Germany Turns to Hydrogen in Quest for Clean Energy Economy - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-02/germany-turns-to-hydrogen-in-quest-for-clean-energy-economy <comment><USER2> It is often interesting how things are framed in international media when you know the local discussion.

To put this in perspective: The role of hydrogen in the German energy system is extremely small. There are a couple of test plants, but that's about it. Yeah, lately there have been a few calls for more investments in that area, some articles discussing a larger role in the future. But it's certainly not at the center of the debate. The headline seems heavily overblown.

<comment><USER3> BMW just appointed a new CEO who is supposed to come up with a strategy that apparently they expect to still involve hydrogen cars. They have been partnering with Toyota on hydrogen fuel cells. The last CEO kind of failed on the BEV front after launching the i3 and then failing to follow through with more/better cars. His failure on this front is widely cited as the key reason for being replaced as they are feeling the pressure now from other manufacturers (Tesla, VW, Mercedes, etc.). The new CEO is apparently under a lot of pressure to start announcing things that are not lame concept cars to reassure investors that they are still relevant.

I don't see a big hydrogen movement happening in Germany any time soon no matter what the wishful thinking on that is at BMW and elsewhere. What I do see is two of the three car manufacturers flooding the market with BEVs in the next five years. They've been a bit slow to catch up to Tesla but VW and Mercedes seem to be quite serious about ramping up production.

<comment><USER4> I have no idea why auto companies are still pursuing hydrogen cars when BEV is just better?

<comment><USER5> Because the power grid and city infrastructure do not allow for enough (fast) charging-points. In some European cities, for government BEV goals to be achieved, over 700 charging points have to be placed, every single day, for 5 years.

Now imagine a charging point using more electricity than your avarage household.

The grid is not ready for this and upgrading it might not be the best option.

Also know that there is up to 50% loss of electricity when transporting over long distances (like from wind-farm to the city).

Last, but not least: charging large vehicles like busses or trucks take a long time (and a lot of energy) time that is paid for by the company.

Now look at hydrogen: Produced and stored at decentralized locations, distributed through existing infrastructure, available at existing gas stations: Less stress on the grid, shorter charging times. Produce it where and when is most beneficial, store and transport it to when and where it is required.

I could go on. And probably somebody could go on with a lot of counter points.

However, this just states that 'BEV are just better', as you stated, is just not as simple as just that.

We are in a mobility and energy transition: Nothing about this is going to be easy.

Full disclosure: I operate both a corridor of electric car chargers and a hydrogen fueling station in Europe.

<comment><USER6> Can you explain how you can say "up to 50% loss of electricity when transporting over long distances"? That seems very high, and in my opinion disinformation.

The first search result I found [1] says an average of 6% among US states, broken down as 2% loss in high voltage transmission and 4% loss in local distribution. The spread among states is from 2.2% total loss to 13%, so even given that wind farms may not be sited as close or optimally as fossil fuel plants, your figure of 50% seems implausible.

[1] [http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission- how-...](http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-much- electricity-disappears-between-a-power-plant-and-your-plug/)

<comment><USER7> I think the actual number will fall somewhere in the middle. In parallel, we have a shift ongoing to renewable energy sources which deliver their output less steadily than coal/gas/nuclear. So the grid will not only need to adapt for increased car battery charging, it will also need to add grid-level storage to meet demands when wind turbines and solar panels are not supplying enough at the moment. Storing energy in grid-level batteries will incur some additional loss. Most certainly not 50% though.

<comment><USER6> neals clearly said "50% loss of electricity when transporting" which has nothing to do with intermittent generation and need for storage. He claims to be an operator of electric charging and hydrogen fueling networks, and I was hoping to learn something from his experience, but that unqualified statement undermines his position entirely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> At the end of the day it's a matter of infrastructure. BEVs benefit from a pre-established electric grid, end of story. Sure that grid might need improvements/hardening/modernization as BEVs become more popular, but the fundamental infrastructure exists.

Hydrogen needs entirely separate refineries/production facilities, specialized transport vehicles and fuel stations, all of which must be built entirely from scratch and negate many of its efficiency benefits. A viable hydrogen vehicle market would likely need tens if not hundreds of billions in initial capital just to get off the ground and be self-sustaining; and even if such an effort was politically feasible why not put that money into BEVs where it will arguably do more good?

<comment><USER9> Theoretically you could just electrolyze water on site using power from existing grid. It wouldn't be that much more difficult infrastructure wise than building charging facilities for EV. However according to the diagram included on this article[1] the pipeline from AC power to usable thrust is 3x more efficient for battery vehicles currently.

EDIT: forgot to link the article but I'm on my phone now. Some clever googling will find it for you if you're interested.

<comment><USER10> And they'll have to deal with the pesky fact that hydrogen gas from natural gas is cheaper than H2 from electricity.

So it's either:

1) more nuclear plants in Germany (lol)

2) increased German dependence on Russian natural gas (lol)

<comment><USER11> If you buy electricity on the spot market it can be extremely cheap or even negative-priced. But the downside of that strategy is that you can only operate your facility for some times of the day.

<comment><USER12> That's an interesting point, in aggregate.

As we move towards more intermittent renewables, assuming the market remains intermittent, there's an entire new class of demand that's feasible.

Essentially anything that "only needs power sometime in the next week, can soak up a semi-arbitrary amount of power, and can start/stop quickly (ideally grid-controlled)."

<comment><USER10> I also think we haven't fully exploited interrmittent/responsive demand.

I'd have no issues if a household or building's HVAC system, hot water system, electric car chargers ebbed and flowed their demand in response to supply.

E.g. when I turn on my dishwasher, I don't care if it holds for 2 hours and then runs because the winds are calm now, but expected to pickup in 2 hours.

I don't care if my hot water heater superheats water now because it's especially sunny or windy out.

I don't care if my electric car chargers over the course of 8 hours in the evening, instead of charging quickly now.

I don't care if my AC system makes the building a couple of degrees cooler now to thermal bank the excess supply before rates increase later.

<comment><USER12> The issue seems to be that energy markets are a _long_ way from achieving financial market levels of responsiveness.

You're essentially increasing the number of market participants a couple orders of magnitude, and the system and existing players semi-understandably balk.

On the other hand, without exposure to end users, the utility-driven pace of change is going to be glacial (by which I mean, we won't have glaciers anymore either).

<comment><USER10> We already have "smart-meters" that enable time-of-day billing. They just need to monitor usage on a per 5-minute basis (and I suspect they do). They don't necessarily need to report it every 5 mins (otherwise how does the current system know how to respond to demand?).

I do feel like we should start billing on per-5-minute increments, then the responsiveness will come.

I think overnight we'll have a thousand startups selling devices that turn on/off your HVAC or car charger accordingly and save you money overall. Possibly even with a warmer home in winter or cooler home in summer, by being strategic.

<comment><USER13> > They don't necessarily need to report it every 5 mins (otherwise how does > the current system know how to respond to demand?).

Supply is managed at the ISO level (a grid subsection, like the entire California grid), not the individual consumer level. The ISO monitors the AC frequency of the grid, which varies with the imbalance of supply and demand. The ISO contracts with "spinning reserve" generators who supply power to the grid at low latencies when needed to meet demand, a service known as frequency regulation.

There are efforts underway to provide frequency regulation via demand control and battery storage instead of spinning reserves, which are typically Nat gas turbine powered.

<comment><USER10> Right, but why not let my electric car or water heater take part in that market?

Instead of spinning up a natgas turbine, why not let my water heater or car charger take a break as a part of the market?

There are some grid level implementations of this (install our thermostat that we can remotely turn off to get a 5% rebate), but these seem to work around the primary problem: we pay an average price for electricity, not the actual price.

And if it all works based on grid frequency, the system could even work offline: water heater sees frequency drop and takes a random break between 1 and 60 minutes.

Or variable-frequency drive AC drops 10% in intensity, or increases by x% when frequency is getting a little high.

<comment><USER13> > Right, but why not let my electric car or water heater take part in that > market? Instead of spinning up a natgas turbine, why not let my water heater > or car charger take a break as a part of the market?

Indeed, that's precisely what I meant by frequency regulation via demand control and batteries.

<comment><USER12> (I'm not an electrical engineer)

The problem I was thinking about was demand harmonics.

It's not unreasonable to envision a scenario where a large number of independent devices, acting in their own self interest, end up oscillating between on and off together. E.g. by using the same logic.

It seems like you need something approaching a parallelism primative to coordinate behavior. E.g. bid two steps in advance, find out if your bid was accepted one step in advance, then act.

Or is bidding in energy markets already complex enough to avoid that outcome?

<comment><USER13> You can imagine a system where loads with the ability to vary their draw do so automatically in response to grid frequency changes, without even needing a centralized bidding system.

