Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "TLDR News EU"
channel.
-
@malikjackson9337
Even the best estimates don't even put renewables at half the global power generation at that time frame.
I didn't say anything about half the power generation coming from renewable, so not sure which timeframe you're talking about.
Many of the developing nations are well placed for using renewable and are often also investing in it. They are definitely more unlikely to go nuclear, unless they cut serious costs somewhere.
Yes, Japan is one of the few nations geographically not great for renewables considering their population. China I don't really agree with. They are just focusing on everything at the moment, despite rolling out quite some nuclear compared to the rest of the world, it is still really small compared to their renewable development. Nuclear only made up 4% of their grid mix in 2023, compared to 30% for renewables (even just talking wind and solar it is at 16%). So nuclear definitely isn't really driving China's grid away from fossil fuels, currently that is clearly renewables doing it.
People forget that nuclear isn't the only thing slowed down by regulation, renewables are too. For example here in Belgium (and likely most of Europe) without regulation it would take around 4-6 months to build a wind turbine from inception to operation, currently it takes in actuality over 3 years due to the requirement for studies, paperwork, build up of local support, ... (which also drives up the costs).
Purely theoretical solar panels can fuel our entire society (for those things that can be electrified) if we also use grid storage and even then it would take only a small part of available ground surface. But ofcourse it is always better to have some diversity and grid storage at the scale and cost that is needed is still 10-20 years off (though roll out of renewable generation can be done before that, so we only need to slot in the storage, theoretically).
1
-
@malikjackson9337
Depends on the time frame and your interpretation of a significant percentage.
Currently all renewables (Hydro, solar, wind, bioenergy, ...) make up 30% of the worlds electricity mix. Ofcourse at this moment half of that comes from hydro, but the other renewable sources are already 50% higher than nuclear's attribution, while having been still very expensive just 10-15 years ago. In 10 years they went from +-5% to +-15% and in many regions of the world renewables are only just starting to ramp up or coming into development.
I do think it will take several decades still for renewables to make up a large majority of electricity generation, but I don't really agree with the "without nuclear" take. There is no reason nuclear would positively change this the speed of low carbon production vs focusing solely on renewables. Even in 50+ years nuclear never went above 18% and has been on a downwards trajectory since the 1990's. The investments that are being/would be made in new current nuclear powerplants would be just as effective, if not more effective, if they went into renewables instead (at this moment). Maybe this would change once renewables start making up 60-70% of the grid mix and storage still isn't fixed, then nuclear might be usefull for that last 30% (though nuclear and renewables aren't really that complementary and overbuilding renewable for green hydrogen production and hydrogen gas plants would be better if costs come down enough, though storage should be fine way before either scenario).
The point is it doesn't have to be slow and tedious like it is in say the US which is one of the longest development times in the world.
It doesn't, but neither do renewables. China is building nuclear powerplants reasonably fast, but then they also are developing renewables even at a lot faster pace. This is more a China (great at big construction works) vs the West (slow and expensive), whether this comes at some cost or not.
And it still is on average 6 years in China from building start to commercial operation. Add another 2-3 years decision making, planning, preparing, .... and you also are at around 8-10 years. Sure some in the west are gigantically overtime, but 8-10 years lead time still seems to be a good assumption under even good conditions.
To say solar is even remotely as regulated is either naive or disingenuous.
It is proportionally. Regulation isn't even necessarily the right term, rather bureaucracy. Ofcourse in pure numbers it most certainly isn't. Wind turbines (and likely also large solar) might take around +-4x times as long to develop and build with the bureaucracy etc vs if you just planned and started building without the need of all the bureaucracy. For nuclear powerplants that would be the equivalent of 20 years vs 5 years (which is around the ballpark or even higher of what we see unless we are looking at the absolute worst).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gungan5822 You do realize the non-mRNA ones that were available (Astrazenica and janssens) are ones that tend to have more side effects and less effective?
