Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Europe braces for mobile network blackouts

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 436 posts

Re: Europe braces for mobile network blackouts

#411

Post by remarkEon »

ramesh31 wrote: post #202
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that when the US invaded Iraq, Germany complained a bit but didn't do much else, but when Russia invaded the Ukraine, Germany decided to cut Russia off economically. The reason why the US is a "reliable partner" is that German politics is willing to accept American wars. And before we hear any cries of, "Iraq was different," recall that it was an illegal war of aggression that caused the deaths of h…

>And before we hear any cries of, "Iraq was different," recall that it was an illegal war of aggression that caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, led to large scale torture, and generally caused a monumental societal collapse in Iraq. I've been trying to come to terms with this since the invasion of Ukraine. Yes, the details on the ground are significantly different. But it doesn't change the legal r…

> I was an 18 year old US Army infantryman getting ready to deploy to Iraq in 2007. I made the decision back then to not go, because ultimately something just felt completely wrong about it during training.

So you went AWOL? I’m a little confused on how an 11B E-2 can “decide“ he’s not deploying.

Re: Europe braces for mobile network blackouts

#412

Post by MichaelCollins »

Schroedingersat wrote: post #405
MichaelCollins wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they suggest the alternative Wind+Solar, not gas. Storage technology to support an industrialized nation with pure Wind+Solar does not exist, necessitating gas. Advocating for Wind+Solar but not gas is like advocating for building with lumber but not cutting down trees. One inescapably implies the other.

You don't need to build new gas or increase production to beat nuclear in cost whilst reducing total emissions to netnzero levels, so you are still lying. Additionally nuclear necessarily demands gas in exactly the same way because it is cost/capacity limited so a 100% nuclear grid would cost 300-500€/MWh. Just using existing heavily deployed technologies https://model.energy/?results=8181a21c563945780e7f86ca888fd4..…

>you are still lying

That was my first comment in this discussion thread, you have evidently confused me with the other. Read the usernames if you're going to throw around shade like that. And "build more gas" is a claim you introduced to this discussion, not me. Solar+Wind necessitates gas, that is a fact. Whether it's building new gas turbines or using existing ones, Germany needs those gas turbines either way. Germany cannot run off solar and wind alone.

Re: Europe braces for mobile network blackouts

#413

Post by faller_slive »

ben_w wrote: post #365
CapricornNoble wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was almost certainly a state actor behind the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines recently. https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/another-nord-stream-l... A former Polish Minister of Defense posted "Thankyou USA" to Twitter after the attack. Various US officials have made public statements since the start of 2022 stating the US wouldn't allow Nord Stream to go forward. The whole reason the pipelines were bui…

I agree that a state actor was involved. I disagree that Russia has no incentive. While the USA obviously has the means and more than zero motivation, I don’t see this type of infrastructure damage so close to allies as likely. Especially given the EU was already in the process of permanently ending the purchase of all Russian gas, not just these pipelines. Russia, however, is looking at one never-opened pipeline and…

Radek Sikorski, MEP who previously served as Marshall of the Sejm and Minister of Foregin Affairs, thanked America in response to Nordstream being sabatoged.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220928201734/https://twitter.c...

Re: Europe braces for mobile network blackouts

#414

Post by origin_path »

j-pb wrote: post #295
origin_path wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that this is just a matter of political will is nonsensical in the extreme, it's impossible to understand how anyone can believe this except via massive propaganda. Here's a graph of German solar/wind power production: https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&... Notice how it frequently drops to near zero . For example the morning of the 22nd where total wind+solar production in Germany w…

You accuse other of irrationality, yet you prop up a straw-man that's been debunked over and over again. Nobody argues that renewables deliver peak power all of the time. The goal is to have enough capacity and intermediary storage to be able to deliver constant peak power with both combined. The current economic situation would be much better had we spend all our money on renewables and storage instead of nuclear an…

"The goal is to have enough capacity and intermediary storage to be able to deliver constant peak power with both combined."

But this is an irrational goal because there is no way to do that intermediary storage on the scale that is required, and as I just pointed out, wind and solar are frequently yielding nearly zero power even when summed together. In your other comments you're talking about pressurized air caverns and other things that are sci-fi projects right now but the crisis Germany is causing with its policies is here today.