Frequency regulation is, however, a relatively small amount of power, and the grid itself needing to run at a particular frequency is more the result of loads that rely on the grid frequency for timing (i.e. A/C electric motors in fans).

In the future the grid frequency could be allowed to vary much more if loads become resilient to frequency variations.

The bigger (in terms of total energy) issue is shifting load to match supply, or vice versa. That can be achieved with appliances that store energy in one form or another. One of the most interesting examples of this is generating ice with wind energy at night to be used for cooling during the day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Using renewable electricity to make Hydrogen is bonkers today.

Using high temperature nuclear heat is not. You just need gas-cooled reactors that can make 900 to 1000 °C steam.

This company is making gas-cooled reactor in Canada and claim they can make competitive Hydrogen: [https://usnc.com/FCM.html](https://usnc.com/FCM.html)

The processes are different from electrolysis. From [https://art.inl.gov/NGNP/NEAC%202010/INL_NGNP%20References/R...](https://art.inl.gov/NGNP/NEAC%202010/INL_NGNP%20References/R-6917-00-01%20NGNP%20Hydrogen%20Tech%20-%20IRT%20Eval.pdf)

"1\. SI Process: A thermochemical process that incorporates: (1) endothermic decomposition of hydrogen iodide (HI) at about 450°C in the presence of a carbon catalyst to yield hydrogen and I2, (2) recycle of the iodine to a concurrent or countercurrent column reactor where it reacts exothermically at about 120°C with sulfur dioxide (SO2) via the Bunsen reaction to form hydriodic acid (HI) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4), (3) gravimetric separation of the HI and H2SO4, and (4) thermal/catalytic decomposition of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) to oxygen and SO2 at high temperature, up to 900°C, with the SO2 recycled back to the Bunsen reaction section. In the SI process, H2SO4 acts as oxygen carrier and HI as a hydrogen carrier.

2\. HTSE Process: A ceramic electrolyte and electrode electrolysis process operating at up to 950°C. Water is the only reactant, and high temperatures allow for some of the energy required to split the steam (water) to be supplied as heat as opposed to electricity alone, as in LTE cells.

3\. HyS Process: A hybrid process that produces hydrogen and oxygen in a polymer membrane based electrolysis cell operating at temperatures below 125°C. In the HyS process, SO2 is used to depolarize the cell and allow it to operate at lower voltages and hence higher efficiencies and current densities as compared to higher temperature electrolysis cells. Sulfuric acid is produced along with hydrogen in the cells, with the SO2 recycled from a sulfuric acid decomposer similar to that used in the SI process."

</comment><comment><USER15> As noted in the article, hydrogen is currently unfortunate, because the most economical way to produce it is through steam reforming of natgas. Germany already has supply issues with natural gas, not just the pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Electrolysis of water is another method, but requires a lot of electricity. Using it in the short term is highly wasteful, when the source fuels could just be used directly.

Nonetheless, on a longer timescale, hydrogen effectively becomes a roundabout instrument of space-, time- and demand-shifted energy storage, but potentially bulk-conveyable using portions of existing gas pipeline infrastructure. This compares favorably to batteries (which are heavy, solid, contain other commodities, and are non-bulk-conveyable in a comparable way), and other energy storage schemes (which are immobile or lack effective the distribution of work). It's broadly similar to hydrocarbon natgas and syngas, but without the direct release of carbon during actual combustion.

The hope in this effort to encourage progress and deployment of hydrogen-based technologies, infrastructure, and business models, and tolerate some short- term wastefulness to target a more favorable goal in the long term.

<comment><USER16> Can't hydrogen be used as a mean of energy storage? If nuclear power is used, wouldn't that make hydrogen much cheaper and viable?

It's true that it's inefficient, but I'm curious as of how much inefficient it really it, because nuclear energy can be made abundant and cheap if you use electrolysis close to a nuclear plant.

<comment><USER17> Storing large volumes of hydrogen is very difficult.

<comment><USER18> Seems like they're storing it in the gas network, does that not scale?

There's enough energy in the gas network today to power the world for a few days, seems like a great way to store excess renewable power.

<comment><USER11> They are mixing it into the natural gas in low amounts. High concentrations of hydrogen tend to diffuse through and embrittle many structural metals used in gas pipelines.

Salt domes (commonly used to store large amounts of natural gas) might also be useful for hydrogen storage but would need to have their plumbing replaced.

<comment><USER18> So you'd need a new method of storage, but the scale seems decent enough. Or could you use spare electricity to generate larger molecules?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The "clean" hydrogen story when most hydrogen is generated from gas decomposition is dubious at best. Hydrogen can be extracted using electricity, granted, but the costs given are usually those for hydrogen from gas.

</comment><comment><USER20> >Her group is calling for the natural gas system to carry a mandated share of renewable and decarbonated gases, including biomethane, synthetic methane and hydrogen, starting at 1% in 2021 and rising to 10% by 2030.

Those are most likely volume percent... methane/natural gas has 3x the energy density of hydrogen so it pretty much does not have any effect on emissions but is mostly a publicity stunt.

<comment><USER21> That's an interesting point. i just assumed that having a mix 90% methane, 10% hydrogen would reduce the carbon footprint by 10%.

But what you say makes perfect sense, it all depends on how much energy we generate from the mix.

Is there any literature or numbers on the subjects I could read somewhere?

<comment><USER20> Sure, energy density can be looked up pretty much everywhere but here is a paper mentioning it, which might be otherwise interesting to you as well: [https://afdc.energy.gov/files/pdfs/hyd_economy_bossel_eliass...](https://afdc.energy.gov/files/pdfs/hyd_economy_bossel_eliasson.pdf#page=6) (middle of the page)

To show that its really by volume they usually talk about, here just 1 example: [https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f11/blending...](https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f11/blending_h2_nat_gas_pipeline.pdf#page=6) ( first paragraph).

Using volume percent is not directly a dishonest way to talk about it as that is pretty common way to look at things when it comes to gas and gas distribution networks, however it conveniently gives the wrong impression to a lot of people about potential emission savings - originally myself included ;). A 50% hydrogen - 50% methane/natural gas (by volume) mix just reduces the carbon footprint by ~22% (while requiring lots of investments, for example into gas turbines which work well with such a gas mix, lots of other end users also would have trouble with that mix)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I remember going to the science museum as a kid and they had device the split water into hydrogen and oxygen. I wonder if we could use wind and solar when the sun is shining to do this and burn these gasses when we renewables aren't producing.

<comment><USER23> We can and we've been able for quite some time, but the problem is that doing that is very inefficient, and you would end up with a very inefficient and expensive way to store energy.

Can't find a proper reference, but one of the most efficient way to store energy is pumping water up and storing it there, in which case the efficiency is close to 90%, and the cost of storing large amounts of energy are low. Doing what you are proposing should have an efficiency below 50% - or more than 5 times worse -, without considering much higher energy storage costs.

<comment><USER24> How is 50% efficiency five times worse than 90%? Isn't that a factor of roughly two?

90% efficiency: spend 100 joules to get 90 useful joules, wasting 10.

50% efficiency: spend 100 joules to get 50 useful joules, wasting 50.

You could say that 50% efficiency is five times more wasteful than 90%, but that doesn't strike me as a useful metric. More useful is to observe that spending 100 units of energy at 90% efficiency gets you roughly twice as much usable energy compared to 50% efficiency (9/5 = 1.8 times, to be precise).

<comment><USER23> 10 -> 50 : 5 times worse.

<comment><USER24> In my opinion, that's the less useful way of measuring efficiency. By that metric, 99% efficiency is twice as good as 98%, since the former wastes only 1% of input compared to 2%. Isn't it more useful to recognize that 98% efficiency is almost the same as 99%?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> While everyone likes to mention that it's inefficient to split water to produce hydrogen (~60% efficiency round trip to produce electricity, if memory serves me), no one seems to take into account that you now also have a source of pure oxygen. Oxygen is great for producing syngas from carbonaceous materials like biomass (left over dry plant material). If used in tandem one could produce two carbon neutral or carbon negative fuel sources.

<comment><USER26> > it's inefficient to split water to produce hydrogen

You also have significant losses when you convert it back electricity/heat with fuel cells, or burning it.

> Oxygen is great for producing syngas

This is really interesting. I wonder how much this helps offset the losses mentioned above?

<comment><USER25> Syngas (a.k.a producer gas) is normally made from atmospheric oxygen, and is a conversion process of the stored fuel in biomass through pyrolysis to produce tar gas, which is then reduced by the hot charcoal left over. You are essentially producing fuel from garbage and is worthwhile on it's own. By using pure oxygen you can produce a more pure gaseous fuel, as the final product isn't diluted by the mostly inert nitrogen that is in air.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I remember back in the early 2000s BMW made a lot of splash about hydrogen- powered cars. So Germany has had a love affair with Hydrogen for a while now.