Novavax hasn't been available due to production difficulties, though the EU is looking into using it as a third boostershot at the end of this year. This because it is logistically easier to use and there is no clear knowledge yet which vaccins are more effective against new strains, the mrna ones or the ones from novavax.
If rapid tests are cheap, no problem. However the state should not subsidies it. If people need it due to not accepting a vaccination, it is their problem. Hundreds of millions have been vaccinated without problems. Yes, there have been some problems, but we are talking of a few every several millions, this happens for many medications and vaccins, unfortunately not everything can always be avoided. And many more would have died in the mean time due to covid without the vaccination.
Lockdowns will be ended when covid is under control enough, this mostly will be looked at by hospitalisations and deathrate. Considering these days it are mostly non-vaccinated people that end up in the hospital or die due to covid, you can blame them for lockdowns/measures not getting lifted completely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheShadowOfZama
That is just a bollocks comparison. If Limburg performs poorly then it's because it is a Flemish issue.
And if Wallonia performs poorly it is a Belgian issue.
The Flemish government has full control over Limburg (well in regards to the domains that it has control over of course).
That depends entirely government system of this new Flemish state. Who says it wouldn't see a devolution similar to what happened in Belgium?
The Flemish government can give it money, the Flemish government can decide how to use it to assist Limburg, it can even intervene in Limburg directly depending on what Limburg is doing wrong exactly.
And this is exactly what the Belgian government should be able to do in Wallonia.
Wallonian politicians want Flemish money (be it directly or indirectly), but Flanders has no say about how that money is spent and there's no way they will agree to give Flanders such powers over them.
Which is why we should move to a system with more direct federal control over the regions, instead of essentially going for a nuclear option of blowing up the country.
They would prefer independence for sure if the choice was give Flanders veto power over policies in Wallonia or seperating because that would be the end of the PS and Ecolo by default.
By your own logic seperation would also be the end of the PS and ecolo by default because they wouldn't have the funds anymore for their policies.
They would never agree to that.
If they prefer separation over less regional authority, I guess they would give us now other choice. But currently that isn't even a discussing in the "money transfer" critique. There it is always just more autonomy/independence to stop the transfer, instead of trying to fix the issue as to why the transfers are taking place. This kind of mentality would always lead to more and more seperation, not just in Belgium, but also a new independent Flemish state.
Flemish independence for cultural reasons I can understand (though I don't agree with it), Flemish independence for economic reasons makes no sense at all, unless ALL other options are tries first.
1
-
@TheShadowOfZama
because of the traditional parties wanting to cling onto power
Like everywhere?
And the Wallonian parties flat out refusing to work together with the two biggest Flemish parties
N-VA was literally in the federal government for 4 years last decade. And ofcourse they don't want to govern with a party whose main goal is ending the current nation, which they don't want 🙄
with the result being monster coalitions between a whole bunch of parties with as sole unifying factor keeping the Flemish nationalists out of the government.
The problem more was that N-VA couldn't get the other parties to agree with them. The first government negotiations literally happened to form a government with the N-VA, they just couldn't get to an agreement. There actually for a time was a good chance that the N-VA and PS would form a coalition, but other needed parties refused to support this agreement due to the policies not being in line with theirs.
Your unitary state would just be more of the same old that we wanted to get rid off since the 60's.
Completely different situation. In the 60's the problem was Flemish identity having been curtailed by the Belgian government for decades/since the belgian independence. Currently the Flemish identity is well entrenched. In a unitary state you also shouldn't have French and Dutch parties anymore, but just ideological parties, making government coalitions more easy to do. Ofcourse the transition wouldn't be simple, it would take effort and time and most likely replacing the old guard politicians with a new fresh guard.
What makes you think the very thing that failed before will suddenly start working in an era with even more debt?
Because debt wasn't the problem cultural/lingual identity was.
Flanders is doing alright
So who better to then help Wallonia to do the same?
