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

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
@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
@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includes also all equipment, which generally is given the official purchase priced even if it is already pretty old/outdated.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
@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
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
@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
That is why Hamas is a terrorist organisation, but Israel has to be very carefull it isn't turning into one themselves.
1
@nymgrace1227 In this case the Israeli's definitely are the colonizers, they are even still colonizing the west bank currently against international law.
1
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
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
@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
@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
@CraftyF0X True, I failed to mention that caveat. Though then were only speaking about a very limited geography.
1
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
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
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
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
@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
@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
@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
@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
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
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
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
@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
@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
@she825 In terms of casualties (not just killed, but also wounded etc), that perfectly tracks with how these estimates have been going.
1
@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
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
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
@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
@oswynjames8308 So why don't you tell me what is happening there? Since I haven't heard of any big problems.
1
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
@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
@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
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
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
@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
@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
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
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
@ianronald10 I think you really underestimate the resources/energy used during extraction of the raw materials vs new recycling techniques.
1
@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
@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
@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
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
@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
@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
@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