Does anyone think its a worthwhile competitor to BEVs for personal and commmercial use?

<comment><USER28> Despite your memories, and even despite the title image Bloomberg has chosen, this isn't at all about cars, the article is about industrial and energy supply applications, where it could be much more relevant than in consumer vehicles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> That's funny. I'm some debates related to nuclear power very recently, I had the thought that it's probably better to focus on using excess power from renewables to generate synthetic gas and simply use the existing gas pipelines and power plants.

The world still needs hydrocarbons. They need to be made renewably. That might only be affordable when wind and solar is overproducing, ie we're getting "free" energy. Producing those hydrocarbons solves a lot of problems, including balancing the power output from those renewable power plants

I'm not so sure about hydrogen specifically. It just doesn't have great properties. It's just that it's pretty easy to make renewably. Making synthetic hydrocarbon gases is harder, but it helps capture CO2 (at least temporarily) and is more energy dense and versatile. We also have better hydrogen fuel cells, but that could also change with time. Besides, I think this article was mostly about burning gases.

I think this is a good direction for Germany.

</comment><comment><USER30> There inherent inefficiency in making and burning hydrogen is daunting. But there now is a larger cost gap opening between wind and fossil fuels. If that gap gets big enough, hydrogen could be a good way to store and transport wrong energy.

<comment><USER31> What exactly do you mean by 'wrong energy?'

<comment><USER21> I suspect it's a typo for "wind energy"

<comment><USER30> It is. Auto-incorrect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> There's "green hydrogen" and then there's "blue hydrogen" a new way of marketing an ancient technology... coal gasification (ancient tech) along with pumping the CO2 (safely, forever) into old wells. Devil's in the details.

[https://reneweconomy.com.au/hydrogen-blues-is-this-the- gas-i...](https://reneweconomy.com.au/hydrogen-blues-is-this-the-gas-industry- version-of-clean-coal-33772/)

<comment><USER33> We have busses driving around on Hydrogen. Then people here say like see: ITS POSSIBLE.

But then they forget we got a huge factory here which has hydrogen as a byproduct. hahahaha Yeah. So it's wouldn't work somewhere else.

Also they added a small solar field which generates hydrogen for green hydrogen. It's just waisting so much potential solar energy.. It's sad.

It's just that some local company which sells equipment and gas equipment who persuaded the local government which have no single knowledge about hydrogen and just want to create a "GREEN IMAGE".

Hydrogen is NOT a green solution. It's just a myth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> It's like Germany's answer to ethanol in gasoline. Who does this subsidize? VW, probably, which ought to be a leader in electric cars, but isn't. Although they're finally bringing out some designed from the ground up electric cars.

</comment><comment><USER35> _" What's held back hydrogen for decades is the cost and complexity of the technology"_

My landlord said it was the energy corps that were against it. The tech is so simple that you could run it at your home with a small solar panel.

Don't know if he was right.

<comment><USER26> I don't think your landlord was right.

From memory, splitting water into Hydrogen and oxygen via electrolysis, only to be converted back to electricity is very lossy. I believe that most hydrogen generated at industrial scale is derived from fossil fuels.

Storage is also very difficult. Hydrogen is so small it can squeeze through a lot of gaps, making it hard to contain. You probably have to store it at high pressure and at cryogenic temperatures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Unlike fossil fuels, hydrogen is not a primary energy, so that article starts very poorly.

<comment><USER37> Hydrogen is most often produced from natural gas, so...yes, it is a "primary energy"

Granted, using hydrogen produced that way isn't a win over just using natural gas.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production)

<comment><USER36> I refer you to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_energy)

<comment><USER37> Ah, so gasoline is also not a primary energy, but the same as hydrogen produced from natural gas, a secondary energy. I hear someone say "fossil fuels" and think of gasoline, diesel, etc. But in the case of primary vs secondary, a fossil fuel includes what is literally taken out of the ground, oil, coal, or natural gas.

<comment><USER36> My point exactly, I refer you to the first sentence of the article, which I was criticizing: "Hydrogen, overlooked for decades by Germany's energy planners, is gaining ground as alternative to fossil fuels as the nation scrambles to recover lost ground on its climate promises."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> But there is no natural source for hydrogen. It's also rather dangerous, and I say that having worked in automakers facilities outfitted for dealing with the hazards.

</comment><comment><USER39> Tesla Model 3 owner here. I don't understand why you would ever want a vehicle that must be refueled / recharged at an uncontrollable third party station instead of just having a car ready to go at home every day with the option of solar power. Will they also release cheap at-home hydrogen generators to go with the cars?

Hydrogen does sound like an interesting option for countries that can't generate the power needed to generate hydrogen for power plant scale operations with green options like wind and solar. The hydrogen could be generated elsewhere and brought into the country or regions I suppose?

<comment><USER40> ICE car owner here. I don't understand why you would ever want a vehicle that must be charged for over an hour at uncontrollable wait times for a charging spot, when you want to travel longer distances, instead of just having a car fueled in 5 minutes at a gas station, which are everywhere and with zero to minimal wait times.

Just to rephrase your argument. I actually do understand the benefits of an EV, but you definitely give up some freedom with it. And charging infrastructure will most likely never reach the level gasoline infrastructure is at, simply because charging takes much longer than pumping liquid in a tank.

Further as mentioned in another answer, I would be legally unable to install a charger at home (even a non-fast-charging one).

We are years, if not decades, away that the EV charging infrastructure can compete for long-distance travel and I wouldn't switch before. (yes, I travel regularly over 500km one way)

<comment><USER41> First of all, you don't have to charge for over an hour, a Tesla Model 3 charges between 20 and 40 minutes, the 20 with the new superchargers v3. That is reasonably close to refuel your car and take a bio-break. The wait times for a "charging spot" are as uncontrollable as the wait times before you get to the fuel pump. It is just a matter of supply and demand. But Tesla even shows you the free supercharging spots in the navigation system. I doubt, fuel stations offer this service. But this only matters on long distance travel over 4-500km as an electric car can charge from any electric outlet. If you charge your car over night, you will visit charging stations way less often than gas stations with a combustion engine car.

<comment><USER40> And I explicitly mentioned that I can't charge at home and regularly travel over 500km. Also I can't expect there to be a charger at my destination. It was an answer to the blatantly phrased "i don't understand" of GP

Fueling stations don't have to offer this service. At least in Germany I had never had to wait more than 5minutes for a spot with over 50.000km on the road so far. And if a station seemed utterly full, the next one is less than 10km away. However, friends with a Tesla have complained over fully occupied charging spots during long distance travel. So your 30min bio break can need another 30min of waiting. 30min of charging vs 5min of filling up gas, still needs 6 times more capacity to support the same number of vehicles. Also a 30min breaks invites you to leave the vehicle and go for food/whatever, causing you to occupy the charging spot longer than needed.

Don't neglect that these Tesla Supercharger 3 stations are also expensive to build.

Don't get me wrong, I do want to switch to an EV, even just because of the nicer driving experience, but there are legitimate downsides to it (currently). Talking those away with optimism is nothing but marketing talk.

<comment><USER41> Wether you have to wait for a spot to recharge is only a matter of available stalls. Tesla is quite good there and constantly is expanding their number of stalls. Currently most locactions have at least 10 charging stalls, so even if all are occupied, you don't have to way a full charging duration for the next free spot. If you leave a Tesla at a supercharger longer than needed for recharging, after 5 minutes you start paying per minute for your stay. So people are well motivated to return to their car reasonably quick.

And yes, I agree, there are use szenarios where electric cars are not quite as comfortable as ICE vehicles. On the other side, if you drive a lot, the cost savings of an electric car could be significant and should be factored into the buying decision.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I don't think it's going to pan out, for the same reason it hasn't panned out in the rest of the world despite decades of pop-sci publications saying we're five years away from a hydrogen economy. Hydrogen is more like a liquid battery than it is like gasoline, since you have to first generate the energy and then turn it into usable hydrogen, whereas petroleum gives you more energy than you use in obtaining it.

<comment><USER43> Yep, I've always thought of hydrogen as an energy storage and transport vector, not a source. Thus not sufficient to base on it the whole economy: it still has to couple with sturdy solar (or wind, or geothermal, etc.) plants.

<comment><USER42> Exactly. Considering the technological developments and prices of the last few years, BEVs just make more sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Germany should turn to safe, modern nuclear plants, eg Molten Salt Reactors.

<comment><USER45> Safety is not the only reason German wants to walk away from nuclear energy. The long-term, safe storage of nuclear waste that will radiate for decades to come is not something want to leave behind our future generations.

