That is just the gateway drug to bootstrapping.

Check out https://github.com/fosslinux/live-bootstrap

if you want the real hard stuff.

They already did: https://www.commanderx16.com/

you just probably want something better.

and that is the problem building higher performance requires more advanced lithography and that is expensive and until recently was not even an option for a hobbyist (without taking a mortgage on their house).

Given current stagnation, you need only wait about 10 years for that viable option.

rxvt-unicode with tabbedex.

I refuse to use a terminal emulator that needs more than 100MB of RAM to display 80x24 green text on a black display

Raid stopped being optimal now that btrfs and ZFS exist.

If you plan on doing matching drives ZFS is recommended

If you expect mismatched disks, btrfs will work.

If you are most worried about stability get a computer with ECC memory.

If you are most worried about performance, use SSD drives.

If you want a bunch of storage for cheap, use spinning disks (unless you exceed the 100TB capacity range)

Your ZFS backup strategy should be to follow one of the following rulesets:

3-2-1 [3 copies of the data at 2 different locations for the 1 purpose of preserving the data]

4-3-2-1 [4 copies of the data at 3 different locations in 2 different types of media for the 1 purpose of preserving the data]

5-4-3-2-1 [5 copies of the data at 4 different locations across 3 different continents in 2 different types of media for the 1 purpose of preserving the data]

The details of the backup is more if you have a second system to enable ZFS send/receive or if you have to transport deltas from ZFS send

Tragically, you might be right about reduction in consumption being a cultural non-starter.

As it would make many things much easier but as you pointed out, advances in battery technology can fill some of that gap.

harmonization of grid standards is more than just frequency (it is mostly policy paperwork and the replacement of non-compliant equipment or the installation of conversion equipment) but you are correct high voltage DC is used for long distance power transmission. There are also details such as who is responsible for paying for what, where things are to be connected and various other bureaucratic details.

Well a superconducting loop (even with liquid nitrogen costs/inefficiencies) would enable a global grid with quite minimal energy loses and reduce the amount of energy storage needed to sustain a stable grid even in the face of failures and disruptions.

The big problem tends to do with harmonization of energy grid standards.

Sounds like they didn’t consider appealing to UK government to get subsidized liquid CO2 and use the produced hydrogen to synthetically create hydrocarbons (which are much easier/cheaper to store) and win political points doing so.

You are right in regards to very rural bus routes not being viable for electric buses but inside suburbs, cities and rural regions where the electric grid is already connected and in place, it is very cost effective to convert to pure electric.

But for rural bus routes away from a connected electrical grid, hydrogen is not a solution either as it is only 30% efficient (assuming only ideal conditions) and would be better served by liquid hydrocarbons. (I see no reason to deprive developing communities from the most efficient options)

I am in no way suggesting one would need to leave their family but one needs to understand up until the invention of the airplane, such relocation had to mean saying good bye and corresponding via mail or very rare train rides to visit with the whole family.

Green hydrogen outside of chemical processes (where it is actually useful) is a myth designed to keep the automotive industry alive past its expiration date.

The function of green hydrogen as an energy storage medium is better serviced by more custom chemistries as we are taking external energy to produce it (literally it would be the same as us taking CO2 + H2O + energy to produce gasoline [which we could do at the cost of $3.75/gal (if one ignores the CO2 collection costs)] using the Fischer-Tropsch process)

So skip the dream and accept the reality that if we are needing stored energy for transportation, it is more efficient to store it as liquid hydrocarbons. But if we need to store for transient demands, batteries and flywheels are better solutions.

completely fair perspective, if you are required to travel large distances outside of cities then liquid fuels would be the superior option.

But if cities are linked by high speed rail and effective bus coverage; there would be no need for a car to visit someone. #fuckcars

I do agree that batteries are not a good solution for planes but I believe plane use should be only for special cases that are extremely time sensitive (like organ transplant transportation) and are of high social benefit (which could justify carbon fuel usage)

One doesn’t need batteries or combustion in heavy transport as fixed lines can just use electric wires which saves on moving weight and would make such transport more efficient that any carried fuel source.

quick refueling only matters if your travel distance exceeds your battery’s range (which for 95% of driving is less than 100 miles) I would agree on the weight issue only if you don’t engineer the hydrogen storage to properly survive car crashes. Range is of no practical use if it vastly exceeds your needs.

I find trains better for heavy transport and fixed route power lines would cover that problem in a more efficient manner.

Hydrogen would take double conversion loses if used like a battery and a flywheel would be more efficient at storing renewable energy at a grid level.

Off-grid energy storage can be done in heavy weight battery chemistries which can last forever without the maintenance cost that must occur with combustion. (heck even Nickel–iron batteries from 1901 would work)

I will grant you that hydrogen has many useful and wonderful applications.

Home energy storage and transportation are not one of them.

You forgot to read the section on hydrogen storage, infrastructure and safety problems.

But I guess you are correct that we are from an engineering perspective able to make hydrogen powered cars but I would argue that combustion is not a good solution to transportation when proper infrastructure would be able to do without those risks.

Actually you would never want hydrogen powered cars from an engineering perspective.

Ideally this would only be producing hydrogen for chemical processes which require a hydrogen feed stock.

Energy in the technical sense has always been a human right as we would literally die without it (ATP production kind of requires it and sunlight tends to power food production too)

If by energy you mean electricity or chemical energy in convenient containers (like butane canisters) then no but improving access would extend lives and reduce the total environmental pollution if done properly. As there is not an upper bound on how much every one could claim they need and lack of access to energy efficient options would make the lower bound insufficient for most people to live off.