As a neutral nation you need to have some way to ensure that neutrality as there is no NATO or other group of nations to have your back.
Hence the military spending.
As a neutral nation you need to have some way to ensure that neutrality as there is no NATO or other group of nations to have your back.
Hence the military spending.
Magnetic field ≠ electric field
Yeah but my short term gains!
Figure skating is also an olympic competition, is it not?
I don’t think 100% renewable is the way to go, given that energy output can vary.
And as long as any amount of fossil fuels are left in the energy supply chain, I’d rather they be replaced with nuclear. Even if it’s more expensive.
I’m not making the decision so it doesn’t matter.
Perhaps not directly, but assuming you live in a democracy your vote does matter.
It may not reduce the delta, but we gotta cover the base load somehow. Nuclear is ideal for that job.
Nuclear doesn’t reduce the difference between supply and demand.
How does it not?
There’s a certain “base load” to any power grid which could easily be done by “inflexible” nuclear powerplants.
Sodium doesn’t address the problem with EV weight.
Inefficiency is fine if you have an abundance of energy.
Running a country exclusively on renewables comes with its own costs in storage and emergency solutions.
I’m not saying “go exclusively nuclear” either. Supplementing it with renewables should be done.
Going 100% renewable is going to require an immense amount of storage, nevermind their instability. Any base load we can replace with nuclear is going to lessen that burden.
EV’s are heavy and require a ton of rare Lithium.
Using over capacity to generate hydrogen seems to me like a way to solve that. Hydrogen which in turn can be used to power cars, trucks, ships.
I don’t see how nuclear would slow the transition away from oil and gas.
Sorry, I was replying to a comment about offshore wind in the EU.
Supposedly you’d set up some proper regulations, implement checks and balances but given the current US business and political climate; good question.
They have no upsides
Except the lack of greenhouse gas emissions, once up and running.
If we actually started developing them on any sort of scale most of those negatives you mention will be negated.
Flexibility, as in the inability to quickly ramp down, can be solved with storage or with generating hydrogen.
We need more nuclear reactors
Or “donations”, “sponsorships”, and similar.
Add ?t=7m20s to your youtu.be links for timestamps.
But regulations are bad, right? They impede the free market, right? Right?
Genocide Joe that got overruled by congress when he did try to put a stop to it
The 4K screen is specific to the Xperia 1 V. Though it seems the 1 VI has dropped it for 1080.
The Xperia 10 VI is a more budget version, still with a headphone jack.
I wouldn’t know about the ability to decline updates.
(The 1 is their premium model, the 10 budget. The Roman numerals are the generation.)
I really like Samsung’s phones and software, but I think my next phone will be a Sony.
It’s Android. It’s not Google or Chinese. It’s got a headphone jack.
The 4K screen feels overkill though.
“Some years” is a bit of an understatement for old growth forests. I still very much agree.
By then it’ll be unfortunately too late, with laws and policies that might take decades to undo.
We’ll find someone else to blame, like women!
Wait, no–