What kind of junk energy is there to harvest from a car (in meaningful amounts)? I guess breaking is the obvious answer, but that’s already covered by regenerative breaking. Most car-based energy harvesting systems seem to employ speedbumps that clearly take useful (kinetic) energy away from the car (probably at a very poor efficiency).
How would a turbine that takes energy from the air current generated by a passing car decrease the energy of the car?
Not sure where you got that idea from, but how would that generate a meaningful amount of energy? It seems very unlikely that such a system would ever recover the energy spent on its construction.
Sure, but those are completely different approaches. Dams have the advantage that they have a much larger capture area for water and that they can accelerate the water beyond the 10 m/s terminal velocity of raindrops.
Raindrop energy harvesting is a rubbish idea. The raindrops simply don’t have a meaningful amount of energy to begin with: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36907674
Did you perform a full shutdown of Windows (Windows doesn’t fully release the partition on a normal shutdown)?
Edit: adding some context. I am planning to setup a dev machine that I will connect to remotely and would like to babysit very little while having stable and fresh packages. In the Ubuntu world we would go to an LTS release but on the RPM/Dnf world is there any other distro apart from CentOS Stream? And also is CentOS Stream comparable to an LTS release at all considering that they do not have release number?
Wanting both stable and fresh packages is unfortunately somewhat difficult in my experience. I think the primary choice within the Fedora ecosystem is if you want to have fresh packages (Fedora) or if you prefer a slower update cycle and more stable packages (RHEL/Alma/Rocky). In the second case you can also choose if you wish to pay Red Hat for support (RHEL) or not (Alma or Rocky).
One thing that’s quite different in RHEL vs Ubuntu/Debian ist that it gets minor releases that include substantial new features. For example you’ll get new compilers, python versions, drivers, … CentOS Stream gets those slightly ahead of RHEL/Alma/Rocky (a cynical person might say that CentOS Stream is a rolling beta for RHEL). But, IMHO that’s not really a strong reason to use CentOS Stream.
If you’d go with an Ubuntu LTS release, then I’d look into RHEL/Alma/Rocky.
The driver should already be installed but there seems to be an issue with brltty registering the corresponding USB ID when they shouldn’t. You can probably fix it by following this guide: https://koen.vervloesem.eu/blog/how-to-stop-brltty-from-claiming-your-usb-uart-interface-on-linux/ (or this one: https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/670637)
Edit: Perhaps this has since been fixed in Mint 21 / Ubuntu 22.04.
You can make this work using ext and Timeshift rsync. I have also opted to exclude /var/lib/flatpak/ because it’s quite large. With that, my 5 snapshots currently take up about 34 GB.
However, I would recommend backing up your deb applications/packages (typically installed under/usr), as those can be critical for your system.
This “new law” was passed more than a year ago… But, it’s still a step in the right direction.
Ja, ein Teil des Problems ist wohl, dass es deutlich einfacher ist, die Gefahren der Atomkraft zu vermitteln als das bei den CO2 Emissionen oder der Kohleverbrennung ist.
Jeder der nicht exakt der gleichen Meinung ist sofort ein Atomtroll?
Ich würde den Atomausstieg nicht auf ein Einziges Jahr beziehen, sondern auf einen Prozess der gut 20 Jahre gedauert hat. Wikipedia scheint das ähnlich zu sehen:
In Deutschland begann der Atomausstieg unter der ersten rot-grünen Bundesregierung (Kabinett Schröder I) mit der „Vereinbarung zwischen der Bundesregierung und den Energieversorgungsunternehmen vom 14. Juni 2000“. 2002 wurde der Vertrag („Atomkonsens“) durch Novellierung des Atomgesetzes rechtlich abgesichert.[120] In der Folge wurden am 14. November 2003 das Kernkraftwerk Stade (640 MW)[121] und am 11. Mai 2005 das Kernkraftwerk Obrigheim (340 MW)[122] endgültig abgeschaltet.
Der Punkt ist, dass Deutschland im Jahr 2000 ca. 170 TWh/Jahr an relativ sauberem Atomstrom produzierte. Diese Kapazität wurde schnell reduziert während die Erneuerbaren ausgebaut wurden und die Stromproduktion mit Kohle langsam reduziert wurde. 2023 wurden in Deutschland noch 135 TWh Kohlestrom produziert.
Eine alternative Strategie wäre ein Ausbau der Erneuerbaren und ein schneller Ausstieg aus der Kohle gewesen. In einem zweiten Schritt hätte man dann aus der Atomenergie aussteigen können.
Ich denke die zweite Strategie wäre sowohl aus ökologischer als auch aus gesundheitlicher Sicht eine bessere Wahl gewesen. Wenn man von einer Todesrate von 25 Personen pro TWh bei Kohlestrom ausgeht, dann hätte man mit den 170 TWh* Atomstrom ca. 4000 Tote pro Jahr vermeiden können! Aber weil die Atomenergie ein viel besseres Feindbild abgibt, hat man den Ausstieg aus der Kohle verschleppt.
*Ein Weiterbetrieb wäre aber wohl nicht bei allen Kernkraftwerken sinnvoll gewesen.
dass Deutschland auch vor dem Atomausstieg nur einen einstelligen Prozentsatz des Stroms aus den Atomkraftwerken gedeckt hat. Es
Hast du eine Quelle dazu? Der Anteil war vor 2000 wohl bei knapp 30% der Stromerzeugung: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-elec-by-source?country=~DEU
One way to do it is have a small Python (or any other scripting language really) script that performs text replacements in the Latex source file. This is much easier in Latex because it’s plain text. I don’t know of a solution that doesn’t involve writing your own code (apart from LO/Word serial letters).
Is using Latex an option? I’ve done that and it works quite nicely. You can easily populate a template e.g. using Python.
I’m not sure I follow… Did the Fedora Council actually take a decision?
I understood Matthew’s position as “this should be discussed in the Workstation WG first”, not as a “no”:
in favor of the process outlined above (tl;dr: talk to the Workstation WG, and if that does not come to a satisfying outcome, file a Council ticket for next possibilities).
It also seemed more likely that they would promote KDE without demoting Gnome.
But was there a follow-up on that (e.g. in the Workstation WG)?
That looks like a software issue… I would try a different distro or a different version of Ubuntu (e.g. 22.04).
Thanks for trying it out on your own system!
In my case, the problem was that the disk never showed up in the Fedora installer. I’ve quickly reproduced the issue in a VM (but I originally noticed it on bare metal):
As you can see in fdisk, the disk (/dev/sda) has been recognized correctly by the kernel and works as expected. But somehow the installer only shows the “internal” /dev/vda.
After some further investigation, this seems to be related to the specific USB drives. I tried three different ones. It failed on a USB stick and the original external NVME enclosure. However, it did accept my USB to SATA adapter. So I guess I could install Fedora on my 10-year old HDD… 😐
I’ve also recently built my own NAS and I’ve gone through similar considerations. One of my mayor decisions was not to use btrfs because it’s not recommended for Raid Z1/Raid 5. With that, I landed on ZFS and TrueNAS Scale. Note that RAID expansion should be landing in both very soon.
Things with TrueNAS were pretty easy, very quick, and everything worked nicely. However, I noticed that it was constantly accessing the disks and preventing them from spinning down. I really wanted to keep the power consumption low (<20 W idle), so I eventually decided to just go with Vanilla Debian + ZFS. I can recommend that if you want to tinker with things yourself. Otherwise, I’d recommend TrueNAS Scale.
As for migration, you might be able to create a degraded pool initially, copy over the data, and add the parity disk last. Raid expansion would ofc also help there…