|
Freezer posted:Yes, and no. Coal is still a big part regrettably, but renewables are making a very noticeable dent. It would be awesome if you didn't have 17 GW of lignite as baseload tough... Yes, but thats the problem, its still only about a quarter of Germany's overall energy needs. And chances are, it'll never supply more than a third. Germany needs to ditch coal. And fast. And abandoning their nuclear was a mistake.
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Germany already reached 32% back in 2015 Cool, so it peaked. And remember: There is no storage in large quantities, so all of that is falling within the 6 hour peak window for solar, and the smaller window for wind. And when storage is considered, its incredibly lossy, and then you are halving total load to charge storage. And nuclear still has one of the best safety records, regardless of the scandals and Fukushima and Chernobyl. So that sort of criticism doesn't hold water. Yes, private energy companies are scummy, but yet coal harvesting and burning is still a significant portion of Germanys energy market, so apparently someone is conjuring up a bogeyman. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Oct 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:in the us we're still running a bunch of that old rear end reactor with a bunch more spent fuel stored in the same vulnerable-rear end way Man, if only there was a solution that was already actively used by the French to much success...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:I'm not saying this in defence of fossil fuel. There is no true answer to the energy question other than "keep improving renewables, which will take decades if not centuries to replace all energy needs". But pro-nuclear people seem to consistently ignore that, nuclear power plants have the potential for far greater ecological impact when the people running them do a bad job. Again, I'm not saying that this means fossil fuel is good. And yet nuclear still has a pretty good record. And the ecological impact of coal and fracking is FAR FAR more destructive at this point in time, so not, its no a very fair comparison ecologically. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Oct 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Or we could make unicorns run in hamster wheels. Here's the myths about energy storage is that you'll be able to power your Grid at the same time you're generating stored energy which is not true because you either power part of the grid and power part of the stored energy or you spend the six-hour window you have building up your energy storage it's not going to be both at the same time and that's kind of the problem with Renewables is well they are very good in the long run they're not going to displace things like coal and natural gas because you have to choose which you're going to invest your energy grid and either your pairing the Grid or your power in your storage not both
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:By all mean, renewable energies need to be developed as much as possible, I wholeheartedly encourage them; but that's in complement to nuclear. Coal-burning must be banned, like, twenty years ago; it's the worst fossil fuel. Gas is awful too, especially when it's extracted through fracking. Not to mention between earthquake in the US due to injection fracking and leaking methane which is an EVEN MORE POTENT GREENHOUSE GAS, the strive for 'Cheap, affordable energy' is loving us hard in the rear end. Friendly Humour posted:uhh... Fossils of stars, mannnnn.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Hm, yet the infrastructure for periodic transferring of power to storage already exists both on the macro and consumer scale and is used, and probably wouldn't need to be upscaled much for at least two decades. I don't really see a problem? Yes, you're right. But they are doing that with an on-demand constant flow generating system like coal or gas. Not one that only has a 6 hour window for peak output (solar) or even less (wind). Renewable are not the solve all end all you are portraying them as. We covered this in the Energy thread multiple times, as you know. Either we: Drastically decrease our power needs (not happening) Cover VAST areas of desert and plains in renewables (not happening) or Find something that can help meet the needs of a growing power demand alongside renewable supplements (totally can happen) Renewables are supplements. Period. That's it. Unless you are an island nation with low power demands, renewables are probably not going to fully replace your on demand power generating systems. Pick one. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Oct 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I'll defer to the judgment of the research groups that made the math and said that this is in fact not the case, and that the storage sector develops in step with the energy generation sector. So you are saying Germany has enough storage, right now, to handle that 11% piece of the energy pie?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Some people are extremely optimistic, most likely far too optimistic*, but even in skeptical scenarios I don't really see any sort of panic to build more storage RIGHT NOW or else no more energy capacity can be installed. This isn't actually solving anything, see my previous post where energy storage still means using the energy generated to cover said storage. Germany is not going to offset even 50% of its entire energy demand with storage because it would require ludicrous construction that would make several nuclear plants look like a toy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
fishmech posted:To be honest those giant gashes in the earth they're strip mining for lignite might make great pumped water storage reservoirs. I propose: Submarine Lignite mining. Everybody wins.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:The study is saying that Germany can increase its renewables to 60%, without the need for any additional storage capacity (we are at ~30-40% right now). I'll believe it when it happens. I sincerely doubt that considering the amount of fossil fuels they are currently burning for power generation, not counting the amount of power they are importing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:That one isn't that big a deal, honestly. Schiaparelli's mission was to land, and that's it. No roving around, no digging the dirt, nothing interesting or exciting; it was just there to test a lander setup for the next Mars mission planned for 2020. Verdict: didn't work, engineers have to go back to the drawing board. It's bad but not that much. All the scientific equipment that's supposed to give us interesting data beyond a binary "our gizmo: works or not?" answer is on the orbiter, which is successfully orbiting. Don't forget, only 4 days worth of battery.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Define your axes!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