<comment><USER46> The fear after Fukushima is what lead to Germany moving away from nuclear.

<comment><USER47> No it is not.

The biggest blow of confidence in nuclear power was very likely Chernobyl in 1986. It made the German public realise what effort you have to put in to contain a nuclear disaster. Have a look a the locations of German reactors. And now imagine an exclusion zone around them and note the cities that are affected. It would spell economic disaster for the entire country. On top of that Germany isn't even remotely capable of commandeering the amount of man power the Soviets had to.

Now let's look at politics.

The government under Gerhard Schröder decided to phase out nuclear energy. The next government under Angela Merkel put a stop to the full phase out and issued an extension for existing plants in 2010 [1]. In 2011 there was a "moratorium" that consisted of a reevaluation of existing plants with the possibility to close plants ahead of their extended time [2]. This is the only political action taken after Fukushima. The ball had been rolling long before that.

Please don't believe the simplified, sensationalist recounts that are popular in the American media.

[1] [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laufzeitverl%C3%A4ngerung_deut...](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laufzeitverl%C3%A4ngerung_deutscher_Kernkraftwerke)

[2] [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom- Moratorium](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom-Moratorium)

<comment><USER7> As a German, I think Fukushima was a turning point because a lot of people believed the utilities when they insisted that "Our reactors are safe! Chernobyl was just the result of bad Soviet-era quality/safety standards." Then Fukushima showed a highly-developed industrialized nation standing in front of a cataclysmic dumpster fire of a reactor, going through increasingly desparate attempts at putting out the fire. Sort of like with Deepwater Horizon, but this one hit closer to home because Germany already had this collective angst about nuclear reactors in the back of their heads from the 80s, albeit shoved into the subconscious in the meantime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Nuclear is needed to generate the energy stored by Hydrogen.

<comment><USER49> Since the levelized cost of new nuclear is 3-4x that of renewables, how could what you write there possibly be true?

Hydrogen, in fact, if made by electrolysis from renewable energy, would be the final nail in the coffin for nuclear. That's because it would destroy the last, desperate argument the nuclear fans are making: that renewables cannot reach 100% due to occasional long windless/cloudy periods, and that batteries to tide over those periods would be too expensive. Batteries would be too expensive, but hydrogen burning turbines would not be.

<comment><USER50> Becuase of the low density of renewables:

[https://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_re...](https://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_renewables/transcript?language=en)

[edit, better link]:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o)

<comment><USER49> Low density is only a problem for high population density, high latitude Europe. But if Europe decides "no, we're going with nuclear" then how can they compete with low latitude solar that's going to be nearly an order of magnitude cheaper?

Renewables will be fine for Europe once all the heavy industry is gone.

<comment><USER48> Industry, the backbone of modern civilization, requires cheap unlimited power 24/7\. Renewables in Europe are killing growth and driving jobs overseas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Really interesting that with the benefit of hindsight - the German Energiewende stared circa 2010 and their progress on carbon emissions seems to have stalled. Ironic that that was the short term effect of transitioning to use more renewables.

<comment><USER52> > German Energiewende stared circa 2010

If you mean 'started', then the Energiewende started around 2000 in Germany.

Whether the CO2 reduction are stalling for a few years is relatively unimportant for a project which has a horizon of 50 years.

CO2 reductions in Germany in 2017 were 0.5%. In 2018 around 4.5%...

2019 looks good so far. For electricity production the first half of 2019 has seen a CO2 reduction of 15% compared to the first half of 2018.</comment></comment>


Salesforce Evergreen: Serverless Functions and Compute - <AUTHOR> https://developer.salesforce.com/blogs/2019/11/introducing-salesforce-evergreen.html <comment><USER2> As a salesforce consultant of 8 years, I can say this could be huge. I'm so burnt out on Apex and it's limitations.

I just really hope it's included in the standard licensing. Will be tough to convenience companies they really need this.</comment>


The end of dispersed camping? - <AUTHOR> https://www.hatchmag.com/blog/end-dispersed-camping/7715118 <comment><USER2> As I've grown older I've noticed this, though at a slower pace than described in the article.

When I was younger and lived in the appalachians, there were countless of waterfalls, overlooks, and camping spots isolated and away from everyone. But as time went by, these places became less isolated and full of litter, even the more remote spots.

As much as I dislike Instagram and its effect on natural areas, I think another large factor is the population count. The US has 46 million more people than 20 years ago, and that's more people looking to get out and have fun in nature.

One hope is for state and federal conservation agencies to buy more private land and enter into more conservation land trusts. We need more public space for people to enjoy, hopefully with fewer ATVs and campsite garbage.

<comment><USER3> when i go for a hike i bring a trash bag and often come out with it full. maybe consider similar and convincing your social contacts to do so instead of deferring to some other authority? the commons are what we make of them, and "it's someone else's responsibility" is the heart of the tragedy.

<comment><USER4> > when i go for a hike i bring a trash bag and often come out with it full.

David Sedaris did this so much they named a garbage truck after him.

[https://www.theguardian.com/books/shortcuts/2014/jul/31/davi...](https://www.theguardian.com/books/shortcuts/2014/jul/31/david- sedaris-litter-picker-rubbish-waste-vehicle-pig-pen-west-sussex)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The lack of understanding of Leave No Trace by the general public is pretty astounding. Even among people who self identify as hikers. Lately there have been a lot of instances of people painting on rocks or painting rocks and leaving them out there as well as stacking stones for aesthetic reasons instead of a navigational aid. Both of these violate Leave No Trace but I've seen a lot of people flamed for bringing it up in casual hiking groups. Neither of these have as much environmental consequence as littering for example, but it is still an eyesore and a reminder of human civilization when one is trying to get away from it.

If you really want to get away from civilization then you should consider remote backpacking trips. Wilderness backpackers, in general, are strict followers of Leave No Trace and unless it is a super popular trail there won't be too many.

<comment><USER6> yes, i was climbing a couple days ago and some teenagers started stacking rocks right in the middle of the trail head for exiting the climbing area. i don't understand why stacking rocks is something anyone cares about.

<comment><USER7> It looks cool in photos. And some people egotistically want to mark their territory, like wild animals.

<comment><USER8> less environmental impact if they would just pee on the existing trail markers then...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I just got back from a week of backpacking in a wilderness area in Wyoming and saw about 6 people over the course of the trip, and it was great. Unfortunately for the author, he's probably going to have to sacrifice the camper if he wants any immediate relief - if you have to get their on foot (or by horse), it drastically affects who is going to go there.

IMO the longer term solution is to educate people. One idea (not a cure all, but it might help): offer free classes on nature conservation, good camping practices, etc. Each person who hasn't taken the class in the past N years pays a much higher access fee to the campground.

<comment><USER10> the people who are blighting the wilderness are ignorant, uneducated urbanites who would never take a free course even if it were available

<comment><USER11> Was just camping in the ozarks. FWIW, the isolated forest service road camping spot had bullet casings and broken glass. The more popular watering hole area was completely clean.

<comment><USER12> I hunt and camp around the ozarks regularly. Locals regularly drink and target shoot around the area. The majority of trash is localized by the roads though. If you go through the woods, most of the trash you find looks to be at least a couple decades old.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I share alot of the same feelings as expressed in the article. Parks, camping, and 'wild areas' are victims of their own success. Where I live the largest Provincial Park is an 8 hour drive away for me, but only 4'ish hours from Toronto. The article talks about car-camping and towed trailers but even areas that require a 2 hour canoe trip and multiple portages to get to and it is still decimated by tourists.

Even though the barrier to entry is high, and isn't in the same ball-park as these car-campers there are far too many people trying to spend some time under the trees, and the park is being damaged.

Contrast this period with the 1980's. Disposable income is (apparently) lower now then it was back then. Back in my childhood several of my neighbours would have campers, or boats, or snowmobiles; and many opportunities to use them throughout the year. Now when I look around I only see 1 on my entire block, and with entire segments of the economy closing for good, factories being emptied; I see the golden era of the union, and 'extra' money as a thing of the past.

So how are all these people able to afford crowding our parks? The article talks about this decline almost as if it's a recent thing, but I have seen this same pattern going back over 10 years.

The only way I can find a reasonable amount of peace and quiet is to goto Crown Land, and multi-day canoe trips into the wild.

<comment><USER14> >> So how are all these people able to afford crowding our parks?

It is younger people. Whereas young families might once have gone to places like disney world, provincial parks are now the cheap family vacation. Reliable GPS, weather forecasting and cellphones have also made previously "remote" areas very accessible. There are no secret places anymore.

<comment><USER15> We did family camping when I was a kid because it was the cheapest vacation. It was never a luxury good.

