If risk and disposal is factored into coal, gas, solar power, what would be cheaper? Nuclear has recyclable fuel processes and fail safe systems available.
> That cost doesn’t even factor in disposal because no one knows the true cost yet
There's still some cost factored in, unlike any other industry where the government is expected to clean up after the fact.
> Not sure what risk you think come from renewables
The grid collapse risk (See what happened in Spain last year, which caused 8 deaths, more than every nuclear power plant accidents in the Western world combined…). Grid operators are currently investing a trillion Euro in the EU alone in order to adapt the grid to the new challenges caused by intermittent and distributed energy sources, and this will never be accounted for in renewable electricity prices… (hence the paradox: the more “cheap energy” is being deployed in Europe, the more expensive the electricity prices become).
> and storage
"Storage" doesn't exist yet as a most people imagine it. Batteries can help ease a few hours of peak load/low supply but that's pretty much it, pumped storage is very situational with limited deployment capabilities. So the risk is that the technology simply never materialize.
It's €1.6tn up to 2040. And it's not being built to fix problems "caused by intermittent sources" so much as a complete overhaul of a grid for 27 countries, some of which are relatively backward, with standardised digital control, plus significant new interconnectors.
The finished grid will be far more robust, better able to handle local outages and issues, and generally more adaptive and open to development in various directions.
As for "cheap energy" raising prices - prices rose a little after Covid, but there's been no constant march upwards. The main driver of higher prices is gas, and eliminating gas dependence, for both for financial and strategic reasons, is a key goal.
The current situation in Iran is likely to increase that motivation.
A key point about renewables is that power doesn't rely on imports from war zones.
In my part of the world the authorities can demand a clean up bond as part of giving permission to build the project. That is done to ensure that you can’t skimp on your responsibilities.
Then I just see misinformation on the Iberian blackout. Please go ahead and tell me how thermal planes not delivering the expected reactive power was caused by renewables.
Please tell me how renewables can’t deliver reactive power when the US and all other sane grids have required them to do it for close to a decade.
And with that we’re solving high 90s% of the grid. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough when we still need to solve agriculture, construction, aviation, maritime shipping, industry and so on.
All ignoring that storage on larger scales already exists.
You're not going to read them, so why bother since you live in a parallel universe. But if you wanted, you could ask your chatbot so you don't have to put the efforts to read anything.
The startup costs, process knowledge requirements, and logistic issues with inputs are clearly higher for large scale chemical manufacturing than mechanical. The Roi is currently lower, if that changed they would adapt easily.
There was some model named FGC2000 which was used with short unrifled 9mm tubes, meaning the range was low and could only be used as parent described. Saw this on a YouTube video but can't find it now.
Pretty sure the big losers are US missile intercept systems manufactures since they've basically been outed as useless so I'm not sure who would want to buy them now. And Israel, of course, who is getting struck as a result of their over reliance on these systems. US bases are being wrecked, all the radar systems are gone, several carriers damaged - not sure that is no damage.
> Lockheed martin PAC3 manufacturer is down 11% this month
Seriously? Lockheed Martin makes lots of stuff. They're blaming labor shortages for their woes. But demand for Patriots is growing. Your conclusion that they've been embarassed is countered by the dominant analysis in like every source, from Chinese and Indian (English and local language) to German, American, Israeli and Taiwanese.
Patriot works. It's been shooting down Russia's "hypersonic" missiles. It's been intercepting everything Iran throws at it. Its problem is it's expensive, and Iran's munitions cheap; we need something that isn't built to take down stealth fighter jets and advanced missiles.
I mean even a cursory analysis will show that it's physically impossible for it to work against multiple vehicles/decoys. They also make the "stealth" f35, their contracts for this stuff is from Jan - probably will still make money from US/Saudi, but good luck selling to Germany or Japan.
