Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "DW News" channel.

  1. Do these new agencies research things? Le Pen's party lost 1,5% and a seat compared to 2014. How can they call that a victory? How does that change FN's position in europe for the better?
    11
  2. It is more of a question of price and competition. If Tesla can make the same amount of cars with less people and the cars eventually get cheaper because of that, how is VW going to be able to compete in the future?
    8
  3.  @shachart465  Pretty much everyone condemned Hamas, it is just that no one cares. To those not supporting Hamas it is normal to condemn it, Hamas and its supporters don't care about that. But if you condemn Israel, wow suddenly it is like you support Hamas or are anti-semitic. Obviously Hamas has commited terrible (war) crimes, doesn't take away that Israel is also guilty of war crimes and breaking international law.
    8
  4. I'd not say he hemorrhaged votes. Sure he lost aorund 2 million votes or 10% of his previous amount, but for a French incumbent, that isn't that bad. And it is a better result than most polls expected. And he got actually more votes in the first round than the previous time.
    7
  5. Because Hamas is a terrorist organisation, Israel isn't (I hope). You can't demand these 2 group to act the same way. If Hamas was as 'lawfull/honorable' as Israel, it wouldn't be classified as a terrorist organisation to begin with. Moreover Israel is by far the stronger of the 2 ans has caused much more civilian deaths than Hamas so far. Most civilians would have no clue of such information, and even if they do, many might be afraid of future retribution. Besides, Israel is likely still seen by most as the enemy, whether they like Hamas or not, so they are unlikely to help IDF soldiers out.
    5
  6. There is just waaaay fewer planes than cars, but when an accident does happen it is on much larger scale Yes, EV fires are more difficult to control, but that overall doesn't matter as much if it isn't happening in a building. Also overall EV's tend to not enflame/blow up directly after an accident, giving occupants time to safely exit. Then it depends on design how easy and cheap it is to replace More and more it looks like batteries (>70% of capacity left) will outlast the cars lifetime, thus no real need for easy access to replace it. in normal car you can recharge or change battery at home without any special skills and you can refill the tank anytime instantly. I don't really see why this follows changing an EV battery. The comparison is replacing the engine, not the small onboard battery (which EV's also generally still have). With more EVs the demand for elecricity logically increases and it will get covered by easy to build and maintain powerplants that can work 24/7 - coal or phosil fuels power plants EV's should add around 10-15% to the current electricity demand. It won't come from coal or fossil fuel plants, mostly from renewables, which could have a good synergy with EV's if done right. but the volume released into the atmosphere will be the same. That is already incorrect seeing my other answer, but also cars are generally less efficient than powerplants, so you'd still see a reduction in air pollution. Not to mention most countries in europe dont have the energy grid capacity to cover this inceasing demand yet They do, or at least they should unless they are completely ignoring grid maintenance. The extra demand isn't that big as I said and it grows overtime, it isn't like you just flip a switch. People also could use renewable from home (solar panels) or work/local (solar panels and wind turbines), decreasing the pressure on the grid if v2g/h is also used. Lastly we used to be able to change batteries in our phones, then this choice was taken away from us, not thanks to EU it may be coming back, but this western trend of not fixing broken stuff or being able to get only certain parts, just having to buy a brand new product is what is what makes EVs not ecologic choice This argument can just as well be used for regular combustion engine cars. There are people who have the same working and safe car for 40 years in the eastern europe Could be, but likely with a lot of maintenance costs along the way. That or something is really different from eastern Europe and the rest of the world in terms of cars. more people than I thought are getting new car every 2 years, thats so much material mined and emissions created just by the production I doubt there are many people that do this. And these cars don't just immediately get scrapped they are sold 2nd, which then in the end will push the oldest cars out of circulation down the line. Also EV batteries can and will be recycled, it is too lucrative to not do that. So the effort/energy used during mining isn't just going to waste. We need to change people's and companies' behaviour first before EVs can be considered a "green" choice. This doesn't have something to do with EV's specifically, rather cars as a whole. they need to stop thinking only of Fukushima and Cherbobyl and consider the hundreds of perfectly safe plants, so that it is affordable and reasonable for people to get EVs and get their full use out of them Even if the German government drops it anti-nuclear stance from ideology, they still wouldn't adopt it for a certain reason: new nuclear powerplants are extremely expensive (per unit energy produced), more so than solar, wind turbines and coal and around the same as gas powerplants. Maybe this changes eventually, but the current financial situation isn't beneficial for new nuclear powerplants.
    4
  7. Why would BEV's be stalled on the highways?
    4
  8.  @eggcluck  except there are no problems as serious as in the UK. The problems in the USA, France and Germany are chronic ones that can rather easily be kept in check, in the UK this chronic problem exists too for years, however it has been worsened by brexit and turned into an acute problem.
    3
  9. Here in Belgium unvaccinated people are 3-10 times (depending on age group) more likely to end up in the ICU according to ICU numbers. So clearly vaccins are working, they just aren't completely foolproof, especially not for older people or for with extra medical conditions.
    3
  10.  @erfolgreich  You can only be a mediator if you're mostly neutral to both sides, otherwise one of the sides won't trust you. Also in his position neutrality is a good thing.
    3
  11. Theoretically yes, but that likely isn't that practical except for certain situations. That is about the driving part. Wireless charging while stationary is definitely possible.
    3
  12.  @kuiperbond8460  That isn't really correct, depending on how you do it, you can combine solar and farming, this is called agrovoltaics. It overall increases the general output of the field, and only slightly diminishes the seperate parts output. Like 80% of the normal crops compared to just crops and 80% of PV vs just PV: 160% field output, or thus a 60% increase. Obviously I don't know if they did that in this case, but it can be done and one of the test projects that proved this was in Germany.
    3
  13.  @rajeshrai42  Technically since Israel still occupies the west bank, the war was never over, rather Hamas is just reigniting it. Ofcourse with unacceptable means, then again I wouldn't call the Israeli government (and its settlers) much better.
    3
  14. Russia sitting back 🤣, they have been more on the offensive than Ukraine and generally more high casualty offensives. There is no claim of 315k dead, there is an estimates of 315k casualties, which also includes wounded, missing and deserters/captured. The estimated Russian dead toll is around 100k.
    3
  15. My question is, did Macron say they are going to increase the share of nuclear are did he just say that France will build more nuclear reactors. Because while both sound the same, there is a huge difference. If France wants to keep some part of the electricity nuclear, it will always need to build more new reactors to eventually replace the old ones. So more new nuclear reactors could mean that nuclear still will go down from 70% to like 50-60% with the rest renewables and that the new reactors are only meant to replace older reactors.
    3
  16.  Bainsworth  There is more than enough lithium to replace current vehicles, the main question is whether they can ramp up the mining of lithium enough. Untill recently lithium mines actually had to slow down their production to avoid having an oversupply and thus a drop in price, now it will be the opposite Recycling is already possible as several new companies have shown, however these will only be able to ramp up recycling rate once enough EV batteries need to be taken out of circulation, or in other words, they will always lag behind the produced BEV cars by around 2-3 decades, untill you get a stable reuse market where most of the new battery materials come from recycling.
    3
  17. Batteries end of life is no problem, recycling is already seen by car manufacturers as a future cost savings measure seeing how material rich those batteries are vs mined stuff, not to mention it shortens supply lines. And the recycling is constantly improved, at this moment there are already companies that can reach a 95% recycling rate.
    3
  18. ​ @amartin3628  The liquid waste is in fact being recycled in these process. The 5% remaining is not harmfull to the environment, at least not more than other waste.
    3
  19. You can't just use an LPG station for hydrogen. Hydrogen needs their own dedicated stations and these are extremely costly (around 2-3 million per station)
    3
  20. but after some time that battery life shorterns The rate of depreciation is low for new BEV batteries, expected to be still around 80-85% for most cars after 10+ years. In early BEV's this was way worse due to bad battery management (like bad temperature control).
    3
  21. There is enough material to build the necessary amount of batteries overtime. EV batteries get recycled, it is just way to interesting from an economical perspective not to.
    2
  22. Could be, comparing cars of a same age might be better. But overall gasoline cars are inherently much more likely to catch fire than EV's.
