Nahe 50% ist für Spitzenverdiener. Also Fachkräfte. Die Leute, die man angeblich so dringend haben will.
Man hinterfragt es normal nicht weiter, bis man mal ein Praktikum in der Schweiz macht, wo nur 8.5% Steuern gezahlt werden … und dann ist man richtig verwirrt.
Indeed, what the hell is this article?
Ain’t that the truth
I’d like to relay this comment from hacker news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36834046
It seems there’s news of a battery breakthrough every week. I’ve learned to temper expectations, because so many “breakthroughs” turn out to be dead ends. Because it’s not enough for a battery to be incredibly light, or made of abundant materials, or last for ten thousand cycles. It needs to be good at many things and at least okay at most things.
E.g.—
• How much capacity per dollar?
• How much capacity per kilogram?
• How much capacity per litre?
• How quickly can it be charged?
• How quickly can it be discharged?
• How much energy is lost between charging and discharging?
• How predisposed is it to catching fire?
• How available are the materials needed to manufacture it?
• How available are the tools/skills required to manufacture it?
• How resilient is it to mechanical stress, e.g. vibration?
• How much does performance degrade per cycle?
• How much does performance degrade when stored at a high state of charge?
• How much does performance degrade when stored at a low state of charge?
• How much does performance drop at high temperatures?
• How much does performance drop at low temperatures?
• How well can it be recycled at end-of-life?
A sufficiently bad answer for any one of these could utterly exclude it from contention as an EV battery. A battery which scores well on everything except mechanical resilience is a non-starter, for example. Though it might be great for stationary storage. I’m only a layperson and this list is what I came up with just a few minutes of layperson thought. I’m sure someone with more familiarity with battery technology could double the length of this list. But the point is, when you daydream about some hypothetical future battery tech, you need to appreciate just how well today’s lithium chemistries score in so many areas
Gespendet und Petition unterschrieben. Da fragt man sich wirklich was die Justiz bei dem Urteil geritten hat.
I did not realize this is a month old. I certainly did not know about this, but I figure this piece of information probably can’t be overstated for now :-)
Kann man da nicht Anzeige wegen volksverhetzung stellen? Da wird sich bei den Riesen Firmen nie was ändern, außer legal klopft an. Und dann geht das aber extrem schnell, glaub mir.
Kann leider nur einen upvote geben, aber das trifft den Nagel auf den Kopf.
You are right, but a corporation is not run by robots. There are individuals making these decisions, and they must - and will be - held accountable.
Und wie sollen das die Grünen gegen 2 blockierer in der Koalition durchsetzen? Lindner brüstet sich ja grade damit was alles zusammengestrichen wird.
Aber irgendwie ist’s am Ende immer der Fehler der Grünen …
Der Artikel hat völlig recht. Die Politik in Deutschland hatte Jahrzehnte lang panische Angst vor dem „Verlust von Arbeitsplätzen“. Man schaue sich nur mal die causa Galeria Kaufhof an, oder wieviel Geld den Autounternehmen hinterher geschmissen wird, wenn sie auch nur einen Hauch von Rezession wittern.
Dabei ist im Kapitalismus (und daran glauben wir ja alle :-) das scheitern von Unternehmen ein - wenn nicht DER - entscheidende kontrollierende Faktor. Ineffiziente Unternehmen gehen pleite, lassen eine Lücke in der Nachfrage entstehen, die durch (bessere) startups wieder gefüllt wird.
Das muss man Amerika lassen, bei allem was sie falsch machen, die sind nicht zimperlich, wenn Unternehmen pleite gehen.
Viele andere Rahmenbedingungen sollten natürlich auch verbessert werden (anti Korruption, anti Monopolismus, bessere Digitalisierung, Startup Förderung, etc), aber man muss sich halt auch mal trauen, unternehmen und Leute scheitern z zu lassen wenn ihr business model Korks ist.
This is not a trial of trump.
This is a trial of the American justice system.
Good Post overall, no need to attack my sanity though :-)
I agree with most of this in principle. Having 100% base load with renewables is an aspirational goal - for now - but nevertheless achievable, I believe. You will find that the sun does, in fact, always shine (somewhere on the planet), and that wind almost always blows (somewhere on the planet). Admittedly, wind is more prevalent throughout the day than sun, but still.
There have been recent discoveries of superconductors that might help transport the electricity where it is needed. But again, this is all in the medium to long term future.
But of course, short to medium term, and long term too, energy storage will play a huge role. I expect massive development in this area, as this is being iterated on anyway, eg. for EVs.
Any sources on any of that? That’s a lot of „you just know that“ information, and I do consider myself well informed. I am not from France though.
Anyway:
neither of those points addresses the costs of energy production I quoted above. Those are, to the best of my knowledge, approximately correct. It may very well have been that nuclear was competitive in the past, it isn’t anymore.
getting scammed by some middle man seems to be a fate that all modern democracies share, though who the middle man is varies country by country :-)
I consider the marginal cost thing to be one of the best acts from the EU. Maybe not in France, but overall it rewards the most efficient energy producer massively, which currently is solar. Those companies can use the excess money to reinvest.
Nuclear plants are cooled with river water, and that water is getting too hot:
As far as I can tell, there is no time with no sun AND no wind: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Energy_statistics_-_latest_trends_from_monthly_data
In fact, there are multiple studies claiming that you can very well supply base load with renewables, for instance this one:
https://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/MarkBaseloadFallacyANZSEE.pdf
One other problem with nuclear is that it has to run at a fixed output level, and can’t be scaled down if there is eg. lots of solar power being generated. In this case, you have to scale down renewables to make sure you can use the nuclear power, which makes it clash with the eventual goal to power everything with renewables.
Im quoting 2022 because this was last year. As in, the most recent year.
I don’t disagree that we should have phased out coal instead of nuclear first. But what has happened has happened. I do disagree that we need a „nuclear renessaince“ now, because neither the economics nor the timelines work out at this point in time. Solar and wind is cheaper, faster to build, and more flexible as you can iterate on their designs MUCH more quickly than nuclear plants. That’s the main reason why solar panel efficiency is going through the roof.
Why cannibalize the investments in what obviously works?
What do you mean by cheapest energy? Nuclear is more expensive than renewables, if you factor in construction and maintenance cost. It only works because it has been massively subdisidized.
Or do you have some source that this energy is „cheaper“? Please be aware that France caps their electricity prices internally and subsidizes them with taxes (which is fine, but makes the prices incomparable to other countries).
„The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189.“
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1W909J
Good man. I agree 100% - the more warming we get, the bigger of a difference each .1 degree makes. So we should only get more aggressive about climate change the worse it gets instead of giving up.