Which missile intercept systems do you refer to? Surely not the Patriot which has proven to be most effective in Ukraine. Due to poor planning, it sounds like the Patriot stocks have been blown thru so now things are exposed.
Iran copied oreshnik system, added decoys and other stuff, patriot is not effective against hypersonic, multiple vehicle missiles or decoys (which would require 1 patriot per vehicle) and is dependent on 2 radar systems functioning in the correct locations and the correct angle of attack from firing location. See Ted Postol's coverage https://www.youtube.com/live/Q2yQ3kBAQIk?si=JLvN2mVleKv64YDs. Even patriot is <5-10% effective in footage review from early Iran conflict before they started using hypersonic multiple vehicle missiles.
> patriot is not effective against hypersonic, multiple vehicle missiles or decoys (which would require 1 patriot per vehicle) and is dependent on 2 radar systems functioning in the correct locations and the correct angle of attack from firing location
This is mostly accurate. Patriot is effective against every "hypersonic" it's been fielded against, though that's mostly because Russia doesn't actually have a hypersonic missile. Iran, fortunately, doesn't have hypersonics–where did you get the idea they do?
Decoys are an issue. Two radar systems not really an issue.
> patriot is <5-10% effective in footage review from early Iran conflict before they started using hypersonic multiple vehicle missiles
Patriot has been about 33% effective. Becasue we fire 3 missiles at each target as standard course. Which means close to 100% intercept rate when targeted. "When targeted" may contain some bullshit, but it's a hell of a better bet than anything Postol is peddling without ample fact checking. (His record has been spotty for a while, particularly when it comes to OSINT.)
Put it another way: Iran has hit...tens of meaningful targets? In America and Israel? Do you think their missiles are just that terrible that they fire hundreds to thousands and a vanishing percentage go where they're meant to? (I'm ignoring that many of the high-value hits were with drones. Not missiles.)
How would you know how many vehicles there are when it separates late? Some Iranian munitions have 80 vehicles. Maybe they don't have the fastest hypersonics or large payloads in them, but it seems like the combination of high speed + multiple vehicles + late separation poses an extreme challenge to these systems. I'm sure he's exaggerating or has biased sample data, but the missile intercept marketing team seems to be exaggerating quite a bit as well. There are many videos that seem to show them squirming around in the sky like lost sperm and then blowing up without hitting the missile and falling to the ground.
We need to have realistic expectations though - air defense is an inherently asymmetric problem. The US broadly has the best air defense, but it's explicitly not focused on Russia or China, because it acknowledges that deterrence is the only plausible defense there.
While Iran isn't a superpower, they have hypersonic weapons that no system can intercept very reliably, and a sizeable assortment of ballistic missiles. Even if all other militaries joined forces, they probably couldn't intercept every single projectile coming out of Iran, at least not without depleting their interceptors to unacceptable levels.
When it's wet, but not saturated - like 1-2 days after a rain - you can decompact the soil with a strong metal broadfork and leave the soil in large block aggregates. This keeps the soil structure and maintains some fungal web connections. Add nutrients, wood chips, stick and sand below aggregates and in cracks. Cover with compost and plant clover to cover.
Clover fixes nitrogen and roots help stabilize the voids in the soil. They sell seed mixes called "ground cover mix" that includes other plants and will help keep the soil from recompacting when it rains and keeps weeds at bay.
Would you say the scarcity is what starts the corruption?
Like you can't get a plumber so you have to use your personal network or there aren't enough tickets so you have to obtain one through your personal network, etc?
It's probably better to look at a system wide level than any one shortage. For example is there no plumbers because school loans to learn apprenticeship were robbed by the rich, and the actual plumbers aren't able to get more licenses because of the graft they' have to pay for an additional one.
They never solved any cases, only provided a warm lead once a day. If they solved many, they would be proud and say N cases solved. In this case N must be an embarrassingly small number since they don't use concrete language. It's like offering 5500$ to anyone that offers any information on any crime.
reply