    2
  23. Nuclear powerplants don't really help with the renewables intermittency, since they best run constantly/as much as possible. Now, you could say nuclear needs to be the baseload and renewables everything above, but if you have more renewables than necessary, the lower generation costs could outperfom the nuclear base load at certain moments, causing them to either produce at a loss or lower output, which isn't really great for nuclear. So the government will always have to guarantee that nuclear reactors get a certain minimum price and production rate, essentially subsidizing nuclear in the long term even when renewables don't need subsidies anymore and are cheaper. The main danger I see is now going full into nuclear only to find out that by the time most of these plants become operational, storage is so much more viable that it starts to compete with these plants, meaning you might be stuck with more expensive plants for 60 years even when you have better alternatives. And now you can say that storage isn't going to become viable that soon, but remember that solar panels were 10 times more expensives around 10-15 years ago and that the price mostly went down due to economies of scale. Storage wasn't really needed that urgently in the past, so it only is coming up now, it is very possible that they'll make a similar growth rate in the next 10-15 years in cost as solar panels had.
    2
  24.  @gilian2587  Battery storage using standard lithium ion batteries is quite expensive at the moment; That is indeed true, however even without improvements in battery tech it is expected that Li-ion batteries will become cost effective around 2030-35 just due to scaling. However I don't think Li-ion is going to be used for the grid past quick reactionary means to stabilise the grid, I'd expect other battery chemistries to full fill that role in the future ('rust' batteries, iron batteries, flow batteries, ...) as well as completely different storage solutions (CAES, LAES, heat energy storage, ...). The market for large scale grid storage is rather new, so the companies and technologies catering to it are too, they now need some time to prove their products viability and to scale up. By 2030 the gridstorage situation can look completely differently. And even if we decide to build new nuclear powerplants now, they likely wouldn't start operating for another 10-15 years, so a similar timeline to what storage might need. These current energy shortages in Europe speak to that. Yes and no. Yes, renewables have underperformed this year (mostly wind, solar was overall still pretty stable, though not favorable), however the greatest problem is the gas supply which has been seriously hampered causing the vast increase in prices. And even nuclear wasn't a guarantee for the UK, where there was an unforseen shutdown for some reactors. Essentially this is a perfect bad situation. Grid storage would have definitely helped though.
    2
  25. Antoine Deltour was eventually determined free of all charges by a Luxembourgian appeal court due to being protected as a whistleblower. Edouard also was acquitted. For Raphael the reduced sentence stands, since his appeal was dismissed (don't know why his failed and Deltours didn't). Also remember, this was a company going after its former employees, not a state going after journalists, so I don't so the relevance to the original topic.
    2
  26.  @davidjay4373  well, a majority of Israeli people don't won't it, neither does the government considering they support and expand the illegal settlements on the west bank, which under a two state solution would have to be abandoned/evacuated. They are even now upping their removal of Palestine settlements on the west bank and the Israeli settlers with the support of the military are increasingly attacking Palestinian people that lived there for generations. The thing is, Hamas would lose much of their support with a 2 state solution, but so would the Israeli government (likely to the point it can't even sanction/enforce any agreement on it).
    2
  27. in the very same way the rocket that malfunctioned and fell over a hospital was confirmed. Except independent organisations have already determined that missile came from Israel based on sound and impact crater analysis. Moreover it has been found that a phonecall the Israeli's released as "evidence" was from 2 different conversations spliced together.
    2
  28. You essentially are advocating for state controlled media, since independent media exactly are private organisations, I do think a limit to donations can be established, though this is rather impossible with anonymous donations, so all donations should be made public and an independent government organisation should distribute government funding for media.
    2
  29. Except that the German government was on the same side of the EU going against that ruling. Also while this Polish ruling essentially attacks the core foundation of the union, the German ruling was only about a minor thing the German government did together with the EU (if I am correct). And Germany got slapped with sanctions too I might add.
    2
  30.  @canemcave  Sanctions were announced, however the German government quickly took the necessary actions to remedy the situation (though it was more of a temporary stopgap, essentially justifying to the German court that the German/EU decision was in line with German law). The Polish government on the other hand is using it to fuel an anti-EU stance. That is the difference. Moreover if this Polish court decision is followed, the only way forward is for a complete renegotiating of the EU treaties or Poland leaving the EU. A complete renegotiating isn't possible, not in the least because one of the things the court attacked are fundamental EU values. Thus the Polish government has essentially 2 possibilities to move forward: change Polish law to be in line with the treaty or leave. Currently it is doing neither. Why? Because neither is a good option for them. If they change Polish law it will be looked at as them backing down. If they start the process to leave, they'll quickly be chased out of office by the 80%+ of poles that want to remain in the EU. By essentially remaining in limbo for now the Polish government hopes that the EU will eventually back down first. The EU can't back down, there is no way, it would be the end of the EU. Thus Polish government chooses limbo, giving the EU no other choice but to slap with (budgetary) sanctions, since it neither can push Poland out, nor do any more decisive sanctions with Hungary blocking every effort.
    2
  31. Really? She seems to have confused killed and casualty here. Casualty figures also includes wounded and captured or missing troops. No way was US estimates for casualties (what the 315k is here) only 50k a few months ago.
    2
  32. Often this is due to BEV's having a bigger informatics package due to the idea that electric vehicles need to be more modern/new/... And it is this that often gets reliability down a bit. Also it shouldn't really be weird that reliability it a bit lower currently. BEV's are still relatively new and so are their production lines, thus some issues might still need to be ironed out vs the established ICE lines. There might also be the case that people are more critical for BEV's currently precisely because they are different/new.
    2
  33. My town is way bigger than this one and could produce enough electricity with +-10 turbines. It is exactly because they export most of this power to othr reasons they have installed so many wind turbines.
    2
  34. Barrels run down and need to be replaced/redone. So the question is also how many of these soviets gun are still fit and for how long. Considering Ukraine has been producing soviet caliber shells themselves and apparently have starting transforming slowly to NATO standard shell production, I'd say the soviet era guns have started losing their importance vs NATO artillery systems. Overall Ukraine has received something like 700 (known) artillery systems using western nato ammunition.
    2
  35. To remain even a little economical +-800-1000 people per flight will be needed for starship. And even if it can work for commercial earth to earth, it won't be any time soon.
    2
  36.  @Lee-jc1ob  Solar panels is toxic for recycling too. Only few specialised solar panels contain toxic materials (like the very thin/flexible ones). Most used PV panels are just fine. Another difficulty is the large solar panel power plant needs enormous water to cool the turbine You do realise a PV panel doesn't need a turbine, let alone water to cool it. Now if you talk about CSP plants, yes and no. They don't need water to cool the turbines, they need water to run the turbines, though that can be a mostly closed cycle. You know what does require a lot of water for cooling: nuclear powerplants. because solar energy is difficult to store, has to be transformed immediately, the turbine is exhausted, so the fresh water just go to cool it. This literally makes no sense, the only solar power that uses a turbine is CSP plants and they do have the capability to store solar energy for quite some hours (+-10 hours, possibly more depending on design).
    2
  37. Rightfully so if German laws are so non neutral due to feelings of historic guilt.
    2
  38. It usually is shown compared to km/miles driven or amount of cars of the road. Obviously absolute numbers are a no go for something like this. And it makes sense that EV's catch less fire from an engineering/logical perspective.
    2
  39. Will an EV last 26 years or 50 years there are many ICE vehicles that are perfectly fine driving around perfectly fine intact Most cars have an average lifetime of around 14 years. Cars that go on longer than 20 years are overall pretty rare and generally tend to be more expensive maintenance wise. It depends on manufacturer, but there are already BEV's where the battery apparently could last between 500k and 1m km's, but cars rarely ever get to that number, so only few cases exist (especially considering how new BEV's still are). In same cases it is expected that the car will fail structurally before the battery. and of course there are many ICE vehicles still running after 60 70 or 80 years Most of these are oldtimers and not really that actively used + often completely restored, litte used or having had a lot of maintenance. There ofcourse are exceptions, but those are rare. a petrol or diesel vehicle fire its no big deal but an EV vehicle fire is a really really big deal and they use a lot of water to put them out and were does the water go with all its nasty chemicals in it into the storm drains so the EV is causing water pollution It does use a lot of water, but most firestations also don't have the right tools are knowledge to fight them other than pouring large amounts of water on it, better ways of fighting these fires do exist. I don't know the specifics about the chemicals toxity to the water, so I am not going to talk about that.