<comment><USER16> Likewise here. Camping was certainly the cheap way to go, especially if the alternative included the cost of restaurant food on top of lodging. Now that I'm grown up with kids, we still camp, though we've also done a number of vacations where we rent an apartment for a week, with a kitchen.

But there were other benefits to camping as well. Small kids don't belong in hotels and restaurants -- it's a nightmare for everybody. And the process of getting them in and out of those accommodations eats up half the day.

And if you're camping, that itself becomes the entertainment, so the sightseeing side of it doesn't have to be as spectacular. Last summer we made our way across the northern shore of Lake Superior -- possibly one of my favorite places in the world. There are no bucket-list tourist destinations unless you count the Wawa Goose, yet it was just a blast and quite relaxing.

<comment><USER17> >> Small kids don't belong in hotels and restaurants

Uh, what???

<comment><USER8> I think what they mean is that (from my experience on both sides) small kids are noisy, messy and very active. This makes parenting in a shared environment (if you care about your neighbors) hard. When you go camping the kids have space, can get dirty, get tired and go to bed early. I'll take a crying baby camping over banging and yelling through a hotel room wall any day.

<comment><USER16> Yes, precisely. Now of course not all kids are the same, but hoping for several hours of quiet behavior after being cooped up a car -- possibly strapped into a child seat -- all day was unrealistic in our case. There are other problems as well: Finding a restaurant with healthy food that everybody will enjoy, without breaking the bank. And hotel rooms are _filthy_.

Granted, it could be a matter of personal preference as well. I enjoy the outdoors, and my own cooking, more than the inside of a restaurant or hotel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It really is modern ORVs that have made this so much worse recently. It used to be 4-wheelers, but that's a rough and rugged form of travel. You're not going to get an entire family plus drinks and food loaded up on 4-wheelers the same way people do now with RZRs. RZRs and their like have made off-roading way more accessible. What used to be outdoor gear rental shops selling kayaks and mountain bikes have turned into snowmobile and RZR rental shops

In my experience it's the family who shows up at the trailhead with two trailers full of RZRs who are ignorant of LNT principles, not college students and young adults getting out to car camp with their REI gear.

</comment><comment><USER19> _I was easily 100 miles from any notable population center, and I figured I would have my pick of any number of dispersed camping sites along the upper river. But when I arrived on a Tuesday afternoon [...] Every wide spot in the road was occupied_

I learned recently that some portion of these people are actually living in dispersed camping areas full-time, my guess being to avoid paying rent. The level of destruction I have observed, as well as the difficulty of finding sites even in remote locations in the middle of the week suddenly made a lot more sense.

</comment><comment><USER20> I went to a small college town and there were some amazing wildlife areas that were not well traveled. Some were actual parks, but with poor signage and little parking. Others were private land with neighbors who were alright with people traveling in so long as we kept off the grass when parking.

I went back recently and those private areas were now public parks, the public parks had full parking lots, there were signs about dangerous cliffs everywhere, and it all felt very .. different. It was no longer exploring the frontier. I wrote about it a few years ago:

[https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/perspective/exploration...](https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/perspective/exploration/)

</comment><comment><USER21> Cached version of the article since it seems swamped right now [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:pyUsrEA...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:pyUsrEAkoqsJ:https://www.hatchmag.com/blog/end- dispersed-camping/7715118&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1&vwsrc=0)

</comment><comment><USER22> east of the mississippi there's precious little open/public land; a few places I like to camp around the VA/WV line are often just fire roads that were abandoned. They're now most popular with poachers and teens looking to party without fear of the cops being called, along with a few campers like me.

and since Covid, everyone seemingly got into the "original socially-distanced recreation", because now formerly rather low-traffic sites are _packed_ , with all the trouble that brings.

trash is often everywhere. beer cans, broken glass, shotgun shells, and spent brass abound. Once just a month ago I came across a loaf of bread and a Hank Williams, Jr. album (as in vinyl), just sitting next to a fire ring. I think I've seen a dozen shoes left along camp sites in the past month.

I think somehow it got into the cultural mind that the woods are somehow maintained by a janitorial staff. i have no idea how it got so bad.

<comment><USER23> this is exactly what I've noticed happening a lot more in the past 2 years.

I've shown up to unmarked campsites where people had clearly abandoned 80% of their new walmart gear, so much I physically couldn't carry it all out to trash.

finding a good drive up camp spot in the southeast is basically impossible unless you go in the middle of the week, especially if you wanna keep it 100% legal (no private land). Our few national forests and their few roads stay busy, always have.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I run at a nearby state park several times a week. After running past litter for months, but doing nothing about it, I decided to take two handfuls of trash to the trash bin during most visits. After barely inconveniencing myself by picking up trash on my way to the parking area, months passed and I've thrown away more than 500 pieces of garbage! Doing a little bit over a long period of time can really amount to something substantial. It barely cost me any effort. I've stopped collecting since the pandemic but it seems like others are doing their part and helping keep an understaffed, heavily used park clean.

</comment><comment><USER25> > This is the kind of behavior that will reduce our dispersed camping > opportunities...More damage will lead to more closures by land-management > agencies, and rightly so.

What would banning people from these areas achieve? Sure, you'd have an unspoilt wilderness, but...for whom?

The easily accessible areas are a tiny part of America's public land. Litter and vandalism don't significantly damage the local ecology in somewhere you already have hundreds or thousands of people passing through even with a leave-no-trace policy: they mostly make it less attractive _for other visitors_.

I'm not arguing that people should vandalise or litter public areas, or that the likely practical response wouldn't be to close affected areas. Just challenging the assertion that this would be a useful thing for the likes of the BLM to do. One possibility is that by closing them to RVs you keep them available to walkers on day trips or camping in tents, who may cause less damage if only because they can carry less stuff.

<comment><USER26> > but...for whom?

I guess that for animals, and rightly so, I may add.

<comment><USER27> We need to get in the cultural habit of looking at things for their own being, rather than for how they can be used by humans.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> A long time ago I was flipping through very early morning local TV, and came across some sort of fishing program that was talking about a neat way to camp far away from other people.

They would get a float plane and fly deep into the Canadian wilderness and find a lake far away from any roads or trails. They would land there and then camp beside the lake for a week or two of fishing and hiking without another human anywhere within 50 miles, or without any signs than any other humans had been to that spot in years or decades.

</comment><comment><USER29> For anyone else who was confused, BLM in this context stands for Bureau of Land Management.

</comment><comment><USER30> This seems at first unlikely yet ATVs (even where not permitted) have made attractive places close to trailheads accessible. I used to think 10 miles in was enough to get away from most people, but like the author I have found some of those places colonized by modern life.

Fortunately the world is still large and a lot of places are only accessible by foot. But a lot of those ecosystems done recover quickly.

A few weeks ago I was up in the emigrant wilderness and it looked like a majority of the visitors were using brand new gear. I hope what this really means is we'll have a greater appreciation of backpacking and more support.

<comment><USER31> I try to be tolerant of people who prefer more motorized recreation than I do. But ATVs (and dirt bikes) really tend to rip things up--to say nothing of the noise. There are one set of trails in my town forest that are basically unusable if it is at all wet because there are basically lakes where ATVs have ripped up the trail. One ATV can really rip up a trail at a wet time of the year.

<comment><USER32> I'd be very surprised if even one in a thousand ATV campers had a legitimate physical disability (being a lazy fatass doesn't count, and I can say that because I'm a lazy fatass. If I can walk a few miles, so can they.)

<comment><USER30> I assume people drive them 1- for fun, 2- to transport extra gear like coolers, babies, etc. I wonder really if any of them are overnighting it, rather than heading out and car camping.

Carrying everything on your back and traveling 10-20 miles on foot to make camp seems to cut down the number of people you'll run into by a lot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> The article raises some key issues regarding sustainable tourism. I recall some recent posts on here that had some great discussions in the context of high profile destinations (e.g. [0] and to a lesser extent [1]).

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20675096](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20675096)

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19996108](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19996108)

</comment><comment><USER34> I think at the end of the day we need to reduce our BLM lands in favor of increasing our wilderness. The problems he describes are solved simply by not allowing people to RV, 4-wheel, or motorbike their way wherever they feel like. I run into trash in the more popular parts of the wilderness areas I love, but I have to look for it, and it's my personal offset for adding load to the wilderness with my presence.

<comment><USER35> Do you not understand that there is BLM wilderness? We don't reduce public lands to increase wilderness. Wilderness is designated on public lands by Congress and it can be BLM, USFS, USFWS or NPS lands.

<comment><USER34> I don't hang out much in BLM lands (way too noisy, way too much trash), so there's probably some nuance here that is lost on me, yes. What I mean is that we should take more of the set aside public lands and deem them off limits to motor vehicles. These "designated wildernesses" don't have the problems he describes, except in the most extreme cases (Sierras, AT).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This is not confined to camp sites, on sub reddit dedicated to our own city there are always pictures of trash left behind by people in our city parks.