The federal government, the Wallonian government, the government of Brussels are all failling.
The wallonian government is failing because it is allowed to fail.
Brussels never stood a chance on its own, the wealth being generated in it literally moves to Flanders and Walloon Brabant due to people working in Brussels, but paying taxes outside it. It was always stupid making a city its own jurisdiction, this could only work with tax transfers or a different way of taxation.
It isn't easy comparing to the federal government due to the difference in powers and responsabilities. It could very well be that the Flemish government also would struggle similarly if given the same duties with the same budget. Or not, difficult to tell either way.
They are failling because the system enables parties to essentially side line the Flemish majority.
Does it? From 2014 to 2018 the federal government literally saw a larger underrepresentation of the French speaking community compared to the underrepresentation of the Dutch speaking community in the current government. And ofcourse the parliament still is made up of 60% dutch representatives and 40% French speaking representatives. Hardley sidelining the Flemish majority.
But the current system is indeed not logical and cumbersome, which is why I'd advocate for a more unitary system where the difference in language should play less a role than the difference in ideology.
The Flemish Greens, socialists, liberals and Christian democrats are only relevant because the Walloon parties keep them important by refusing to work together with the parties actually popular in Flanders
I disagree with this take. These parties going into the Vivaldi coalition actually sets them back because it makes them less popular and more likely to lose more in the next election. Staying out of it and acting as the opposition would have been better for at least the Greens and CD&V, potentially some other of these flemish parties too.
The walloons also literally are willing to work with N-VA, though the Socialists would prefer not to. And even N-VA didn't really liked to go into a government with VB. VB in general just are not a likely coalition partner for any party.
The socialists in Flanders their best results was like 20% once upon a time and curretly it's like 11% or so. They are never going to vote for a system in which their outsized influence would come to an end.
They literally wouldn't lose that influence though, together with the PS they'd become potentially the 2nd biggest party in Belgium.
Seperation forces the issue in many ways, all the other ideas essentially requires many parties to essentially vote themelves out of power.
And this is where you are wrong, they wouldn't just vote themselves out of power, unless you think VB and N-VA will get a lot of votes from Wallonia. Rather in that new system N-VA and VB would become smaller parties while the socialists, liberals and greens will become the bigger parties (though PTB/PvdA might also have something to say, but they essentially all already acting like a unitary party). Now the Greens, Socialists and liberals aren't even on the same line often, despite sharing the same ideology, and this mostly is because the current system (and pressure from BV/N-VA) promotes this division.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AlanHernandez-jn2mp
*For example, you talk about America like if EU/NATO members have not lived through prosperity the past 70 years ...
100million died in WW1 .. 150Milllion died in WW2 ...
Compare that to the past 70 years under America domination over EU/NATO... No comparison .....*
And? What point are trying to to make here?
Like I said, most of America want our troops to come home ..
From so far I can tell from here this mostly is about getting out of the middle-east/conflicts, not necessarily pulling troops out of all overseas bases. The US has a large amount of bases all around the world, no president is just going to pull troops out of peacefull/safe area's.
Furthermore, the total amount of US troops in Europe is around 64.000, the troops in Japan number around 55.000 or to put it diffently, Japan: 4,34 troops per 10k citizens and Europe: 1,27 troops per citizen. So clearly the US isn't contributing that many troops to European defence. Furthermore, it is unclear how many of these US personnel is actually in Europe for NATO (and for example "diplomatic" personnel) and how many for non-Nato operations (like in the middle-east and africa). The main presence of the US in Europe is for a long-range missile defence shield, which doesn't just benefit Europe, but also the US.
That better than being bossed around by Merkel for 15 years !!
What?
they will protect all Japansese internets
Internets?
1
-
@AlanHernandez-jn2mp
America spends 300billion every year on its Navy ...
Irrelevant. The spending on the navy is so that the US can project power over the entire planet. Regionally Europe can protect itself well enough on the seas. Neither Russia, nor anyone in the mediterranean can really threaten Europe in its regional seas. If the EU is weak somewhere it will be mostly in ground combat due to its fragmentation.