    2
  40. Russia has gone through quite some different phases since the 1500's, so that is a pretty ignorant statement. For most of time since the 1500's it wasn't worse or better than its neighbours.
    2
  41. Replacing the battery after 8 years costs you as much as brand new car off the lot. No company is going to allow a battery having to be replaced after 8 years. The warranty on the batteries goes untill that time (or +-150 000km). They also need to keep a good margin to make sure as few batteries as possible fall under this warranty, thus the minimum battery life is at least 10-12years. And real life examples already showed it is generally longer than this, potentially even longer than the actual life of the car itself. although nobody says anything about EV's being 3x the weight of the closest comparable gas powered car. No idea where you get this from. On average a BEV is around 20-50% heavier than a comparable ice car, definitely not 300%. i can only imagine what dangers a tesla will bring after 5 to 8 years of road salt. Road salt isn't any problem.
    2
  42. Lets be honest, if Russia were to invade the baltics and/or Poland, all NATO forces would be given permission to cross whatever members borders/move columns through them within minutes/an hour at most, likely even supported by local enforcement agencies in terms of clearing the roads to move quickly. When war comes bureaucracy will quickly dissapear untill a stable situation is achieved, that is just the logical reaction. Obviously when talking about exercises, it is much easier/logical that bureaucracy still remains in place and makes things more difficult. It is the state and strength of the quick response forces that will be most important, as well as the actual infrastructure.
    2
  43. Doesn't make sense at all. Wagner could easily have made it look like a decision of themselves without staging a coup and then backing down.
    2
  44. I am pretty certain the lower cost was vs old prices. From what I gathered from this clip, the main reason so many of the citizens got on board in the past, exactly was the lower cost and profit. Generally speaking the pure power production only makes up around a third of the energy cost, the other parts are distribution costs and taxes (in Germany taxes even make up around 50% last few years). So if this village can skip the taxes and distribution costs (partially), they are indeed paying a lot less. Wind power these days cost about 40-50$/MWh and large scale solar around 30-50$/MWh, while the average bill in Germany was around 300-320$/MWh. Do the math yourself.
    2
  45. Infection cases don't really matter at this point, hospitalisation numbers do. And among those latter the difference between unvaccinated and vaccinated people is stark (3-10 times depending on age group).
    2
  46.  @Scapestoat  Nah, hydrogen for regular passenger cars is a no go. Its range it currently limited by the amount of space for the gas, not really a problem for trucks, but it is for cars. And currently hydrogen car range isn't even better compared to long range BEV's. Moreover Hydrogen production and use for cars will always require more energy than BEV cars. Yes, you can theoretically create hydrogen at home, the problem is that this hydrogen is useless for driving, unless you have a very expensive compressor that can compress it to very high pressure. you'd pay way more for that compression installation than a new BEV+solar panels (which you'd also need for your electrolysis). Hydrogen doesn't have a future for cars, trucks is a whole other thing. Though then the question is how well this will take off without sharing the fuel infrastructure (and thus costs) with regular cars.
    2
  47.  @TheRealRoadhog  Toyota's hydrogen car is nothing special, moreover it doesn't fix the inherent problems with large scale hydrogen car adoption. Toyota already had a hydrogen car out for almost as long as BEV's, yet they sold a fraction of those compared to the sales of BEV's. Or you could use that electricity produced by nuclear powerplants to directly power BEV's instead of wasting more than half the energy for hydrogen cars? Hydrogen will still be an important fuel though, just not for cars. The regional public bus service where I live bought bought 5 hydrogen busses a few years ago, they pretty quickly phased out citing too high costs and unnecessary extra logistical stuff. There currently are more electric busses than hydrogen busses worldwide. Though busses would have less problems with hydrogen than regular cars, considering they just like trucks have a lot more space to play with, thus more range.
    2
  48.  @gilian2587  No, we are not 70 years away. Firstly there are several storage solutions coming up, ranging from different kinds of battery technologies to storage using temperature differentials and highly isolated storage tanks. Even if we ignore this, research already estimated that lithium batteries would drop in price enough by 2030-35 to be a competitive gridstorage option, purely due to the scalegrowth of Li-ion batteries, ignoring possible technological improvements in the chemistry. Also you'll only have an overabundance of energy with nuclear if you build and overabundance. With the same kind of thinking we also could get an overabundance with renewables, considering solar could power the world by covering only a relatively small part of the sahara with solar panels. With 2019 production of solar panels (not the electricity generation the actual production of new panels) and placing them in the sahara, we could produce enough to power the whole world within 15 years from now (though I think this is only for current electricity use, possibly not added needed production for things like EV's, heating, ...).
    1
  49.  @gilian2587  The maintenance cost from the sand blowing about everywhere would get to be pretty nasty. This was just a symbolic comparison. It is possible, but not likely going to be used and is at this moment definitely impractical (at this moment). It is just to say that we can get 100%+ renewables pretty quickly purely based on the total generation, ignoring storage or distance (We can easily also place these panels in Europe, US, ... However you'd just need to take more care for existing infrastructure, buildings, environment, .... And how do you propose to transport that energy to Germany? You have roughly 3350 km between the Sahara and Germany. Again it was just metaphorical. But if you want a real answer, HVDC has a loss of around 3% per 1000km, so you'd lose around 10-11% with it. It was just to put it into perspective to make you understand that we could also rather easily (relatively speaking) get an overabundance of energy with renewables.
    1
  50.  @gilian2587  Just like there is a cost for nuclear. Look you said we'd get an abundance of energy using nuclear, without pointing out that this too will have huge cost and other problems. So I just pointed out that renewables also can get us an abundance of energy. Essentially you are now saying about it, the same thing I can say about your nuclear overabundance statement. Obviously there will be a cost, obviously it isn't just saying it and it will be so.
    1
  51.  @nymgrace1227  “From the river to the sea ...” is antisemitic” Not necessarily, it could also be advocating for Gaza and the Westbank to be connected, this wouldn't necessarily mean the end of an Israeli state (rather a reduction to borders more akin to the first '2-state solution' where Israeli territory was much smaller. It can be construed/used easily as anti-semitic though, so I wouldn't advocate the use of it anyway. Israel is definitely not acting as best they can, if that were the case they wouldn't have continued (blatantly) expanding the settlements in the west bank, driving Palestinians out of their homes there (just a few days ago there was a report of 2 towns told to leave in 24h or get shot) and bullying them (there are increasing reports of settlers bullying/attacking the original Palestinian population, even with the support of the military).
    1
  52. It exports it. The village is offgrid, but the power supply from the windturbine provide both this small micro grid and the larger grid. Ofcourse they could completely isolate their microgrid with a few windturbines (maybe they did, but I doubt it), at which point they'd just have to curtail the operation of the turbines depending on the energy demand.
    1
  53.  @ordinarynet6694  Hamas also gets condemned, but currently Israel is causing almost all of the new casualties and terrible conditions in this war, so it is normal to put pressure on them to agree to at least a temporary ceasefire. What else do you suppose they do beyond condemning Hamas actions? And how is the condemning of Hamas different to condemning Israeli actions? It isn't like the UN has imposed sanctions on Israel and not on Hamas or some double standard like that.
    1
  54.  @jasonhoerner9954  Yeah, sure. Do you also still believe in fairy tales? Hamas has already released some hostage, and what did Israel do? Temporarily stop their shelling to allow for negotiations? Turned water back on if only for a few hours? Or maybe let food pass in? They just kept doing what their were already doing. The Israeli government has already given up on the hostages.
    1
  55. These stats are per 100,000 vehicles thus relative and perfect for such comparisons. Other data uses fires per distance driven (for example per 100million miles) and they also show that BEV's fires are more rare.
    1
  56. Nuclear marine propulsion is not really going to be a thing anytime soon. It is too expensive and required very specific highly educated personnel, not to mention the danger such ships would pose in general (like when they are taken over by militants/pirates/...), more then likely ships will move towards hydrogen as their fuel and the hydrogen will likely be produced in very sunny regions with solar power.