orange sky posted:Yeah the russians are in no way - How the gently caress is Wikileaks saying this is suspicious, but was all to eager to attack Clinton? Oh right, because he hates Clinton.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Isn't Lepen a hige Russia fan? Yes, and she's anti-EU with benefits Russia immensely.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
rgocs posted:I'm not saying you're wrong; but there's better evidence than: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39375969 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-election-marine-le-pen-vladimir-putin-moscow-russia-a7647621.html There are plenty of reasons for Putin to favor a Le Penn victory, but being anti-EU works well in Putins favor, as well as the above links showing she wants to end sanctions against Russia.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Wild Horses posted:the EU is run by unwashed river barbarians Shockingly, we've discovered barbarians are still probably smarter than the lords and ladies of the UK court.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2017 12:04
|
|
|
Just saw this: ex-CNI Senior figure claims Spanish Secret Service carried out the jihadist attacks via an informant on Barcelona to try to sway the Catalonia Independence movement away from supporting the referendum https://twitter.com/josepalay/status/1480947545836765186?s=20 The twitter account appears to be a little off the beaten path, but this article also seems to claim the same https://www.thenational.scot/news/19841925.secret-service-behind-barcelona-terror-attacks-says-ex-cop/ He gave testimony to Spains High Court saying the same thing: https://english.vilaweb.cat/noticies/villarejo-claims-that-spains-intel-was-involved-in-the-barcelona-terrorist-attack-of-2017/ CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Jan 12, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
Angry Lobster posted:Let's check some more sources from other media: Gotcha, thanks for fact checking that!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2022 23:17
|
|
|
BlankSystemDaemon posted:EU wants to build its own DNS infrastructure with built-in filtering capabilities. Not the worst idea at all, and you can always point at someone elses DNS.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2022 21:23
|
|
|
Antigravitas posted:There's a comedy option for a compromise where Russia keeps the "independent" separatist regions "independent", while Ukraine gets EU accession status. It gives Russia a "win", but a severely poisoned one. At this point I don't even think that is enough to get a 'win' out of this with the damage economically and geopolitically to both Russia and their image. The win is long gone. He could take Ukraine and it'd still be devastating for Russia's image. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Feb 28, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2022 14:27
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Which calls into question the motives of the US and NATO doing what I described in point 2B above. Either deliver some proof or stop pandering about lovely conspiracy theories.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2022 13:46
|
|
|
Blut posted:The US and NATO didn't cause any of those results. Putin ordering his troops to invade Ukraine and cluster bomb civilians, with no justification other than imperialism or insanity, did. I think its fair to blame that stuff. But straight up saying "Euromaidan was a fascist US backed revolution, which is why the fascist nationalist party was unable to capture more than 2% of the vote and only one seat and couldn't stop a Jewish man being elected president" gets really really tiring.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2022 14:55
|
|
|
Truga posted:NATO expanded eastward against russia's specific wishes, it *really* doesn't get more specific than that. you can argue that it's stupid that russian leaders are "inconvenienced" over that, but they feel threatened by NATO Ah yes, NATO bullied Putin into doing what he's doing. He feels threatened by a defensive alliance not capable or even designed to invade Russia. And again: A lot of Eastern European countries joined NATO precisely for the reason that Ukraine is facing today: They spent years under the USSR, they don't want to go back. Putin has made it clear, even in his early days, that his goal was to rebuild the Russian empire. This isn't about NATO. This is about imperial colonialism by a kleptocratic state.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2022 17:19
|
|
|
Truga posted:NATO could have easily said "actually no" and we 100% wouldn't be in cold war 2 in europe right now, so yes, it had all the agency. Again: Putin is the one who started a war. And he's been clear its NOT about NATO. Please stop pretending Putin is somehow devoid of responsibility for invading.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2022 17:57
|
|
|
Truga posted:i'm not? can everyone else please stop pretending NATO is? It is. Putin has openly said for mode than two decades that Ukraine was not a real country, that is could be nothing but a Russian territory or satellite. The idea that this has anything to do with NATO is absurd. If he was worried about NATO, instead he could've readily dealt with Ukraine as a real state and made appeals. He did not. Because he wanted to conquer and control it. How is that NATO's fault? Mysteriously Russia keeps doing these invasion too, often to countries with no intent of being in nor anywhere near NATO. Is NATO responsible for Russia invading those as well? Is Russia so unhinged, so out of control that even the mere mention of NATO is enough to make Putin snap and invade?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2022 18:06
|
|
|
Truga posted:i've no evidence to support russia wouldn't try this, but i'm of the opinion that currently, belarus is in a much better position than ukraine, and ukraine was trying to join EU/NATO while belarus wasn't Belarus is also effectively a puppet state, with a referendum in the last week that effectively allowed Russia to use them as a staging area for nuclear weapons. Belarus also, apparently, had next to no say in the staging of a Russian invasion force against their neighbor. Are you saying that is what Ukraine should've been shooting for? Truga posted:i mean, loving clearly?? we wouldn't be having this convo otherwise ffs Then maybe NATO isn't the problem
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2022 18:10
|
|
|