This is why greenism is irrational. We're not talking about theoretically perfect power grids here, we're talking about what technologies exist today, to deliver the kind of stability required for a trans-national grid. Renewables aren't even close to this and there's no sign of that changing on the horizon. The refusal to accept that is now more than just annoying, it's becoming flat out dangerous.

Re: Europe braces for mobile network blackouts

#415

Post by ramesh31 »

remarkEon wrote: post #411
ramesh31 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And before we hear any cries of, "Iraq was different," recall that it was an illegal war of aggression that caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, led to large scale torture, and generally caused a monumental societal collapse in Iraq. I've been trying to come to terms with this since the invasion of Ukraine. Yes, the details on the ground are significantly different. But it doesn't change the legal r…

> I was an 18 year old US Army infantryman getting ready to deploy to Iraq in 2007. I made the decision back then to not go, because ultimately something just felt completely wrong about it during training. So you went AWOL? I’m a little confused on how an 11B E-2 can “decide“ he’s not deploying.

> So you went AWOL? I’m a little confused on how an 11B E-2 can “decide“ he’s not deploying.

E-3 actually. I was an Eagle Scout, Civil Air Patrol cadet, three years of high school JROTC - the full nine yards. Completely brainwashed. But yes, I ultimately went AWOL.

A week before our deployment, I hitchhiked out to the desert and lived in a tent for a month. Turned myself in right before the 30 day desertion mark, took my article 15 and got busted to E-1. I was able to secure an honorable discharge with the help of a few sympathetic commanding officers after explaining everything, but they put me out pretty quickly “in the best interest of the Army”.

This was the height of the surge in '07, where we were losing over a hundred guys a month. My mom's best friend had already seen her son come home in a casket. The guys I served with came back as shattered husks. I have zero regrets choosing life over death.

Re: Europe braces for mobile network blackouts

#416

Post by Schroedingersat »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #412
Schroedingersat wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to build new gas or increase production to beat nuclear in cost whilst reducing total emissions to netnzero levels, so you are still lying. Additionally nuclear necessarily demands gas in exactly the same way because it is cost/capacity limited so a 100% nuclear grid would cost 300-500€/MWh. Just using existing heavily deployed technologies https://model.energy/?results=8181a21c563945780e7f86ca888fd4..…

>you are still lying That was my first comment in this discussion thread, you have evidently confused me with the other. Read the usernames if you're going to throw around shade like that. And "build more gas" is a claim you introduced to this discussion, not me. Solar+Wind necessitates gas, that is a fact. Whether it's building new gas turbines or using existing ones, Germany needs those gas turbines either way. Ger…

You continue to lie about the goal.

> Germany cannot run off solar and wind alone.

There is this thing called storage in the form of batteries, hydro, and electrolysers. Stop pretending it does not exist, that it is not dropping in price (and use of scarce minerals) so fast it will be a complete replacement before a single new reactor would be finished and that renewables must work without it. Stop pretending that replacing 20% of the gas with nuclear is as useful as replacing 80% of it with pure renewables.

If our bar is 90€/MWh or wherever you want to set it, then it is far closer to true that the technology to replace coal and gas with nuclear does not exist.

Here is a model using no fossil fuels, no batteries and fairly pessimistic costings of real existing currently being built technology

https://model.energy/?results=5f5bd91437b51fc85495b224d74945...

See how it is about 10% less than the energy from falamville 3 even when including much more generous discount rates?

Additionally with the lower initial capital you could replace it when it wears out with something that is a quarter of the price rather than locking in 110€/MWh for energy that won't start being produced for 10-20 years and you won't get all of for 50-70 years. Energy from a nuclear reactor still needs backup for the 10% of the time it is off (or 30% in France's case) and overprovision or peaking (which will either drive the cost up to 200€/MWh or require gas)

Re: Europe braces for mobile network blackouts

#417

Post by ramesh31 »

uninvolved wrote: post #377
ch4s3 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’d definitely made the right decision for yourself, and possibly in the general case. I’d add that while the bursts of hawkishness in US foreign policy are awful, they pale in comparison to the barbarism of other past powers or modern regional powers. That isn’t meant to excuse anything, but look at the Russian invasion and the intentional atrocities being committed. Compare that to the invasion of Iraq and I thin…

There is no evidence that the Russian invasion is more barbaric than the US invasion of Iraq. In fact they seem to show (to a certain extent) some restraint with regard to civilian infrastructure, while America bombed everything from the sky for 1 month before invading. In terms of intentional atrocities every army has its bad apples, and I'm sure there is a Russian equivalent of Abu Graib. But there is no evidence t…

> But there is no evidence there is a deliberate policy by the Russian military to commit war crimes.