    1
  57.  @ar7363-t5g  Nuclear marine propulsion has been a thing since the 1950s. Yes, and these are very expensive, therefor only used for specific purposes (like military or like you mentioned icebreakers) rather than entire shipping fleets. A nuclear powered ship goes faster than a conventional one Not really, there is a reason shipping vessels go the speed they do, and that is one simple thing: energy consumption. The more energy consumed the more expensive the trip. Most current shipping vessels could go a lot faster than they actually do, they just don't need to. and eliminates the need for refueling since it has to stop just once every 24 months. This really isn't an advantage at all. A ship needs to dock at a port for quite some time anyway, the refuelling really isn't a problem. Producing all this electricity with intermittent renewables is difficult to imagine Not really. This hydrogen is likely going to be produced in arid sunny regions. If they use CSP, they can run 24/7 on solar energy. CSP's are for now more costly (around 12c/kWh), however they could use a mix. Using PV during the day (an average of 8 hours of good sunlight a day already is 2920 hours) at around 0.04c/kWh currently (and still expected to drop), is it definitely possible to get an average of around 2-4$/kg for the energy in hydrogen production in the long term. Now considering that hydrogens complete efficiency cycle (from production to end use) is around the same as the efficiency from bunker fuel burning in the engine, every kWh we put into the hydrogen initially is around worth the same as the energy available in the bunker fuel before it is burned. Considering bunker fuel has an energy density of around 11 kWh/kg and hydrogen starts with around 50kWh/kg (just like you pointed out), we'd need around 5 kg of bunker fuel per kg H2. Bunker fuel is around 0.63$/kg, or around 3,15$/kg H2 eq. So in other words if hydrogen is around 3-4$/kg, it is price wise similar to current fuel use. So purely on fuel/energy economy there likely isn't a problem. Then you would need to transport hydrogen to the ports. Hydrogen would most likely be produced at the coast and there isn't really a reason why this shouldn't be close to a port, from there it can be transported using large hydrogen ships to other ports. And hydrogen is the smallest molecule in the universe therefore is difficult to transport and even more difficult (and expensive) to store in large quantities That is indeed a problem that needs to be overcome, however considering that hydrogen will most certainly play a large role in the energy transition, even without shipping, there will definitely be improvements here. Also there is a way to store hydrogen as a solid and this shows promise if it can really be achieved at large scale and for the properties the company claims. And then the ship itself: hydrogen takes an enormous volume and all this volume could not be used for the cargo. That is indeed another issue, it takes around 3 times more space than regular fuel in liquid form and around 4-5 times more in gaseous form. In that case they'd lose around 5-10% cargospace (at a least based on the explorer class containership). Therefore a nuclear powered cargo ship would be capable of transporting a larger cargo at higher speed. Higher speed means higher energy consumption meaning larger nuclear reactor needed, meaning higher costs than necessarily needed. Speed is not necessarily an issue for shipping. In essence the profit from higher speed doesn't outweigh the costs. The same likely will be true for nuclear, since you essentially would oversize the reactor with a larger cost as a consequence. You'd spare around 2% extra room for containers or around 7-12% more cargo space vs hydrogen. This is the reason why hydrogen-powered ships are proposed just for very short trips. This ofcourse is something that could happen, that ships take more routes with an extra stop. Only for crossing the pacific would this likely be not really possible. But it isn't definitely needed, hydrogen ships could also travel longer distances if need be, just with a slight reduction in cargo capacity. Yes of course the personnel of a nuclear powered cargo ship would need to be specifically trained but I don't see the problem, You don't see a problem with needing thousands upon thousand of highly skilled nuclear engineers more? Really? When it comes to pirates, the IAEA and the IMO would be in charge of setting the standards to protect the ship from attacks (for example a dozen of well trained soldiers on every ship). If pirates or other groups want to get a hold of a nuclear powered ship, this just means they'd need to assemble a few more bodies and ships. If it was this easy don't you think they'd just put soldiers on every large ship passing regions with pirates, avoiding hijackings like this, instead of sending several ships to these regions? Can you imagine the ransom demands pirates can make with these ships? The loss of the ship alone would be 2-4 times more expensive for the company, the threat of sending it into a port and causing a nuclear catastrophy there is unimaginable. Just imagine a nuclear ship gets a nuclear 'accident' in the panama or suez canal. Anyone that gets their hands on such a ship and gets in one of those canals, can demand insane amounts of money to not make one of these canals unusal for decades or more. Something else, several nuclear powered military ships have in the pas been taken out of commission because they were too costly. To be clear, not because the initial investment cost was too high (afteral all they were already in operation), but because operating costs were too high. So clearly nuclear marine propulsion is even in operation expensive, and due to the higher investment costs, they definitely need to be much much cheaper in operation.
    1
  58. Depending on the region there still will be wind at night and energy demand is then much lower. Obviously having batteries for the night might be a good idea/next step if not done yet. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a small gas generator that can run on their selfproduced gas and kicks in when electricity supply gets too low.
    1
  59.  @charlievardar1330  Evidence the IDF put forward has already been disproven by independent analysis as wrong or even manipulated. Could you link me the video? There have been quite some video's circulating "supporting" the IDF's claim, that then later turned out to be older footage. The analysis from the impact crater and sound proves the missile/rocket/whatever came from Israeli side, completely the opposite side of the supposed Hamas launch site. Now, I am quite certain the death toll was severely overrated by Hamas though.
    1
  60. Yeah, doing a great job in Florida with 61k deaths, or a coivd mortality rate of 1,6%. If the entire population gets covid and dies at the same rate, you can add almost another 350k deaths (though considering Florida has a 60% vaccination rate, it luckily is unlikely to come to that).
    1
  61.  @nuqwestr  It is definitely one of hate and rage. And one the westbank they are still driving innocent citizens out of their homes to take their land while acting that it is normal.
    1
  62.  @JeikuAnimeReview  And the answer to that is killing 5-10 times more innocents?
    1
  63.  @thelegendswillfall9963  Wait so Hamas did give warnings before the attacks ? Has nothing to do with what I said. I never said Hamas is better. They are a terrorist group, I expect them to behave like a terrorist group. This isn't the case with Israel. You mean that it’s justified if the casulties are the same on both sides? No, but there is a thing called proportionality. This is even codified in international law. SO YOU ARE STATING IT’S FINE TO MURDER SOMEONE ELSES FAMILY ASLONG AS YOU GET TO KILL THEIRS? Again, not what I said, stop twisting my words. IF YOU ATTACK ANOTHER COUNTRY SHOULD THAT COUNTRY NOT BE ABLE TO DEFEND ITSELF? Defending itself is not automatically equal to offensive actions that causes a lot more deaths. Ukraine for example is defending their country and I fully support that. But they shouldn't move into Russia, rather reestablish their borders, protect them and work towards a peace. Do you know that children and civilians have been used as bombs before? That is what we call terror actions. Or are you justifying it’s okay to manipulate children to use them as weapons ? I've always condemned such practices. Me being against too many innocent casualties due to Israel bombings =\= me supporting terrorist actions. In fact I condemn Israel for the same reason I condemn Hamas/terrorists: the proportionally very high amount of innocent casualties.
    1
  64.  @thequantumalchemist2965  You do realize a lot of bribes already happen with digital currency? It is then just placed on a different unknown account usually in another country. Or they'll just give "gifts" rather than money.
    1
  65. Unless something recently happend I don't know about, it really is a stalemate.
    1
  66.  @EJavierPaniaguaLaconich  If you think DW is my source, you are trulying wrong. DW is just something I watch extra, there are much better sources I follow. But please, enlighten me. Why isn't it a stalemate?
    1
  67.  @EJavierPaniaguaLaconich  So in other words you can't give a good reason and are just talking bollocks.
    1
  68.  @EJavierPaniaguaLaconich  We're halfway through December and Russia has increased the activity while Ukrainians have decreased theirs. Doesn't mean anything. Areas of control have moved in favour of Russia more than 60 times. So how much m2 and at what cost? During world war 1 there also were shifts in control, just tiny and/or at great costs. The size of Russia's deployed army has increased while Ukraine's has shrunk. Ukraine's military went from 1,1m to 1,3m. It's clearly not a stalemate. Nothing you have said indicates it is not a stalemate, all you did was spout some rhetoric. Give actual examples to point out that it isn't a stalemate. Territory taken/lost this year more or less cancels eachother out => stalemate. That while Russia has been suffering higher casualties.