I would just suggest the BLM apply a surcharge too all camping, they provide you two bags, one for trash and one for recyclable materials; labeled on the bag what is acceptable; and upon leaving and turning these over you get a refund on the deposit. Perhaps a bag per three days with a twenty dollar deposit.

<comment><USER37> BLM "campgrounds" are usually unstaffed, there's only a lockbox and some envelopes for you to leave the fee in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Another contributing factor is the rapid growth of offroad capable campers like some of the popup style truck campers and rugged trailers. They allow you to go almost anywhere a Jeep can go, sometimes providing as much solitude as backpacking. I like to think this particular subgroup is more environmentally conscientious than the general vehicle camping crowd.

<comment><USER39> They're better in terms of impacting the immediate area around them than the RV/trailer/car-camping crowd but way worse than the actual off road "pitch a tent beside your Jeep" crowd because they go off the trail or stack rocks to avoid getting a scratch on the 4Runner they're still making payments on.

It's like they took every bad habit they could find from the '00s Landrover enthusiast crowd and unironically cranked it to 11

Frankly I like the car-camping crowd better because they don't tend to stray far from the road.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Link at archive.org [https://web.archive.org/web/20200909133530/www.hatchmag.com/...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200909133530/www.hatchmag.com/blog/end- dispersed-camping/7715118)

</comment><comment><USER41> A little book called The Monkey Wrench Gang suggests this trend began 50+ years ago.

<comment><USER6> its like the eternal september. it has always been happening. I wonder if prehistoric man was like "man, do you remember when it was just us and the mammoths but now the mammoths dont even come here anymore because grog is always splashing in the water with his family."

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Its inevitable, as population grows yet public lands remain a constant, that overuse becomes a problem.

Emigrate to Mars I guess?</comment>


Why is so much of the Internet still inaccessible to disabled people? - <AUTHOR> http://www.theweek.com/articles/567908/why-much-internet-still-inaccessible-disabled-people

<comment><USER2> I don't know about "normal" blind people who are not software developers like me but I find most of the web accessible. I was able to successfully complete the R Programming course on Coursera with no sited help. I can do online banking, ordering off amazon, etc. One accessibility issue with Netflix was that they did not have audio description for video but this is getting better.

</comment><comment><USER3> Because only a very small percentage of those that create the content are disabled themselves.

<comment><USER4> Piggybacking on this answer, it's also because there is a cost (money, time, knowledge, dev sophistication, etc) to doing it that way.

When people don't see something as an issue b/c they aren't disabled themselves, and it would take extra time / consideration / money to support disabled folks, people won't do it.

That is why in the US we had to legislate handicap accessibility in the real world. People don't build ramps unless they have to.</comment></comment>


The analysis Filecoin doesn't want you to read - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/token-economy/the-analysis-filecoin-doesnt-want-you-to-read-e60d5243f17c <comment><USER2> I don't know enough about cybercurrency ICO's to say if this analysis is correct. But if it is, it's puzzling, since Juan Benet really doesn't seem to have started Protocol Labs for the money. Maybe he really thinks that they could put $700 million to good use.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Problems" #1 (seed round) and #4 (controlling dilution) are standard operating procedure for startups. Either silicon valley has been doing things wrong for a long time and cryptocurrency people have suddenly discovered a better way... or cryptocurrency is a bizarro parallel universe where bad ideas have become best practices in a pretty short amount of time.

</comment><comment><USER4> Note: Protocol Labs is a YCombinator company and many of the insiders given early access were YC affiliated.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is clearly a cash grab; there's no way the team needs to take in $400m to build this.

What I don't understand is, the code is open source; why not fork it and create a community run OpenFileCoin (OFC)? The point of ICOs is that we don't need VCs or even companies behind them.

<comment><USER5> Where is the current source code? It appears they keeping it private.

<comment><USER4> I mis-spoke. I meant when Protocol Labs (finally) releases something. Still hard to get my head around a team raising $700m-1.2b without having any code at all.</comment></comment></comment>


Rapid Compose – Console UI for Docker-Compose - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/trusz/rapid-compose <comment><AUTHOR> Hi all!

We have a problem in our developer team, that the number of docker services are getting more and more and we could not remember all or new developers did not what and how to start.

So I've created a console app with console ui that we use know every day. I though maybe others have the same or similar problems.

The project is open source and constructive criticism is welcomed :)</comment>


Every Website in 2019 - <AUTHOR> https://www.outpan.com/app/4a00af17ee/every-website-in-2019 <comment><USER2> The scourge of exit intent popups continues to grow. I'm wondering when pop-up blockers will come out to combat these... Seems we already went through this in the early 2000s with alert box pop-ups.

<comment><USER3> A large number of these can be blocked by enabling the annoyance-blocking lists in uBlock Origin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Missing: irritating auto-playing video that cannot be stopped and follows you as you scroll; confirm-shaming; dire warning that this is your "last free article"; annoying slide-overs obscuring as much of the page as possible; worthless outbrain clickbait; infinite scrolling loop of the same garbage repeated; "sponsored" content; 10 different social media buttons/trackers; google analytics; anti-privacy policy; our terms of use have changed: read them before proceeding; only works in Chrome.

<comment><USER5> Also the chat pop-up with a fake message, "Let me know how I can help!" Do people actually interact with those?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Missing: Would you like to fill out our survey - granted this mostly happens for big companies rather than all websites.

Would you like to install Chrome/our mobile app? We don't remember the answer the last 100 times we asked you this.

<comment><USER7> Also it needs to hijack the back stack, so when you try to back out it asks if you really really ___really_ __want to leave.

<comment><USER8> Or better yet, duplicate itself in the browser history so that when you click back you just go back to the same page, no matter how many times you click (prompting you to right-click on the back button and manually select some page before it).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Ima little slow but...Ahhh, now I get it. Hahaha

<comment><USER10> I went looking for site the somehow analyzed "every website," thinking this implausibility would be interesting. Took me a second to get it as well.

<comment><USER11> The pure rage this website brought me. I blame that for my loss of logic.

All I could think to myself was "not another one"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Wait. They missed all the load-as-you-scroll and infinite-scroll website themes. All the rage these days!

</comment><comment><USER13> > Your request did not contain a Referrer header.

Yep! 2019!</comment>


Ask HN: How do you market your product/services? - <AUTHOR> I'm working on a product (board-game) and I'm struggling to build a market and get interest in the project.
The project isn't finished, but I'm trying to work on building a market to launch to when it's ready.
If you want to check out the project there's a free "print-and-play" version here: http://games.prettydamnneat.com (just click the button to trigger the download if you don't want to sign up).
How have you marketed your products or services and how effective were they? <comment><USER2> I'll start off with a bit of philosophy then hopefully give you some useful tactics.

When I was young, lots of people I knew were 'writing' table top role playing games. Yet, almost to a tee, when I would accept the invitation to 'play test', I would show up to a description like:

"Yeah, we have dice and the coolest magic system you have ever seen, but it's not done, but I photocopied character sheets from AD&D."

It got to a point that by the time I was 18, whenever I was asked to play test a new game, my stock response was, "I'll help out when it's ready to be released." I wasn't exactly Mr. Popularity at that point in my life so I don't have a large sample, but my friends all had very similar reactions.

Roughly 25 years later and I know lots of people who are working on board games. Is there any chance that 'the project isn't finished' scares early adopters the way 'I'm writing a game' scared me?

I wonder if changing your pitch would help. Maybe instead of saying 'the project isn't finished', you could say that you're play testing and balancing? Sometimes in early stages, selling is about telling the truth in a more palatable way.

All that said, this is actually a pretty good marketing campaign. At this point, your biggest goal is one fan. You could spend a lot of money on marketing, but that's not worth as much as one person saying they played your game and loved every moment of it.

In my experience with board games, social proof is very important. You could spend millions of dollars on marketing and I won't play your game. But, if one of the people I trust suggests it, I'll be there.

So, at this point, think of ways that you can get people to play your game and talk about it. The talking about it is just as important as the playing.

</comment><comment><USER3> My two cents...

Unless you're a marketing wunderkind, you should either keep your marketing costs at zero or do something like a kickstarter project.

Keeping your marketing costs at zero just means you don't really do any marketing, but rather go out and sell your game to anyone who will buy it. Sell it to family, relatives, friends, community groups in your area, people at boardgame meetups, coffeehouses that have boardgames for patrons to play, etc. etc. Sell it for $5 or $3 or whatever. The point is: find at least someone to buy (with real money) your game. Then, move from there and iterate or polish-up or whatever.

A kickstarter project is self-explanatory.

