. 4.

That meant the two other teams tied with the Wizards for the best lottery odds – the Indiana Pacers and Brooklyn Nets — fell to fifth and sixth in June’s draft, respectively. However, that also meant the Pacers’ pick was sent to the LA Clippers, as part of a trade that saw Indiana land center Ivica Zubac at February’s trade deadline.

Indiana will now get its 2031 pick back instead, as the Pacers were going to keep their pick in this year’s draft only if they moved into the top four spots in the lottery.

Wow, that’s super unlucky for the Pacers. My condolences

Ayyyy 🧹

Yes, apparently they were links to Tor websites according to clean_anion

I didn’t receive it. I’m going to send you a message and maybe you can respond to me more easily.

Edit: Ok nvm I see it. I thought you sent it on Lemmy, I see it on Matrix.

I removed those posts. But I am reluctant to follow the Tor links to verify that they are what you claim, for obvious reasons. I’ll take your word for it.

Sure

You didn’t message me afaik.

@imaqtpie.communick.com

Also why does your edit have that number in parentheses?

Yeah totally, but that’s why it links to the threads with the full context if you click on the modlog

Agree to disagree. Shutdown all the ski resorts in Colorado and see what happens to property values over the next 20 years. The proportion of land might be small, but the population and monetary influx is massive.

In order for housing to be expensive, people need to have the money to pay for it. If there’s no high paying jobs within hundreds of miles, and there’s no tourism money, the demand simply won’t be there and prices will fall. Again, look at the Appalachians and the Adirondacks for example. Ever since the advent of air travel, they’ve been steadily depopulated and economically depressed, as people from the cities prefer to vacation in more remote locations, such as the Rockies.

I should also acknowledge that a lot of land out west is owned by the government or other major groups, and that probably also plays a role. I’m not as familiar with the real estate market of Wyoming as I’d like to be. But I can’t help but dispute your assertion that prices are high because building is expensive. Seems like a tautology somehow.

If you’re building a brand new house you’re already outside the realm of affordability. In general, rural areas have an excess of housing stock due to the strong trend of urbanization over the past century.

Also, the fact that building in remote areas is expensive doesn’t contradict the fact that ski resorts drive massive real estate inflation in the surrounding areas.