    1
  69.  @EJavierPaniaguaLaconich  Again, saying something useless without any real context/example. Which area's and how much km2 have shifted control in the last 2 months in favour of Russia vs Ukraine? If you can't tell me this, your argument that there is not stalemate is meaningless.
    1
  70.  Pedro Brexit  The first step was mounting legal actions. But because the German government very quickly rectified the situation, it never got any further. The Polish government has made it clear they won't do anything to rectify the situation and are essentially directly challenging the EU. And again, the Polish court ruling directly undermines several fundamental articles of the EU treaties, much worse than the German situation, by a longshot. Thus this comes down to a completely different situation, both in government response as well as severity. It also doesn't help that the Polish court that made the ruling is in the past few years engulfed in a constitutional crisis, potentially breaking with another EU requirement: the rule-of-law. In fact there is still a constitutional crisis in Poland due to the actions of the Polish government to essentially fill up 5 of the 15 free positions in the constitutional tribunal (who made the EU ruling) with their chosen candidates, against the tribunal's own ruling that this wasn't done in the right way. 3 of these positions were filled up right before PIS took over the parliament by the outgoing parliament (as was their mandate), however the PIS president didn't allow these candidates to be sworn in, after the PIS controlled new parliament took over, they nominated 3 new candidates for these positions. This wasn't accepted by the tribunals president, which denied these candidates to hear cases. As a response the PIS parliament and government made a new law that would allow these new judges to hear new cases, however the tribunal ruled this new law unconstitutional, which the PIS government just ignored.
    1
  71. Even if they could/would, they wouldn't be able to get anything in 🤔 The problem with aid organisation not able to send enough support isn't due to a lack of funds, but lack of access.
    1
  72. Seems to me she confused casualties and killed. The 50k of a few months ago is almost definitely killed in action, whereas the 315k now is killed, wounded and captured/missing. In any conflict the wounded tend to heavily outweigh the killed, heavily upping the casualty numbers compared to the killed number.
    1
  73. You do realize these stats are per 100,000 vehicles thus relative and perfect for such comparisons. Other data uses fires per distance driven (for example per 100million miles) and they show also the BEV's fires are rarer.
    1
  74.  @jannieschluter9670  It shut down around half 10 years ago and the other half is still running (was meant to be shutdown around this time if I remember correctly).
    1
  75. Germany needs gas mostly for its industry and household heating, it doesn't actually use that much gas in the production of electricity (+-15%).
    1
  76.  @jannieschluter9670  Because of taxes. If you cut German taxes that don't exist in France, then the difference (in 2018) was only 4 cents (+-18 vs 22 cents) And if you refer to the nuclear, it never was big in Germany.
    1
  77. It was always meant to be somewhere in 2024. It takes time to train the pilots.
    1
  78.  @donquijotedelamancha3529  Hamas is a resistance movement, that works through terrorist actions. Hamas existence is due to Israel's occupation of the westbank and how they threat Gaza.
    1
  79.  @CHMichael  Just because one attempt failed doesn't mean it can't be successfull. There are so many reasons something like this could have failed.
    1
  80. There never was a 300k nato trained contingent with $100b, that is what happend to it.
    1
  81.  @AlexanderHL1919  Actually yes, if just fighting the military doesn't change things (either because the military is too powerfull or people don't care enough), freedom fighters often refer to terror to force public opinion either against their own government (for continuing a conflict more than necessary) or to bait the opponent into reacting in a way more favorable to you (either get your own population more involved, get the international community/certain nations more involved or move the fighting to a more opportune location for guerrilla warfare).
    1
  82. Solar panels can easily be recycled, however it will always remain cheaper to just throw them in a dump, this is why there needs to be regulation about it (either forcing recycling or putting a large cost on throwing it into the dump). Wind turbine blades are a more difficult story, but it is being researched now. It is an overall new problem, so there hasn't been much research in it before the last few years.
    1
  83.  @pcread  True, that goes for everything, except where the resources from recycling actually pay for it (like might be the case with EV batteries according to both companies in the automotive and recycling industry).
    1
  84. A no-fly zone is just not feasible. If you declare that, legal or not, you need to enforce it. This isn't really possible without also hitting Russian anti-air installations on Russian soil, which obviously would spark a full blown war between Russia and NATO and Russia will claim to be the defender (and countries like China will likely agree with this). Whether people like it or not, a no fly zone that is enforced, will lead to a lot more casualties than not instituting one currently. Rather just supplying Ukraine with anti-aircraft means should take priority.
    1
  85. Many of the Russian professional/expert troops had been severely mauled early in the conflict, and if it were only convicts and private contractors suffering, Russia wouldn't have had to mobilise over 300k troops last year.
    1
  86. The houthi's have since made clear they would now also target US and UK shipping that before was allowed to pass if it didn't go to Israel. So yeah, the strike was a major succes 🙄
    1
  87.  @rickmartin9420  Hamas doesn't care, but neither does Israel. There is one difference however: Hamas is a terrorist organisation of which you can ofcourse expect acts of terror. Israel is an official state, not a terror state (or at least that is what should be the case). It is the perfect "don't turn into your enemy" example.
    1
  88. I would be surprised if this isn't exactly what they expected. There is no reason to execute such a brutal attack other than trying to bait/force Israel into reacting. At this moment Israel still hasn't moved into the more difficult area and we also have no idea how correct Israel's information is on these operations.
    1
  89.  @frankyshh6827  There are already plenty of people with solar panels and storage batteries that are living completely independent of the gride for 30-50c/kWh, and costs are only going down with cheaper batteries and solar panels. I'd rather have that than expensive nuclear currently, though maybe in the future cheaper nuclear might make it more viable.
    1
  90. The problems with SMR's is that they haven't proven their low cost. Sure there are many claims that it will be (much) cheaper and with seemingly good arguments, but there might still be plenty of unforseen/ignored things increasing cost. There currently are even studies which concluded that the cost advantages of SMR's will be undone by their lower scale compared to current nuclear power plants (which are build so large for a reason).
    1
  91.  @peterkalina3639  Actually Europe is just find for renewables. Solar isn't really possible for countries further north than Germany though. But for example Norway has a lot hydro, Denmark a lot of wind (and a connection to Germany etc for solar), essentially Finland and Sweden are better off with nuclear overall speaking, but that is really it. Obviously more southern places are still better off regarding solar. And in the end a renewable grid will need both grid storage and large interconnection (Ie. a European grid) to get power from renewables where there is a lot to places there isn't.
    1
  92. @al rode * Like Germany didn't subsidize renewables over the EEG law for the past 20 years.* For so far I know Germany started the energiewende around 12 years ago, before that time there subsidies were in line with several other countries (like Spain). what percentage of the overall energy needs of the country are renewables contributing now? Think it's 15% now. Around 40-45% of electricity production is currently renewable. If you talk about energy in general fine. But then you need to also say that Nuclear only makes up around 36% of France's energy. And it took France about 15-20 years to achieve this. Only by 2030 can we really compare how Germany did vs if they went full nuclear at the start of the energiewende instead of renewables. Nuke PP are major centralized programs, where the energy agencies could just point at a dozen areas in the country and go like "just today in 10 years I want a nuke pp standing in this spot rigth in front of us. get to work mofo". Yeah, like Flamanville in France at 14 years and still not completed or Olkiluoto in Finland at 16 years and still going. Your own head and that of the responsible CEO's head should role -- > serving time in jail. When has that ever happened? At best they get fired and usually with a big retirement package. Whom are you gonna blame for not having enough wind turbines? The government for not doing enough to facilitate them in regards to regulation, subsidies, ...
