Have a look here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balcony_solar_power

Aye!

This post would require "x " though.

…and failed to save anything at all.

You expect Nazis and their sympathizers to have a brain and form coherent sentences, huh?
I fear, there are at least some who do and those are even more dangerous than the typical braindead Nazi.

That’s missing some crucial information regarding him being a Nazi asshole - amongst other things.

I wonder how long it takes to bundle renawables only with batteries and sell that without subsidising fossil based electric energy.
May the fossil burners go bankrupt rather sooner than later as it’s a more reliable way to get them out of the mix than regulation is.

180 GW is power.
If you’re talking about energy I suppose you mean 180 GWh.

Just imagine how ‘cheap’ it’d be, had they included all calculatory costs for severe incidents (typically not possible to get insurance for them, so the public has to bear the costs of those incidents) and long-term storage in their operating costs and energy prices, repectively.
Economically it makes no sense to prefer nuclear to renawables.
Only the transformation is somewhat strenuous.

You’re right, but if you read beyond the title it’s clearly stated that it’s about electricity generation.

Sounds off, because renewbles are typically cheaper than the alternatives.
Any chance you got a ‘fossil only’ contract?

You’re adding to the confusion.
kWh (as in kW*h) and not kW/h is for measurement of energy.
Watt is for measurement of power.

You’re dead wrong.
Have you ever heard of Bitcoin mining farms? Their electric energy consumption dwarfs a league of mainframes.
Am IBM Z16 may need several dozen kW at full load: https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/systems-hardware/zsystems/Z16M-A01?topic=requirements-general-electrical-power
Fully equipped with 8 PDUs and 4 BPAs a single mainframe is limited to an electric power of 173 kW.

Well, the Bitcoin miners are estimated to use around 175 TWh of energy annually, which equals an electric power of around 20 GW : https://www.statista.com/statistics/881472/worldwide-bitcoin-energy-consumption/
This is several orders of magnitude above that of all the mainframes in the world - unless there are more than 116 million mainframes of that type in operation and running at full load.

But unless you use Monero or other crypto with similarly strong privacy all you do is leave a permanent trail for agencies to investigate.
Using shell companies on the Cayman Islands might be the safer approach.

…and the hate is strong.

I agree that scaling power comsumption is unsustainable - both ecologically and ecoomically!
But power consumption is no inherent attribute of crypto, but a design choice.
Bitcoin just refuses to adjust.
Ethereum did that not very long ago.

What I’m trying to say is: there are designs available that operate at a very tiny power consumption.
Don’t lump all crypto together with Bitcoin.

XRP is fast, but neither instant (usually around 4 seconds) nor without fees:
https://xrpl.org/docs/concepts/transactions/transaction-cost

The cherry on top is the skewed token distribution.
Thanks, but no thanks!

All of what you say applies to most cryptocurrencies.
But I’m aware of at least one digital currency that is

• without fees
• usually confirmed in less than one second
• eco-friendly because it requires no special hardware to operate the network and it uses very little energy

It has also zero inflation, is decentralized and designed with incentives that increase the degree of decentralization over time.
It also has no built-in limits regarding transactions per second.

Consumer protection without middlemen/centralization is hardly possible.

I’m hesitant to drop a name here, because I don’t want to come across as a shill, but if you’re interested we can discuss the attributes of this gem.

edit: ah, the good old “I don’t like what I see, but I have no arguments, so I just downvote without engaging” approach. Or does it just sound too good to be true?
You know what, I’ve changed my mind: https://nano.org/en

tolerance should not be considered a virtue or moral principle, but rather an unspoken agreement within society to tolerate one another’s differences as long as no harm to others arises from same. In this formulation, one being intolerant is violating the contract, and therefore is no longer protected by it against the rest of society.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Proposed_solutions

Sure!
I was merely trying to raise awareness for the need to bring privacy protection to a level beyond E2EE, although E2EE is a very important and useful step.