That Navy ensures that tiny countries like in Europe get their merchandise to any corner of the planet ...
So basically it is about protecting global trade which the US is a participant in. So why would the US not protect its own trade routes exactly? Besides, these global trade routes are vital for all large powers, except maybe Russia, but they aren't a really strong naval power (not weak for sure, but they can't project seapower far past their coast lines), so if the US steps back, the major powers will just take care of their own parts of the seas and if there are piracy concerns, a coalition would just be formed against it.
No, it's going to be Americas 12 Super Carriers ...
Carriers aren't what protect trade, they are meant to project hard power over a large area, especially as mobile strikeforces against far away lands. The ships that protect tradelanes are mostly frigates and destroyers. Anyone trying to disrupt trade on the seas will do so either with submarines or small, fast and spread out ships.
Basically carriers are used to support land operations or in large scale sea battles (although I don't know how much use they are in sea combat these days with anti-aircraft missiles, it has been decades since a meaningfull conflict between fleets, so it is difficult to say).
300 billion is nothing to America, but how much is that for Europe?
About the same I guess. The EU GDP (with UK) is around 18,8 trillion dollar, the US GDP is around 20,5 trillion dollar, so it is 1,6% and 1,46% of GDP respectively.
They seem to struggle to pay their agreed 2% annual GDP ...
That depends from nation to nation. Sure some nations might have more problems, but then again, they are trying to decrease their debt, unlike the US, which is ever increasing its debt. It is not that they can't, it is that the 2% was agreed against 2024, so some nations might be using this time to get there in a healthy manner.
This system of protecting Europe no longer serves American interest ...
I don't know, do I think the EU needs american protection? No, announce withdrawal from NATO with a time of around 5-10 years and Europe will be fine. Even without it, it will be fine. As for it not being in American interest, I don't know. Europe is the US oldest ally, its largest trading partner and it is often used as a gateway into Africa and the Middle-East. Strategically supporting the EU is very important. But what do I care. I'd like the EU and US to take a step back and become regular allies.
*We need nothing from Europe..
Everything is luxury goods..*
But the EU is still your largest trading partner. Do you really need it? I don't know, but you wouldn't just want your biggest trading partner to suddenly fall away, it would cause a great economic crisis. Eitherway, I don't see why we are discussing this, it is irrelevant in the military discussion since even if the US withdraws from Europe, it will not change economic relations.
*& btw American want better health care, better transportation, better jobs, better wages ...
These things will force America to stop protecting Europe & instead focus on domestic spending ...*
Yeah, because the 25-30 billion dollar is going to do a lot for that. Hell, even if you pull out of the EU, you will have to house these troops. So this isn't really about European-US military relations, but rather the US military budget at large. Yet, despite there being no real large threat, the US keeps increasing its spending (and that is certainly not to protect Europe).
1
-
@AlanHernandez-jn2mp
wow, are you sure about that one? Didn't we just agree that America sells F35 jets?
How exactly is the US spending more by selling equipment to european partners which will effectively reduce the research burden on the US exactly increasing US costs? Are you saying the US wouldn't have developed the f35 without Europe? Or that they give them away at a discount?
What about those Javelin Anti Tank rounds America gave Ukraine ?
I was always talking about the EU, Ukraine is not in the EU. And Ukraine is a special case eitherway being in a open conflict with pro-russian seperatists.
But hey, i guess American technology doesn't help Europe..
How is this relevant? It is not like the US is just handing technology to the EU.
*What on earth are you talking about? Those soldiers will be back on the workforce … Its much easier relocating thousands of soldiers to American soil than sending them across the world, logistically … *
So they'll be fired? Also you do know European nations pay around 1/3 of upkeep costs for these soldiers on European soil, right? People can't even say whether it wouldn't be more expensive to bring them home. I don't think troops stationed in Europe will cost that much more logistically.