Truga posted:if the alternative is an invasion and a war, yes, every time Who invaded whom again? One of these groups had the agency to not start a war, yet they did. It was not NATO. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Mar 1, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2022 18:17
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:NATO could have publicly stated it would not accept any member who used to be part of the USSR or the Warsaw pact to placate Russian irredentism. It's perfectly fine to say "gently caress Russian irredentism you can't tell other countries they're still your oblasts" but then you should seriously prepare to defend those countries instead of hoping Russia will just accept your argument forever. It really, really doesn't matter. Because it isn't about NATO. Putin has been clear for 20+ years: Ukraine is not a real country. Its a Russian territory. The only reason Putin was concerned about NATO because NATO was the only thing that could conceivably have stopped what he is doing right now. This is about imperial colonialism.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2022 14:27
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:It's not about legitimacy. If we know Putin is frothing at the mouth to invade former buffer states in response to those states wanting to join NATO or the EU, then we must either tell those countries they're free to join but we will only do so much to help them in the gamble to join faster than Putin can gently caress em up, or we should prepare a sufficient deterrent to give Putin pause. We did neither, Putin has hosed over a number of neighbouring countries, saying Putin is bad and wrong doesn't help those countries, the situation is an indictment of lovely incoherent irresponsible foreign policy driven by short term wishful thinking. You are basically saying Nuclear Armed nations should be allowed to do as they please to their neighbors and the optics of that are.....pretty awful.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2022 14:34
|
|
|
Yeah Russia is not having 'Normal Relations' with the EU right now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2022 23:11
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:there has been no declaration of war, enmity, blockade etc. there has been no internal declaration of emergency or martial law. this is all, formally, operating within the ordinary workings of the EU. in a broader sense, the executive has just seized an enormous amount of power, *including* the power to shut down undesirable news outlets, because what they're effectively saying is that this is the normal amount of leeway granted to the executive. because, again, there has been no formal suspension of normal rules. there's been lots of stuff on the ground and a great many treaties, deals etc torched, but nothing constitutional has had to be activated to allow this, meaning that the executive considers all of this within its normal reportoire of powers. it's like the US unitary executive theory, except that the EU executive hasn't ever really behaved this way before. that the EU executive considers shutting down press institutions a thing it can just do with what must be said to be very flimsy justifications, even if it is appealable (and we do not know if this is effectively appealable! i'm granting this because i think i can and leave my point intact) that's not the actions of an organisation especially devoted to free speech, at least by the standards we apply to other countries. The EU has entirely largely blockaded Russia economically outside of energy markets. I wholly disagree with what you are saying. And RT has been a State Media org for ages, its not some free speech source, its Fox News with all the baggage and more. This is not some free speech issue, and you can readily find RT articles and videos online with ease. They are not silenced. They just are not getting the free spread they used to have. Its a State controlled news network. And Russia is actively shutting down anyone or any media group saying anything untoward their operation in Ukraine. RT doesn't need you defending it, and neither does the Russian State Department.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2022 23:23
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:you're missing the point. i am not defending RT or russian foreign department. if you're going to step into post number fifty or whatever this is of this argument please read at least some of the preceding ones as well. You are acting like blocking a State Sponsored media group is some Free Speech issue. Its far from being a free speech issue. You are arguing its some executive consolidation of power and that worse things are coming because of it. That makes no sense.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2022 23:32
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:You don’t consider China banning the BBC a free speech issue? I do, but BBC is largely not in the same level as RT. BBC is also ENTIRELY banned in China, versus RT which remains reachable online. In China that is not possible thanks to the censorship via the Great Firewall. V. Illych L. posted:i think this is a legitimate position, but it's also not one especially committed to the principle of free speech This feels like a bit: Free Speech is not an all or nothing affair: Again, nobody is required, even in Free Speech, to carry your message. No one. This was an argument point that the Alt-Right loves portraying, that Free Speech means All Speech much be carried. RT remains reachable, the EU television broadcasters isn't required to carry them, and yet despite banning them from television, they remain alive and well on the internet. So is their message not getting out because of that? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Mar 4, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2022 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
AndreTheGiantBoned posted:I agree with Ilyich though. Again, RT is more than available online. And the idea that RT is some speech that needs to be protected is beyond laughable: Its a state propaganda network with one goal: Sway people to supporting Putin's views about the world. And given that Putin used RT to push the very sort of ideas about censorship and parties who would fully endorse the censorship Putin himself is taking right now, its beyond the pale that anybody is pretending that there was any value in the speech and information being presented by RT. Putin's RT regularly goes to bat for groups that very much wish to enact censorship in the EU, and not of state propaganda but of LGBT, Leftist, and other Progressives. Its a group being controlled by an Right Wing kleptocrat Christian oligarchy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2022 01:28
|
|