Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "Into Europe" channel.

They don't put it into the same category, just that these are the most well known and with the largest political/opposition impact.
5
Depends what you'd consider eastern. Poland for example is indeed fine, but farther east and north and the Balkan region have a poor wind potential. But the balkan regions have a good solar potential overall, so that could mitigate it. Also the EU really should focus on developing a truly EU grid, so that wind and solar can be optimally used, however the needed HVDC lines aren't cheap.
4
@budders9958 He just lists the two most important nuclear reactor disasters of the previous century and which had the greatest political impact. You are trying to read too much into it.
4
@ten_tego_teges Funny enough the next Trump could be Trump. He already seems to indicate a willingness to run again in 2024. If he does he easily wins the republican primary and he still has a massive amount of support. Hate him or like him, he got more votes as a loser than Obama got during his biggest win (2008), proportionally to the population Trump as a the loser got as much votes as Obama as the clear winner in 2008. The only reason Trump lost in 2020 was because of the massive anti-trump sentiment, not because Biden was liked. By 2024 this could have wained a bit and if the dems then run with a not so liked candidate (like Kamala), Trump could possibly win again.
4
@direnius I don't think it will really matter regarding EU ascension whether or not Turkey changes government. The general opposition against Turkish ascension has grow since a decade ago and now with Poland and Hungary showing how "annoying" members can be if they move away from EU values while in the EU, I don't see how Turkey will be able to join soon. At least one, possibly two generations of a secular Turkey with democratic traditions will likely be needed to convince nations (or more importantly their population) to allow it in.
4
That is not how it works. These costs comparisons normally take into account the entire lifecycle. The main disadvantage is the renewables will need storage (from a certain% point), which now is still expensive. However gridstorage should become competitive enough by around 2030-35. If Nuclear hasn't gone down in cost by then, it will not be considered anywhere but in nations with absolutely no renewable energy potential (or at least it won't be prefered, maybe to help fill in energy gaps in well suited area's like industry zones that run nearly 24/7).
3
@andrefasching1332 1. Sure, but it is clear to most that individually EU countries won't really count in the future, that is exactly one of the reasons to unite: to not become irrelevant/weak. 2. There were also different languanges in the US in the past: English, French, German, Dutch, Spanish, ... German only really diminished around WW1 for example. And the US still doesn't have an official language. Overtime you'll get a common language in the EU next to the native ones. In fact English is already becoming that language. 3. That isn't really relevant. The Colonies at the time of creation weren't all exactly the same in terms of (local) government. And again, this is something that changes overtime. The US didn't form their identity in a few years, it took decades/centuries. The current EU is barely a few decades old (depending on when you'd like to start counting). 4. Yes, they left Europe for several reasons, one of them was to keep their identity that was being subdued in their homeland.
2
@andrefasching1332 Then I guess you responded to the wrong thread. Original start comment: "It’s crazy to me how similar the struggles of the European Union are to the *nascent United States 200+ years ago*.
2
@franknwogu4911 The EU is now already spending several times what Russia spends. An EU that spends 2% of their GDP is contesting with China for the 2-3 place in terms of military investment. If Russia can't strike a finishing blow early against the EU, the EU would win a war of attrition. But yes, as it stands now the EU might not be fully ready, this however doesn't mean it can't be. If the EU would get a unified military, it should easily become stronger than Russia after a 1-2 decades and possibly the 2nd most power military in the world (the US will remain ranked higher due to higher spending).
1
@metaxu3305 If anything I believe they might be underestimating the transition, if EV's reach price parity (expected to happen around 2025), its sales will skyrocket and ICE will plummet. But when I talked about gridstorage, I am talking about specifically the storage solely meant for the grid. If I meant gridstorage from EV's, I'd talk about V2G. Moreover I wasn't talking about how much gridstorage there will be, but that it will be price competitive unless nuclear goes down a lot in price (not to mention public opinion importance). As for people willingness to let their EV battery be siphoned, it would be their choice, but there obviously will be compensation. Whether V2G will become commonplace depends on the wear a battery experiences due to V2G (though this is expected to be limited since there will be no massive draw, rather a tiny amount from many batteries and only within a certain battery range) and the compensation. If the compensation comes out higher, people would make money by allowing it without needing to do anything (though it would be limited gain ofcourse at best). Another likely option is the use of V2H, where people just use their EV to power their home in the evening, though this will mostly depends on whether there are more variable prices (like expensive in the evening, cheap during the day/night), whether they have solar panels that can charge their car during the day (for people working from home forexample) or access to cheaper electricity at work for example. Reducing the overall individual cars will unfortunately not happen any time soon, at best somewhere around 2040-2050, by that time dedicated grid battery storage will have greatly improved/come down in price even more. And batteries aren't the only possible gridstorage by then. Yes, thorium and molten salt show promise, there however are still non-operational so far I know. They are likely at least 20 years out before large scale roll out will even begin, a bit too late, though it might possibly compete with the second generation of renewables+gridstorage.