    1
  93. @al rode your 45% is not even remotely close to beeing 45% of the actual eletric power we'll need. Correct, neither was this the case for nuclear. However EV's could potentially even help renewable adoptation. The main problem currently with a renewable roll out is storage. Without proper storage getting more than 50-60% renewables is going to be really hard and expensive. However the moment we have cheap enough storage in large enough quantities we can quickly up this to even 100% renewable (though I am not going to say that would be the best option). Grid storage wasn't an issue up untill 3-5 years ago, so its field is relatively new. Yet there are several storage systems that are quite promising, they just need a bit of time to develop, prove themselves, scale up and decrease the price in the process. This is certainly possible. cause unlike you I am not using one against the other. Except you did: "or we could go and construct 15 nuke power plants during that time". So clearly you are putting nuclear vs renewables here. And considering you use Germany's renewable, I used France's nuclear as a comparison. 20%nuclear, 60% renewables This is something entirely different from what I infered. I now see why. You made it seem like an OR OR proposition (or however you want to call it), which made it look like it was renewable OR nuclear. however in that case I'd have to say that your reasoning isn't entirely correct either. You essentially just proposed spending more. There was no OR needed in your proposition, since there is no other option than building those 15 nukes extra, other than not spending that money, which wouldn't happen. It should have been: we could do the same for another 20 years and get to maybe 45-55% of the overall energy needs beeing covered bye non fossil energy or and we could go and construct 15 nuke power plants during that time and add another 20% of non carbon intensive energy to the mix or even better: we could do the same for another 20 years and get to maybe 45-55% of the overall energy needs beeing covered bye non fossil energy or we could invest more and construct 15 nuke power plants or more renewables+storage during that time and add another 20% of non carbon intensive energy to the mix So, yes. I am not against your proposal, it is just a misnomer since you just proposed a larger investement and how to use it. The way you phrased it also made it sound like it was renewables vs nuclear. I am sorry for the misunderstanding and part renewables and part nuclear indeed can be an option.
    1
  94. @al rode I just highly doubt that private businesses will actuallyy pick up on renewable exoension to a speed where it's gonna be sufficient I'd say this is the same for nuclear, private bussiness isn't going to fully go on renewables without serious government intervention. we had 15% in 12 yeas. Sure, but in the beginning solar was still 10 times more expensive than currently and wind also more expensive. In the first 7 years (2008-2014) only around 17 TWh of wind was added, in the last 6 years (2014-2020) 73 TWh was added, so in regards to wind, using the past 6 years as a reference seems better. As for solar, this is different with a more steady growth over the 12 years, however the question now is whether this will remain the same or go up. I think a lot will depend on the future costs of (grid)storage. A nuclear reactor construction likely wouldn't go faster than 10-12 in Germany, so most likely you'd at best seen the same number of added low carbon energy. The next decade will show what would have been best. * just highly doubt that we'll get to the necessery 5% anual expension that we'd need to get to 100% bye 2040.* You ignore the fact here that fossil fuels are less efficient. For example an EV has 2-4 times the efficiency of an ice car, so the transition to EV's could drop the energy use of cars significantly. The same with heating using a heatpump/electric boiler (and good isolation) vs gas or fuel oil burner. So the overall energy consumption should also go down. Just by moving to BEV's for cars and trucks, we could cut energy use by 10% Currently electricity makes up around 33-34% of Germany's total energy consumption. Meaning that even if you'd make 100% of the grid renewable, you'd still only got 1/3rd renewable. Now it is more difficult for renewables to go above 50% of the electricity mix without good storage. At this moment renewables are around there. However if you'd electrify transport and heating, it would currently make up around 20% of the electricity mix, giving 30% more growth room before storage is really needed, vs the +-5% growth room now. Essentially the rate of renewable adoption is now mostly dependend on 2 things: electrification of fossil sectors (transport, industry, heating, ...) and rolling out storage. I'd much rather juist pay more In that case we could also pump more money in renewables and especially storage. Storage by far is what holding renewables back and considering grid storage is a pretty new sector currently, they certainly could use the money to speed up the roll out of cheaper storage. Similar to how Germany's subsidies and transition helped reduce costs of for example wind and to an extent solar.
    1
  95.  @bojanm986  Quite a useless adittion.
    1
  96.  @-JustHuman-  True, though all these hydrogen concepts start from the assumption of using green hydrogen.
    1
  97.  @-JustHuman-  Hydrogen produced by electricity from renewable sources is green. the fact that it isn't an energy efficient process doesn't change this. I am not advocating for a full hydrogen industry at the cost of batteries, for example road transport in all its forms is much better done with batteries than hydrogen, but for things like the shipping industry and long haul flights, hydrogen can definitely play a role, especially since you don't want to waste batteries that can better be used elsewhere when there is another option that might even be better or almost just as good.
    1
  98. I have never heard of the cables creating such problems, except when using AC in salt water, which isn't being done anymore because of the problems. Currently all underwater lines in salt water are DC. Can you name the studies stating thes problems with DC cables?
    1
  99.  @jmarsh9967  Electric heater is indeed not great, but heat pumps are by far the most efficient energy way of heating a place, though only with proper insulation. In this case though what they did might be beneficial for the fact that otherwise methane might get created naturally and get into the atmosphere. Burning methane and releasting co2 is much more preferable environmentally then getting methane in the atmosphere.
    1
  100.  @petersteenkamp  Actually, you have more wind during the winter than the summer usually (can depend on location though), so that isn't entirely correct. Also you generally shouldn't heat during the night, unless you have excess energy. Good isolation plays an important role in this regard also, more than the question how you heat it.
    1
  101. There is a limit to expansion, namely the need for storage. Renewable energy (solar and wind) is fine on its own below +-50% of the grid, but above that you really need large scale storage, which is expected to become cost-effective around 2030-2035, so they might be taking that into consideration. This obviously is just a guess from my end. Also the more you expand the more you come into more difficult regions of the north sea where expansion is slowed.
    1
  102.  @Nuklear_Godzilla  What? There were around 50-60k NATO trained troops ready for the offensive and they certainly didn't had $100b worth of military aid (more than the entirety of US military funding to Ukriane)
    1
  103.  @Nuklear_Godzilla  You do realize this 200b includes also all equipment, which generally is given the official purchase priced even if it is already pretty old/outdated.
    1
  104.  @5tre55full  Those tanks and IFV numbers are confirmed ones backed up by video/photo evidence with great effort to avoid double counting. So your comment just shows your ignorance. Yes, the 315k casualties are estimates, but in line with what you can expect and what other independent organisations are also estimating (or at least not much higher). FYI these are casualties, not just killed, but also wounded, deserters and captives.
    1
  105. So the Houthi's say they do this because of what it happening in Gaza and this is automatically dismissed as a lie and it just being to get attention? Pretty sure the houthi's had dozens of times in the last few years where they could have gotten the attention they wanted. It seems it is difficult for people here to understand that someone might actually be willing to take action to stop a genocide. Then again is it surprising if these same nations refuse to even acknowledge that genocide is happening. If the US and UK had pushed Israel to a ceasefire (like an overwhelmingly supported UN resolution asked and which the UK and US didn't support), then either the Houthi's would have stopped and you secured the shipping lane by de-escalation of both the red sea and Gaza, or at the very least it would have allowed aid into Gaza and exposed the Houthi's for lying. By striking the Houthi's instead, they only have escalated the situation, making the shipping lane through the red sea EVEN MORE dangerous and briging themselves into another conflict most people don't want. And this all just to keep supporting Israel in a genocide with large amount of financial and military aid.
    1
  106.  @pyroromancer  That is incorrect. In the US an EV is still cleaner than a similar car even when using coal, though in the EU using electricity produced by gas is around the same pollution as an average car (due to better mileage), though with the current average EU grid, an EV is quite some cleaner than an ICE car.
    1
  107. That is why Hamas is a terrorist organisation, but Israel has to be very carefull it isn't turning into one themselves.
    1
  108.  @nymgrace1227  In this case the Israeli's definitely are the colonizers, they are even still colonizing the west bank currently against international law.
    1
  109. Namely, how will all the necessary electricity be generated to recharge millions of EVs in the many countries of Europe and North America where the electrical grids are already under serious stress from countries and regions foolishly giving over their grids to terribly unreliable and nearly useless solar and wind generated electrical facilities. 1. Completely changing to BEV's would ad around 10-15% of extra electricity demand, nothing problematic, especially since it happens overtime. If it is a problem, your countries grid is in a lot more trouble than just BEV's. 2. BEV's could actually help out with grid stabilisation and thus grid stress if they use V2H or V2G technology. 3. Wind or solar aren't unreliable, they are intermittent. That isn't the same thing. The vast majority of ICE vehicle fires are small and easily extinguished with a small fire extinguisher in most cases, with relatively little vehicle damage. Most of these won't even get notified, so if you include this, the number likely would go up. There's a reason insurance companies are beginning to refuse coverage for EVs Never heard anything about that, in fact they generally seem to give a (slightly) better premium from what I could find in my region.