... This will create a crisis in EUROPE .. Because you guys will need to start funding a Whole Air Force, Navy & Army ..
The EU spends already 300 billion on the military, more than any nation except the US. I am quite sure that is more than enough for an air force, navy and army. The EU navies put together is at this moment already the second largest in the world, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same for the airforce and army. The greatest problem isn't spending, it is management and fragmentation. The EU could easily become as strong as the US locally. A major part of US military costs is due to it choosing to be a global power, the EU would most likely focus more on regional dominance, like Russia and China do. A lot more can than be achieved with less money.
As for America, do you think we're going into a crisis just because we have shaky relations with Europe?
Shaky relations a crisis? No, but it would harm US international power if it loses the EU as an ally. It would mean the US will get more isolated on the world stage. Seeing the US is already seen by many people around the world as the greatest threat to the world, that is not that positive. Furthermore the US might now be the sole superpower, but that won't remain that way. China, India, ... will also eventually join it. Hell, even the EU might have more possiblity than the US if we look at population numbers and growth potential (eastern europe).
Keep in mind it was America who placed sanctions on EU for giving Airbus subsidies…
And? A trade war would just harm both. But I guess that is the US way of acting, if there is something it doesn't likes, it attacks it, either militarily or economically. How good will the US economy exactly fare if it starts an actual trade war with both the EU and China at the same time, Its two largest trading partners?
Washington is not afraid of a trade war with Europe since you guys have no leverage ..
Right, so I guess the hundreds of billions in trade isn't a leverage. The US is now basically playing a bluff, I would really like to see what happens if the EU retaliates with its own sanctions. If both the EU and China cuts trade with the US, it would hurt them heavily, but it would cripple the US economy, 1/3 of the US trade would be hit. For the EU it would be less than 1/5 of its trade and for China it would be around 1/8. So the US would be really stupid to start a trade war with both the EU and the US. But again we are going off track. Ending the old alliance or just nato wouldn't result in the US and Europe becoming enemies.
Actually, i take that back, it will ready hurt Washington if you partner with China, but does Europe really want to be a puppet of China ?
A puppet? No, but a partner? well, no, not as they are acting now. But if the US pushed them, who knows how the EU might act. Just imagine if Russia somehow becomes democratic in the next 15 or so years and allies with the EU (maybe in the long term even joining? unlikely but you never know). Russia's military strength with the EU's economical strength would be a real threat for US dominance. But again this isn't the EU's goal. I don't even know how we got so off track LMAO.
This was the case before America became the world leader in shale oil & is Now a net exporter of oil
The conflict in the middle east was never about getting the oil for the US, but about controlling it and by doing so controlling prices.
What you dont know is that we also want them back from Europe & Asia
I am sure there are many who want that, but I don't know how many that would actually be (a minority? Plurality? Majority?).
wow, why do you keep using this "2024" excuse ? that deal was struck because Europe realised that they were wrong for taking advantage of America all these years … they agreed on 2% a looooooong time ago, "2024" is for their lack of commitment to their own security
2% was always a goal, not an agreement. EU nations let down military investment after the cold war, because there wasn't a threat left. Even now Russia is just a slowly re-emerging threat. But whatever is the case, the "2024 excuse" is an actual agreement, unlike the directive/advise. Honestly, 2% is fine for me, but some EU nations are just now recovering from the 2008 crisis and it is/was deemed more important to get debt down, so that a possibly new crisis' impact isn't even worse (which would reduce overall spending anyway, 2% or not). Again, while the US might be fine by upping the US debt just like that, this isn't what EU nations do.
These trade routes are most important to TINY countries .. Look at UK, they colonised the entire planet, meanwhile their homeland was the size a tiny Island … how? TRADE ROUTES .. America doesnt NEED To trade ..