1
@pietvanleeuwen110 Poland has the same color of the UK, so I don't see how they would be the least efficient for wind energy. But there is something wrong with this picture (or at least the description), since less people per MW potential wind energy is actually better. And if I try to calculate Belgiums wind power potential from this chart (or at least its minimum), I get just 36MW potential (a few wind turbines), but Belgium already has over 2000 MW in wind power installed or if I made a mistake 36TW. If I ignore the (x1000), I get 36 GW, more realistic, but is it trustworthy considering I ignored part of the legend? What is even weirder is that this is representation of power and not energy like it is said in the video. However a quick google search by image (literally first try and first row) I found this image, it doesn't say wind energy potential like in the video, but is part of a study called "how much wind power potential does europe have", which is locked behind a paywall. It isn't even certain this chart is actually representing the wind energy potential, but possibly something else (in fact the graphs title is power density potential in Europe, not energy and nothing about wind), I am starting to wonder whether this uploader even read/has access to the study where this chart comes from, or just took it from google just having read the title.
1
@pietvanleeuwen110 I hope so, his text with the chart however was wrong. I still am confused with the fact that Poland has a lower amount of people per MW than the low countries, this should be better, not worse. The less people per MW, the more power per person, which is great. I do think there is an extra mistake in there somewhere.
1
By around 2030-35 battery storage is expected to cheap and available enough to be competitive in the energy grid and V2G will also help by then.
1
@samuelgomola9097 Batteries can be recycled with zero waste, and any waste of production can also be perfectly managed. This is not really a problem.
1
@samuelgomola9097 It obviously is an expression, like saying something is 100% certain, eventhough that isn't possible. And zero waste was in terms of recycling, not production. Anyway, there are many different batteries out there, even some that are specifically meant for gridstorage. I am sorry, but grid storage will happen, it already is being done on a limited scale.
1
@Dr.Gehrig Gravity batteries (at least the non liquid kind) are not usefull, they might seem great initial, but when you start to look into the numbers and practicality, you'll notice it is just a hype and not a good storage option.
1
@andrefasching1332 My point is that your points were not entirely correct or relevant. That European countries were superpowers 100 years ago doesn't really matter that much, what matters is the current and future situation, which would make European power more similar to that of the colonies at that time, than a high power status (individually). There was no unified language at that time, sure maybe less differences than in Europe, but enough that the difference doesn't really matter, the main reason why it wasn't a problem, was due to much less travel and communication over distances. Even now there still are a lot of people in the US with a different native language, they just use English as a common language when needed. This is also already happening in the EU slowly with English being used as a common language next to native regional languages. Yes, the US was a republic from the beginning, and so is the EU essentially. The differences in 'local' government systems isn't really that important as long as they don't clash (which it shouldn't if all are representative democraties). Embracing the US identity was logical This is also just not correct. It took a long time for a real general US identity to establish and many people that left for the colonies did so to be free to have their own identity/religion, their descendants just adapted to a new reality, which is also happening in the EU with younger people feeling more and more European than past generations, identity is formed over generations.
1
@andrefasching1332 We are comparing the US 1770-1850 vs the EU now and coming decades.
1
@andrefasching1332 If you aren't interested in a discussion, why even respond on a youtube comment? Let alone react again?
1
Not seeing that trend anywhere.
1
@Elijah-cy9do You do realize this would be incredibly expensive and wastefull, right?
1
@Elijah-cy9do Perfectly fine ICE vehicles will just keep using gas untill they are ready to be scrapped. People aren't going to keep driving ICE cars anyway if they see the price of fuel go up by 3-4 times or so. As for the batteries, mining isn't a bad thing here, eventually there will be enough resources in circulation with recycling that the mining will also automatically reduce again, only needing to mine the little that gets lost during the recycling process/end of life management. Lithium batteriy EV's btw are cleaner than ICE cars after around 30-50k miles, depending on use and the production of batteries also is likely to become cleaner (or at least the polluting waste will have to be dealt with due to regulation). And ofcourse it is easy to forget that your carbon capture, hydrogen production, etc. also needs resources and a lot more energy. Hydrogen cars are likely still much better than your proposed solution and yet it is losing out vs BEV's massively.
1
In China the EPR's construction still took twice as long than initially expected. And I bet it is much easier to build something like a nuclear powerplant in China than in the EU, with permits, opposition, ... all of which also cost time and money. And then we don't even talk about the labour costs. All in all it seems to take around 8-10 years on average to build these new reactors. Technology is known, but this isn't the only part of the equation.
1
@zolikoff You're right, I forgot to speak about the interest rates and the need for state support/guarantees.
1
@chazbertino6102 By the time the marshall plan came around, European nations were already well on their way to recovery. All the marshall plan did was speed up the process.
1
@geordi5054 No it wasn't, Europe was already starting to recover, the marshall plan just sped it up.
1
@geordi5054 The marshall plan came years after the war ended, +-3-4 years later. It mostly helped speed up reindustrialisation in for example western Germany, since it allowed them to focus less on food production and more on industry. Without the marshall plan, this could have happened maybe 3-5 years later then now, that is hard to know for sure. Als don't overestimate the marshall plans budget. In today's currency that would be around 114 billion dollar, or less than 1% of GDP (though at the time it was around 3-4% due to a lower US GDP though it was also spread out over 3 years, so around 1-1,5% of GDP yearly). The GDP growth due to it in the countries involved was less than .5%. Even to this day the actual financial impact it had is still disputed. However it had a great influence propaganda wise and to strengthen US influence of Western European countries. Just because you throw money against problems, doesn't mean you can effectively eliminate them. Just look at Afghanistan, it actually received more aid than Western Europe did I believe, and it barely had an impact, if it had one at all. (The afghan army alone got 80 billion dollar, that is only 34 billion less than European nations got in total under the martial plan in todays currency) And were did I claim it trapped Europe?
1