    1
  110. both solar and wind require very large amounts of land Wind doesn't need very large amounts of land, remember it is the footprint that matter, not the bladespan. Solar requires a lot of space, yes. However you can combine this with other uses: buildings, parking lots, even agriculture. And don't underestimate the space nuclear needs, it isn't just the plant itself, it is also the mining ground for nuclear materials etc.
    1
  111.  @benjaminmeusburger4254  If it was that easy, Finland wouldn't be the only country currently with a long term storage option for high grade nuclear waste. I think the US though about building one too but it was scrapped due to the high cost or some pushback, don't remember for certain.
    1
  112.  @CraftyF0X  Well the problem with solar being put on buildings and roofs is that its rarely truely efficient because as the sun moves on the sky during the day there is only a small portion of the time when it gets the direct sunshine This really isn't a problem. sure the yield might be a bit lower, but it is more than high enough to keep costs low enough. Also a lot depends on the kind of roof. Usually roofs of larger buildings (store, industry, offices, ...) is flat, so you can put the panel in the most optimal position and even have it turn with the sun. However often it is cheaper to not use a sun tracking system, even in large scale applications due to extra costs and maintenance. Ofcourse as you say they are constantly looking into improving that sun tracking to make it more economical. here is also the problem (and this is for wind turbines too) with the connection infrastructure to the grid (which also takes up land) Yes and no. It really depends on the circumstances. When used on buildings, parking lots, ... it is usually rather easy to connect it to the grid without really using any or much space. Now when we go more away from buildings etc., sure this is a minor thing to consider, but it isn't the main problem, unless you mean country wide management (like in Germany where a lot is produced in the north and needed in the South). There is indeed investment needed in the grid overall, especially if you want to focus on renewables. as well as energy storage That is a problem now indeed, though within 10 years this can be completely different. There currently are different kinds of storage being developed, tested or having first large plants installed. Overall the grid storage sector is relatively new, there wasn't really a need for it before renewables came to be a good possible player in the grid, so it needs some time to grow and drop in price. but I would caution anyone to not buy into the hype of certain "silver bullet" technologies when there is no basis for overflowing optimism. Agreed, to me nuclear and renewables can both get their role in a future grid. The kind or to what extent will be shown in the next 2 decades or so, it is just that many people see nuclear as this sole answer and that renewables can't really work, at least not for a majority of the grid and they generally base this on current problems renewables have, ignoring the fact that renewables and everything around it are fairly new and constantly in flux/improving. In reality if grid storage progresses enough, we could see 100% renewable being viable in 15-20 years. Whether this will be the case and/or be the best choice will depend on a lot of factors in the coming decades.
    1
  113.  @CraftyF0X  True, I failed to mention that caveat. Though then were only speaking about a very limited geography.
    1
  114. Honestly a monopoly like that would be, would be worse, though maybe working on the same kind of future (eg Hydrogen, electric, biofuels, ...) might be a good thing.
    1
  115. The problem is that unvaccinated people pose an incredible burden on society, considering they are 3-10 times more likely to end up in the ICU depending on age group. It isn't the infections that is the problem, it is the stress on the healthcare system that is the danger. And in countries where critical patients can't be turned away, this is a problem. So the only fix to make your idea work is to essentially refuse treatment of unvaccinated people for covid and force them to go to private clinics (if there are any) and pay those huge costs. That really would be worse than imposing a vaccin mandate with relatively low fines for those refusing.
    1
  116. Both should be invested in. Public transport can't be used everywhere. My country already has pretty good public transport coverage, and yet while searching for a job, it is clear that I'll eventually have to buy a car to have a reasonable commute time due to no good direct links to most work places. And that while I've used public transport for my entire life when I had to go somewhere outside my hometown alone (like Uni classes).
    1
  117. The answer is no, I wouldn't buy any car that is 15yo and has 200k km on it, not unless it is well under a grant. Most people also don't need that range, they just want it. And an EV can also get away better with lower range than regular cars, considering you can charge at home every night (if you have a driveway/garage).
    1
  118.  @Manish_Kumar_Singh  Renewable has never supplied the base load of any grid I am talking in a context regarding majority of the world population. Then you can say the same about nuclear, since it never has gone higher than 20% of the electricity generation (or was it 10%?) worldwide. Also hydro can also provide base load but for some reason it's not under renewable. Hydro is renewable. Does water stop evaporating? Does rain stop to fall?
    1
  119.  @Manish_Kumar_Singh  hydro is technically considered non-renewable in the literature Weird, I have always been thought it is renewable. Though to be fair it often gets seperated from the 'new/pure' renewables (solar, wind, geothermal and biomass). I guess this might be due to age/maturity of the technology. In the numbers (for exmaple xx% renewable in the grid) hydro is usually put with the renewables.
    1
  120.  @Manish_Kumar_Singh  due to its massive land use, This should disclaim solar as a renewable too then. permanent destruction of natural habitat For so far I know this has nothing to do with being renewable. and methane production This I never heard about, methane production with hydro. It is really simple, if the source of the energy renew's itself it is renewable. How long ago was this?
    1
  121.  @Manish_Kumar_Singh  So that methane production is a tiny byproduct that happens in every deep lake. This definitely isn't mentionworthy. Compared to the CO2 building cost of renewables, it is way too tiny. Honestly this reason sounds like looking for an explanation rather than it being one. I am not faulting you for it, to be clear, I just don't understand the reasoning behind it.
    1
  122. There is research that does exactly what you proposed: fires/distance traveled. The results were essentially the same, BEV have much less fires than gasoline cars and that makes perfect sense when looking at it from a logical engineering standpoint. Also I barely heard anything about lose of life due to BEV fires, while the media seems to love bashing BEV's everytime they can (for example also reporting on BEV fires a lot more compared to fossil fuel car fires).
    1
  123. Actually population growth through amount of births is already greatly decreased, the main reason we still see a population growth in the next few decades is people growing older than before (worldwide ofcourse). In fact in many regions of the world (usually the more developed ones) birthrates are actually too low to maintain the current population size, which will either force them to take more immigrants or deal with societal aging and population shrinking problems.
    1
  124. When they spoke about being more expensive, they were talking about new reactors, not the old ones. Also what are you talking about? France's oldest reactor is currently running for 42 years
    1
  125.  @backintimealwyn5736  Actually the taxes and fees in France are quite normal proportioned. It is Germany that has a lot more taxes and fees compared to the generation costs.
    1
  126.  @rogeriopenna9014  As nuclear is not being made on industrial scale, new reactors get more expensive. The higher price even goes for EDF's proposal for building several reactors, though it will be lower than Flamanville ofcourse. And old reactors are more excitement due to more security needed and maintenance That is generally true, however they also were cheaper early on than current new reactors. In fact the current cost of the old reactor is similar to what the cost would be for new reactors for so far I am aware, at least regarding France's reactors. new modular reactors will be able to be build in a more industrial scale, allowing lower costs Yes and no, or better we don't know for sure. Yes, companies that (wish to) produce SMR's do say that the costs will go down because of it and their arguments sound reasonable initially. However other independent research point to the cost remaining more or less similar to larger reactors due to the difference in plant scale among others. I don't remember the specific reasons, but I do know that there are two general lines touted currently as a possiblity: cheaper vs similar to even more expensive. I guess the future will have to show which one is correct.
    1
  127.  @she825  In terms of casualties (not just killed, but also wounded etc), that perfectly tracks with how these estimates have been going.
    1
  128.  @a.r.stellmacher8709  I don't know the exact distribution key, but generally poorer EU countries get more funds than rich ones to try and bridge the gap between the economies somewhat, this isn't really different from what happens in countries generally. As to why Poland receives/received so much, they are just a very big "poor" nation within the EU. In net budget received vs % of GNI the baltic nations and Hungary actually received more than Poland in the 2007-2013 budget and per capita Poland was 6th net beneficiary at that time.
    1
  129. Because they don't even try this, there is no community feeling etc. And obviously even more important, they don't have the space to do this, they always will have to import energy and so much more from somewhere. This has always been the case with larger cities. That is one of the big downsides of cities.