One word.

"Children"

https://ibb.co/NZ0qCqg

And they were targeted for it. Six hundred dead civilians. Russia has lost any and all claims to being human, let alone civil.

Re: Europe braces for mobile network blackouts

#418

Post by Maursault »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #393
Maursault wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While most estimates are between 150K to 250K, with at least one published estimate as high as 1.2M, the point of the quote was not to argue about causality numbers, but to demonstrate that numbers are "highly disputed," with an example of a lower estimate and claim of consensus. IBC project in particular has issues, including accusations of internal anti-war bias and biased sources. IBC has been accused of both unde…

Most scientific estimates are in the range of half a million to a million, with the one outlier being the study conducted by the Iraqi Health Ministry itself. One possible explanation for that is that people might have been afraid to speak to representatives of the ministry, given that it was controlled by a Shiite politician who had connections to militias.

> Most scientific estimates are in the range of half a million to a million, with the one outlier being the study conducted by the Iraqi Health Ministry itself.

I'm not sure what studies were not scientific and which were, but I don't get that at all from the wiki section on total Iraqi causalities.[1] Ignoring lower US military estimates accused of undercounting, about half of estimates are below 200K and about half above 250K. And again, all of the studies are disputed with those in the higher range taking the most criticism towards methods and bias, such as IBC and the Lancet studies. The lower estimates, which seem to be missing deaths that were not immediate, are by Swiss Developmental Studies, Iraqiyun, Iraqi Heath Minister, IFHS, and the higher estimates with a large range variance between 250K-1M+ are by IBC, Lancet, ORB, and PLOS Medicine, which seem to be including homicides, suicides and car accidents. I don't really understand why any group would intentionally underestimate or intentionally inflate casualty estimates, but some, most or all obviously did. Some studies, like D3, seem to suggest fully half the Iraqi population was injured or killed. This all seems bizarre, that estimates are so widely varied and criticized, considering at the time it was the most covered war by journalists in history. The surreal feeling at the time was that it was all televised. It seems unlikely most if any were infiltrated by US covert intelligence white washers, but I can't fathom any overarching reason for such wide variance.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Tot...

Re: Europe braces for mobile network blackouts

#419

Post by bhelkey »

bpfrh wrote: post #402
tomp wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So nuclear (zero CO2 emissions) isn’t “green” but gas (CO2 + methane emissions) is?! This is the reality of institutional stupidity at the highest EU political levels.

No, gas is only green if it used to as a stepping stone for wind or solar. There is nothing prohibiting investing in nuclear energy, but you shouldn't be able to label that investment as green. You can argue all day if nuclear is green or not, but most people on the street will not think of nuclear if I ask them what a green, safe and sustainable energy source is. At least in Germany, which of course represents the i…

> No, gas is only green if it used to as a stepping stone for wind or solar.

Is coal green if it used to as a stepping stone for wind or solar?

Re: Europe braces for mobile network blackouts

#420

Post by ben_w »

faller_slive wrote: post #413
ben_w wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that a state actor was involved. I disagree that Russia has no incentive. While the USA obviously has the means and more than zero motivation, I don’t see this type of infrastructure damage so close to allies as likely. Especially given the EU was already in the process of permanently ending the purchase of all Russian gas, not just these pipelines. Russia, however, is looking at one never-opened pipeline and…

Radek Sikorski, MEP who previously served as Marshall of the Sejm and Minister of Foregin Affairs, thanked America in response to Nordstream being sabatoged. https://web.archive.org/web/20220928201734/https://twitter.c...

He’s allowed to believe it without me believing it
Post reply on HN