LMOA. Sure trade is important for tiny countries, but also for large countries. Why exactly would the US not need international trade, but the EU which is a larger nation in terms of for example population need it? Besides if anyone needs the seas for trade, it is the US. If the seas are unsafe, the EU/China/India can develop and overland trade network, much less efficient, but better than have nothing at all. But basically we are now talking about basically open war. All large nations trade a lot and have a great deal to lose when trade stops/slows down. This goes for China, India, the EU and the US. Neither of these NEED trade, but all off them are well off with it and would like it if trade remains fine.
oil ? We're a net exporter ?
So in other words, you wouldn't be able to export it without trade, roger that.
Food? We have more farm land than any other country on the planet..
And the EU produces all the food it truly needs. The Netherlands a nation smaller than Maine exports equal to a third of US food exportation, and is at the top of food production efficiency. And you do know that the EU has more arable land than the US, right?
we no longer have to protect you from Communism
Yeah, if only there was a current communist threat, are you still living in the cold war?
I don't really know how this has been reduced to a pissing contest, but lets just end with some polling: 43% of Americans are happy with current military spending, and 25% want to see it increased. This shows me that the reason you have such a high military budget has nothing to do with Europe or its protection, but with what US citizens want and the lobbying of the MIC.
1
-
@AlanHernandez-jn2mp
1. https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/eu-agricultural-outlook-arable-land-area-continue-its-decline_en
This link shows that the EU has 172 million ha of arable land which equals to 1,72 million km2. Wikipedia shows that the US has 1,65 million km2 of arable land. Now the total land of the US is twice as large as the EU's, but a lot of it is desert, bad climate, etc.
2. Well, no. I am sorry if I confuse you, often I use Europe when talking about the EU. Just know that I am generally talking about the EU unless I specifically state otherwise (like whole of europe, or something similar). So no, Ukrainian arable lands (as well as Russian, Belarussian and other non-EU european lands) are not included. The thing is, Europe is just a fertile place with fairly little bad land and climate.
1
-
1
-
@sarahbrown5073
Russia isn't in a "war economy". Their military spending is only 6% of GDP
Officially 30-40% of russian state budget goes to the war, unofficially we know that a lot of the costs of the war are carried by things like forced loans from banks to make the cost of the war look lower than it is and from savings they put aside just for this war.
The Russian bank already said that unemployement is at an all time low and that there is a labour shortage, with only a growing need due to war demands.
A war economy also doesn't just look at % of gdp spend on the military, but how much the military is prioritised in the economy. For example investments and measures/policies in other fields also can be changed in those fields to suite the war economy.
If you don't want to call it a war economy, fine. But it is still leagues away from a regular economy.
5% of GDP is very high (extremely high in peace time) only basically done during war times or an arms race (like in the cold war) and just another stupid demand of Trump.
Russian official spending is more like 7,5% of GDP. And its GDP is also increased by investment in military personnel and material, increasing it artificially higher than it would be without this spending, so 8% would be more logical following official numbers.
The hope is that all of NATO combined might be able to produce half of what Russia is currently producing, by 2027
Russian production for 2025 is expected to be around 3m shells, the EU 2m and the US 0,5m. The US is also targetting 1,2m/year by 2026.
So that would make 3-4million shells/year for NATO vs 3-4million shells for Russia in 2026. Russia is already having problems with employement, while the US and EU doesn't suffer from this problem.
NATO countries didn't ramp up as fast as Russia, but they have a higher ceiling than Russia, which makes perfect sense since they have a population 6,6x that of Russia and a combined economy 24x times bigger than that of Russia. The idea Russia can outproduce NATO on shell production longterm is moronic.
there is only a finite amount of antimony, steel, and guncotton
Turkey is the 3rd biggest antimony producer and Austrialia is a big producer too.
China and Russia don't even have a majority of guncotton production.
And steel, really? NATO countries have more than enough steel to produce the shells.
From all these antimony is the most likely that could cause trouble, but there is no indication it really limits production increases.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1