    1
  130. You do realize these stats are per 100,000 vehicles thus relative and perfect for such comparisons. Other data uses fires per distance driven (for example per 100million miles) and they also show that BEV's fires are more rare.
    1
  131.  @oswynjames8308  You seem to fail to understand the notion of relative proportionality. It doesn't matter that there are more ice cars on the road than EV's if you look at it per 100k cars for each. Take the numbers from this video 1530 fires / 100k sold for ICE cars vs 25 fires / 100k sold for EV's Lets say the total amount of ICE cars worldwide is around 1,47b (this is the estimated total amount of ICE vehicles). This would then make a total of 22 491 000 fires for iCE cars at some point in the lifetime of the ICE cars currently on the road. For EV's the total amount of cars is around 26m, this would make that around 6500 Ev's will catch fire at some point in their life. No matter how you spin it, there are more fires with ICE cars wether you look at it in absolute numbers or in proportional numbers. If you don't agree, please show me your math.
    1
  132.  @oswynjames8308  So why don't you tell me what is happening there? Since I haven't heard of any big problems.
    1
  133. Also it will occupy a lot bigger land than usual petrol station for cars to recharge. Yes and no. Yes, it will take more land than just the petrol station. No, it will not take more land, since you can just place the charges at already existing parking lots. Also a lot of people will charge at home, whereas with an ice these all still go to the petrol station. The other thing is the price tag on EV is way too expensive compare to conventional cars. I agree that currently it is still too high. It was expected to drop and reach parity (sale cost wise) by around 2025-2026, but that is was before the pandemic and economic troubles. In fact the price only increased by quite something in the last 2 years in my country. However this eventually will change, it is just a matter of time. Finally does it really environment friendly? Yes, it is. That is a quesiton mark as the recycle of battery isn't a easy process not mention it's very toxic. There are several companies who already reach very high recycling rates (95-98% with usually only non-interesting things like plastic etc remaining). Recycling it isn't really a toxic process. And one more, the power grid of the UK isn't really sufficient, imagine if everyone is on it. BEV's would (based on total distance traveled by cars) overall increase the electricity demand by 10-15%, but they could even help out the powergrid if they use V2H or V2G, which would reduce the overall strain on the grid.
    1
  134.  @merlin5045  The US successfully invaded Afghanistant (what Russia is doing now), but failed in the occupation. Korea was a stalemate after China got involved sending in large amounts of troops and it happened BEFORE Vietnam. Most of aircraft losses in Vietnam were due to AAA and accidents and most were helicopters, which where used at a scale never seen before or after. You can't really compare aircraft from that time to those used now.
    1
  135.  @merlin5045  I was more thinking in the terms of losses. Aircrafts were much more vulnerable to a lot of AA-systems and hostile fighters and generally less reliable (accidents etc) and you generally had a much larger amount of aircrafts because of this. For example in WW2 the Luftwaffe lost around 75k aircrafts, US 95k and UK 45k. So clearly you overtime have a significant decrease in amount of aircraft and obviously lost rate. In other words 12k aircrafts lost by the US in Vietnam isn't necessarily a bad amount, it really depends on what you could expect at that time for such scale and timeframe of operations/combat.
    1
  136. Marina made the mistake of conflating KIA and casualties. 50k from a few months ago was KIA estimates, 315k now is a casualty estimate (includes KIA, MIA, WIA and captured/deserted). 315k doesn't at all seem weird compare to earlier estimates and how the war has been going so far. The estimated Russian KIA is around 100k. Casualty estimates were already around 200k+ a few months ago by pretty much every source. Ukrainian estimated casualties are at around 200k and 70k KIA. Seems low, but would fit with the fact that Ukraine has shown more of a tendency to limit losses compared to Russia. At the beginning of their offensive they purposely slowed down their offensive because they were suffering too many casualties for too little gain. Russia on the other hand has shown to continue their offensives despite losses or try again at a later date (usually with similar bad results). Moreover Ukraine has more often than not acted as the defender, which tends to also be shown in lower losses. Counter offensive alone lost 100k according to moderate estimates Where did you get this from? The only estimates I could find even remotely close to this were Russian, who also claimed way too many destroyed vehicles etc. And Ukraine had prepared 50-60k for the offensive and slowed it down to reduced casualties in the minefield and prepared Russian defensive lines.
    1
  137. Actually hydrogen cars are just as heavy, since they need a strong containment unit for the hydrogen in case of accidents. Hydrogen can maybe be more usefull for large trucks, but definitely not for cars.
    1
  138.  @piotrtrebisz6602  Aluminium air batteries (AAB) still have some problems to be solved, and ofcourse it needs to come out better than EV's in terms of ease of use (for example swapping the aluminium. As soon as solid state batteries (SSBP) come around, AAB's might not be interesting overall, and it seems likely that SSB's come out before AAB's. So we'll see.
    1
  139.  @xijinpingpong4426  the current hydrogen cars are around as heavy as the heaviest model 3 variant. Could be that it is more the fuel cell, either way the current hydrogen cars aren't lighter. The fuel cell charges the battery only with half of the energy the vehicle needs, so the battery will last twice as long as the same electric vehicle without a fuel cell. I don't think it is as easy as this, most EV batteries operate in the ranges best suited to preserve the battery already. So the gain might not be that great. Moreover most people don't need to do long distances often, so the effect on the battery life will be even lower. And lastly current new EV batteries seem to last the cars lifetime (at least current car expected lifetime) with regular application, only upon a damaged battery or very heavy use (50-100k+ miles a year) will the battery need changing. And then ofcourse they still need to integrate the hydrogen tanks and fuel cell in the EV, making it even heavier and most often not used. Not to mention that you then still need to go to a tankstation to fill up on hydrogen. It might sound like a good idea on paper, but in real life it doesn't seem so practical/usefull.
    1
  140. They didn't really get to use them due to the minefields. Early on they suffered some relatively heavy mechanical casualties due to the minefields and then opted to mostly gor for slow infantry heavy offensives. Western tanks might be used in defensive operations elsewhere, I don't know about that. Obviously this wouldn't really be communicated on or shown. I'd say the lack of video's and photo's on western tanks means they aren't getting destroyed at least. Only 5 leopard 2 tanks have been confirmed destroyed.
    1
  141. Talking will never happen as long as russia controls Ukrainian territory since Russia already mad clear these regions are non-negotiable and the same obviously goes for Ukraine.
    1
  142.  @ianronald10  I think you really underestimate the resources/energy used during extraction of the raw materials vs new recycling techniques.
    1
  143.  @ianronald10  We are talking about BEV batteries, these will be easy to gather and either recycle at location or ship to a recycling center of a BEV battery manufacturer elsewhere. Recycling is already expected to be a cheaper way of getting the resources than by mining the raw materials. There needs to be infrastructure to get BEV's into a country (and maintain them), so there also can be infrastructure to get the batteries out if necessary.
    1
  144.  @ianronald10  Ii-ion batteries don't leak acids I think, though am not sure. In the end it doesn't matter, BEV batteries are just too valuable to just throw away.
    1
  145.  @ianronald10  Probably because they were betting on hydrogen cars and had invested quite some money and time into it. I believe they are slowly coming around to the fact that BEV's are truly the future for passenger cars and not hydrogen.
    1
  146. The US seized an Iranian oil tanker last year, sold the oil on it and then the ship. Israel also has seized ships that tried to reach Gaza for the last 16 or so years.
    1
  147.  @DG-ie5ip  The main reason hydrogen cars aren't taking off like EV's is that they are overall more expensive to use and they completely rely on a fueling station infrastructure that doesn't exist (and is also expensive to roll out). Hydrogen also have barely more range than the average EV and not really more than the longer range EV's. The hydrogen also needs 2-3 times the energy from creation to use vs EV's. Ofcourse this is about cars, not trucks.
    1
  148. ​ @saellenx3528  It helps protect you from hospitals, but it isn't a 100% guarantee, the vaccins are between 70%-95% effective or something like that depending on the vaccine. And ofcourse there are still the underlying conditions that can aggrevate a covid infection despite having a vaccination (though the vaccine should help). There are % much less vaccinated people in ICU beds/hospitals for covid than unvaccinated people.
    1
  149.  @james6401  I am sorry, I only have data on Belgium I am afraid, I might be able to find it about other countries, but I don't really have the time to look it up currently.
    1