\----

Individuals who design and build something to sell can often be stuck in a sort of launch limbo because they're either too afraid to try and sell something or feel like they lack the knowledge to sell something.

I know a technical founder who read introductory sales books before finding his first batch of customers. Should you read sales books? Maybe. If you do, make sure you blitz-read them for the basics and then get out and try selling your game.

Selling online or offline ultimately comes down to the same thing when you are starting out: try, fail, learn, and repeat until you get your first sale.

The only other advice I can give is that a "yes" or "no" should be music to your ears. A "maybe" should frustrate you. You should hate hearing "maybe". Maybe-land is the worst place to be when trying to sell something.

</comment><comment><USER4> Couple of nitpicks that can change your bottomline first: 1) Add a description of the same in the Site Title (Also change the favicon while you are at it). 2) While the gold coin animation is cool, it fails to convert me or in simple words interest me enough to put in my email and Name. 3) Ask silly questions like : Would i signup for this if i came across this somewhere on the internet? Work your way backwards from there to build trust.

Now the philosophy part of marketing, think of it as doing things across different places to get a foot in the door with someone. All of the times i think of the Someone(Who should i market to?) and How should i get a foot in their door(Push Notifications, Apps, Newsletters, Social Media and more). Product marketing something that you will be actually doing is more about getting the foot in the door to get someone to use it to do X.

Hope this helps!

</comment><comment><USER5> Blogging for business draws the following perks: 1\. Boost SEO 2\. Build good relationships among customer 3\. Build trust from customer as you share expert information through blogs 4\. Link to people with your niche or product 5\. Create community of sharing for viral traffic and exponential market growth Though blogging might be time consuming for other small business, but seeking out for help from blogger virtually can somehow ease this task yet one of the effective ways of boosting business. [https://sites.google.com/view/gcfreelanceservices](https://sites.google.com/view/gcfreelanceservices)

</comment><comment><USER6> Have you shown the game to any players who don't know you? Local game store owners? Any bloggers who review games? Have you checked out the relevant reddits for the handles of people who would be able to give you intelligent feedback? Other forums (I don't know where board game players have out, but you should)?

Starting with your target market and getting them excited is how I'd start to market this.

Note that I have not done marketing of a physical product. I wouldn't take advice from me.

Maybe read a book about board game marketing?

</comment><comment><USER7> I disagree with most of the comments here stating you should use zero marketing or market to friends, family, or local shops.

Inbound marketing is a powerful tool, doesn't require you to be a marketing genius, and costs little to no money as an organic content based effort. Write blog posts, publish to Twitter, cross post on game blogs/sites, etc. These things are well proven to work effectively if done consistently. Also, paid ads can work well too, just keep an eye on your spending there.

</comment><comment><USER8> What have you tried? Have you tried online communities and forums? Reddit can be good if you find a related subreddit. I don't know much about board games though.

For what it's worth, there was nothing on the URL in your post that made me want to sign up or find out more as there's minimal information there. You need some images of the board game, a description of what makes it interesting, a video, some quotes of what people have said about it etc.

</comment><comment><USER9> Would be nice to see more info about the game before providing name and email.

</comment><comment><USER10> > but is harmless to humans and animals.

> harmlessness to livestock and humans would have to be further investigated

"appears harmless" would be more appropriate.

</comment><comment><USER11> uBlock Origin blocked / removed the sign up fields and button. FYI.

\---

Find a local boardgame meetup / playerbase and take it there?</comment>


Linux kernel swear counts per version - <AUTHOR> http://www.vidarholen.net/contents/wordcount/ <comment><USER2> ZOMG Gnuplot! Thank heavens I'm not the only one still using it. Seems like everyone is using spreadsheets for this now and just can't handle it when I send them ugly-but-scripted graph output.

<comment><USER3> My physics teacher used gnuplot, and he taught us how to use it then required it for plotting homework solutions it really doesn't look so bad and in many situations I think it looks so much better than excel generated graphs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wonder what happened around 126.96.36.199 and 2.5.39; "shit", "crap", and "penguin" all decreased dramatically, but "fuck" increased.

<comment><USER5> I noticed that and wanted to make a joke that they probably removed a subsystem, and it took about five "fucks" worth of effort to do so.

But upon further reflection, I think that's probably the first occurrence of 2.5.x. That was an experimental version, and probably had lots of old subsystems removed, and a few smaller (but soon to grow) ones in place of them. (It was "experimental" in that the 2.5 kernels weren't supposed to be a part of any distribution. It eventually grew into the more mature 2.6.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wonder how you can use the word "penguin" as a curse word...

<comment><AUTHOR> Besides some penguins being subjected to imprisonment in arch/sparc64/kernel/smp.c I can't find anything that would qualify.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is that related to <http://www.osnews.com/story/19266/WTFs_m>

(could have sworn that was on xkcd but I guess not)</comment>


State AGs Ask Congress to Gut Critical CDA 230 Online Speech Protections - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/state-ags-threaten-gut-cda-230-speech-protections

<comment><USER2> I recommend you actually read the letter (it's just two pages not including signatures--shorter than the EFF's hysterical description of it): [https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/cda-ag- letter.pdf](https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/cda-ag-letter.pdf).

They're asking Congress to add two words to the CDA:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of Title 18, or any other Federal _or State_ criminal statute."

(Addition emphasized.)

This is in response to a W.D. Wash. decision that determined that the CDA preempted state criminal law. They're asking for it to be modified to say that the CDA does not preempt state criminal law.

<comment><USER3> If it does not override state law then it's next to useless. As in any new federal law could override it so the long term protection is simply at the state level.

<comment><USER2> Look, I think federalism is stupid, and best understood as the Framers' attempt at a jobs-program for lawyers. That said, it's not unreasonable for State AG's to chaffe at a federal telecom law preempting their state criminal laws. Legislating criminal law is one of the core function of the individual states. Yes, that makes it complicated if you're an internet company and operate in 50 different states with 50 different criminal laws, but well tough nuts. At the very least, this letter is not some far-reaching attempt to gut the CDA's protections.

<comment><USER4> While not unreasonable, removing the burden of interstate commerce is exactly one of the reason congress exists. The fact that every state wants to do something to internet companies is _one of the whole reasons for CDA_.

You are right this isn't a "far reaching" attempt, it's a very simple attempt, but it's still trying to gut most of CDA's protections.

<comment><USER2> I think the orthodox interpretation of the commerce power is that it is intended to allow Congress to enact uniform economic regulation and prevent states from enacting economic regulation that prejudices out of state businesses. It's not intended to make doing business in multiple states easier by steamrolling over state criminal laws that only have an incidental effect on businesses.

<comment><USER4> Don't get me wrong, i'm actually a big fan of limited commerce power ("cumulative effect on the national economy" my ass), but i still see it as a bit larger than you do.

<comment><USER2> I'm not saying that the commerce power doesn't give Congress the right to preempt state criminal law in this case. I think we're in agreement that it does. But I don't think it's the _purpose_ of the commerce power to make running an inter-state business easier simply by preempting state law that doesn't regulate commerce, simply to make compliance easier. By that reasoning, Congress should preempt state tax law, financial laws, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Evidence in the original letter from the AGs is pretty thin. As the entirety of their proof of "countless instances of child sex trafficking that occurs [sic] every day", they offer... three (three!!!) instances this year of some dirtbag "pimp" posting something on Backpage.com. In every such instance, the posts interfered in no way with said dirtbag's arrest and prosecution. It's as if they know that all the law-and-order fans won't read the damn thing, but they'll still get on HN and talk out of their asses.

George Mason wept.

What else would anyone expect from a bunch of drug-war prosecutors?

</comment><comment><USER6> I blame ignorance and not malice. Then again, I wouldn't want to blemish a prosecutor's high conviction rate by invoking basic human liberties like expressing an opinion. Just think what might happen to the children.

</comment><comment><USER7> I remember back in the 90s, the CDA was seen as an outrage by the internet savvy.

Now it's our last line of defense? What the hell happened?

<comment><USER2> The Supreme Court gutted the CDA by holding parts unconstitutional, and what was left was the safe-harbor provision which is actually a good idea. See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act#Lega...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act#Legal_challenges).

<comment><USER7> Thanks

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Yep, they're trying to get rid of the provision that says ISPs/forums/etc. can't be held responsible for content their users post. If successful, they intend to... hold ISPs/forums/etc. responsible for content their users post.

This would be bad. People who operate ISPs/forums/etc. should oppose this attempt to change the law.

In particular, the Attorneys General are trying to shut down backpage.com (craigslist competitor) because some people use it to post smutty ads. But if the change they suggest were to be made, it would be open season to enforce any state law via attacks on the online services that people use.</comment>


Tesla: the roadmap to domination - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@andrewt3000/the-2-reasons-tesla-will-be-number-1-bab788ef215e#.yy1id7i5h <comment><USER2> "we may be witnessing an interplay of technology, industrial strategy, and capital not unlike Cornelius Vanderbilt and the railroads, or Thomas Edison and electrical distribution."

Hey, how could he leave out John D. Rockefeller?</comment>


Consumer Anti-Virus and Critical Microsoft Vulnerabilities - <AUTHOR> https://www.nsslabs.com/research/analysis-briefs/can-consumer-av-products-protect.html

<comment><AUTHOR> TL;DR:

HTTP and HTTPS protection: Avast, Kaspersky, McAfee and Trend

HTTP only protection: ESET, Norton, AVG, Avira

No protection: F-Secure, Microsoft Security Essentials, Norman, Panda, CA Total Defence</comment>


Analysis of Mattermark – Quantifying Private Company Growth  - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraphresearch.com/mattermark/

<comment><USER2> I think the value of mattermark is difficult to gauge wothout open books or google analytics data disclosed.

I wonder how mattermark could grab that data?

Danielle seems like a confident entrepreneur and certainly very persistent.

Will be exciting to see where it goes.

<comment><AUTHOR> There are data sources that are difficult or expensive to obtain but provide a more accurate gauge of web traffic. For example, ad networks can provide this. You can dig deeper and get a representative sample of data from sources such as the OpenDNS Investigate platform.

It's a cool product, but the market fit isn't perfect yet.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What can i do to stop an identified spammer? - <AUTHOR>

So i live in Albania where there are some companies that spam for money. Basically people are uneducated and pay these guys to send spam to albanian email addresses including mine.
One company is this : http://ederstudio.al/marketing/email/ (google translate: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sq&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Federstudio.al%2Fmarketing%2Femail%2F&act=url)
He actually advertises on his site that the email will not hit he spam folder, security bullshit and other stuff. The customers can actually login on his control panel and send the mail themselves.
He sends the emails from <random_string>@emailcenter.al . One email that was sent to me: http://pastebin.com/fCzVPJZJ
The local police won't do anything. Contacting the guy directly won't help, he knows it's spam and gets payed.
I actually have spoken to this guy on the phone because a client of mine hosts his website there.
Any idea? Thanks <comment><USER2> Spam-fighters have been dealing with those issues for years. A good first approach is to fill out <http://www.spamcop.net/anonsignup.shtml>, which well send a standard mail to the people selling him bandwidth etc. You can also report him to various blocking lists, which will make sending mail harder for him. Etc.

It is desirable to be anonymous while doing the above - spammers are generally not nice people, and tend to get rather angry when you cut off their livelihood.

<comment><AUTHOR> I reported. Thanks</comment></comment>


PhysicsJS Examples: Newton's Revenge - <AUTHOR> http://wellcaffeinated.net/PhysicsJS/examples/#demo-2 <comment><USER2> Some of the examples (the cloth and the tree) seem to be based off Sub Protocol's verlet-js demonstration [1], which were on Hacker News a while back (HN discussion [2]). There was a similar issue with angular momentum not being conserved on those examples too.

[1] [http://subprotocol.com/verlet-js/](http://subprotocol.com/verlet-js/)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5580596](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5580596)

</comment><comment><USER3> Something seems off about the simulation - once you get a big clump, it starts spinning faster and faster until it tears itself apart again.

Ignoring that, it's pretty neat - and runs decently fast as well.

<comment><USER4> I noticed that angular momentum seems to be an unconserved quantity as well. I would not want to be an astronaut in the universe simulated here!

<comment><USER5> Yeah, this is almost a planetary cloud coming together.

But I suppose the collisions are (too) elastic, also there's the issue with the spinning.

But still you can see several concepts in action, and sometimes you get a big planet with a moon orbiting it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> small niggle. what is a verlet constraint? (rhetorical)

whilst its obvious that you have just discovered verlet integration and the relaxation method of applying constraints - because everyone goes off and writes a physics engine at this point - i only think i know what you mean because i have assumed this.

are these length constraints, angle constraints etc?

still... no matter how common and unexciting this is for me, its always cool to play with physics simulations for five minutes. thanks for sharing. :)

</comment><comment><USER7> The tearable cloth demo is impressive!

</comment><comment><USER8> My favorite one was "Supermarket catastrophe".

Been wondering about where I can get a physics engine to simulate wind. I want to create a wind turbine simulator.

</comment><comment><USER9> I had to run in Chrome, as FireFox reported 10 FSP while actually displaying less than 1 fps. Nice.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is really cool.

I'd like a 3d version to combine with three.js.

</comment><comment><USER11> drag "Fruitcake on wheels" like crazy -> get messed up

<comment><USER12> It took me a while to realize I could play with the objects. It got even more interesting once I realized I could do that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> You can really torture those poor trees...</comment>


Ask HN: Why don't you use IDE? - <AUTHOR> I'd like to know why you don't use editor for java or any strong,static type of language ? <comment><USER2> My experience with IDEs is limited to Visual Studio and Eclipse. Have toyed with IntelliJ - but didn't go deep with it.

For me IDEs are slow, complicated and the screens cluttered. There are so many panels, options, buttons, etc. All I want to see is the code. With vi and multiple screens I can have more than enough windows open. I let the compiler generate warnings and errors. With a fast machine running make I hardly ever have to wait too long.

Besides, cutting code is only about 30% of the effort in a project. Documentation, testing, support, meetings and more meetings take up the bulk of my time. I actually enjoy the time I get to do real work! Being more hands on feels good to me.

<comment><AUTHOR> But when there are lots of packages,classes interfaces how do you live without ide intellisense ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Because VIM works so much better for me than any IDE ever has. It just works, it's installed everywhere, I don't need graphics to use it (so I can use it on remote machines), it's fairly scriptable (this is the only thing I have to give the Emacs guys -- they have a proper programming language for scripting). Most importantly, I only need to know how to use one text editor, as opposed to some languages where you need to change IDEs to actually do anything (see: Xcode, Eclipse, Visual Studio, etc).

</comment><comment><USER4> I know this will not be a popular answer but if your program is too complicated to understand in a text editor I think you might have a problem.

I will however use an IDE if I'm inheriting a project that I can hardly make sense of.

<comment><USER5> My sometimes-use of an IDE has zero to do with ease of understanding, but for the tools it provides that text editors don't, refactoring being the biggest one.

Efficacy depends on the language being worked with, of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nothing against IDEs as i have used many in the past. Once i started working with a large number of distributed systems, having VIM or Emacs foo became sufficient.

</comment><comment><USER7> I like to keep it simple.

</comment><comment><USER5> I use both.</comment>


Social Database Patterns - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/pyistanbul/dbpatterns <comment><USER2> I found their github page, maybe that will do for now: <https://github.com/fatiherikli/dbpatterns>

</comment><comment><USER3> It seems like this is missing the ability to specify queries that you might want to perform on top of the model. It would be very helpful if the intent is to learn.

For example in this pattern here: <http://dbpatterns.com/documents/507c943589cbad13b228926a/>

It would be nice if the author could specify what the query for "Does user with ID X have permission with ID Y"

</comment><comment><USER4> A distributed, transactional graph database like Titan (<http://thinkaurelius.github.com/titan/>) would be a more natural fit for modeling a social graph.

See [http://thinkaurelius.com/2012/08/06/titan-provides-real- time...](http://thinkaurelius.com/2012/08/06/titan-provides-real-time-big- graph-data/)

</comment><comment><USER5> The site is down now, HN effect.

Use the age old trick to get the cached copy from Google -

cache:dbpattern.com

</comment><comment><USER6> since most of the target crowd probably uses orm/frameworks one way or the other, it would be nice if there were some 'export' options for that (django orm, sqlalchemy, rails orm, etc.).

</comment><comment><USER7> Could not handle HN traffic?

</comment><comment><USER8> offline here..</comment>


Are We Overlooking Alien Beacons? - <AUTHOR> http://news.discovery.com/space/do-we-overlook-alien-beacons.html <comment><USER2> Or the aliens are using a faster-than-light (mass-less) communication method that we have not discovered yet.

Imagine our surprise if by the end of the century someone finally discovers the communication method and then that it's full of transmissions!</comment>


Dolphin Browser Leaks Thousands Of Emails Of Beta Testers - <AUTHOR> http://digitizor.com/2011/07/04/dolphin-browser-email-leak/

<comment><USER2> Sometime it seems like blunders like these are the only way that the general population can learn about bcc, or corporations learn about email campaign services.</comment>


EU-funded scientists unveil first ever image of a black hole - <AUTHOR> http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-2053_en.htm <comment><USER2> favorite part of the article... no image.

<comment><USER3> Should probably change the title</comment></comment>