731–740 of 784 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say that the current system of capital distribution wasn't providing those things adequately. But that'd be silly.
That would be silly. Those things are supplied in the required quantities... but there's an oversupply of people to take them. People who don't even have a reason to be in the countries that we're discussing. Implementing marxism won't change anything anyone cares about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even reading those you can surely see it was the correct approach.
Reading the graphs I can see that you were making stuff up and can be safely ignored
Bet you're not interested in looking at the three Baltic states I mentioned or Ireland...because it would be another fistful of nails in the coffin of your purely ideological belief that "aUsTeRiTy BaD" (truthfully, some austerity is bad, but the fiscal kind).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why the artificial constraint of assuming technology is constant? In not necessarily one to hope that tech will automatically bail us out, of the growth in the previous decades has been from tech innovations like automation.
Technology has a ceiling for a given time, across the world, which is really what you're competing with in a globalized economy. Which is to say that more technology isn't a solution out of a demographic hole, when you're competing with a country that has the same technology and better demographics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear power is indeed a silver bullet. France supplied > 85% of its electricity demand with nuclear (with the rest being filled by pre-existing hydroelectricity). As is hydroelectricity and geothermal power for those countries with the appropriate geography. E.g. Norward produces 100% of electricity through hydro. Non-intermittent sources of energy don't need to be supplemented by alternative sources of energy.
Whenever a cold spell hits France 10 GW of fossil production is started and 15 GW of exports turns to 5 GW of fossil based imports. The French grid would collapse without 30 GW of fossil based production to manage cold spells.
This is Frances' electricity generation breakdown: https://aleasoft.com/france-leading-european-nuclear-energy-...
Fossil fuels are 7%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whenever a cold spell hits France 10 GW of fossil production is started and 15 GW of exports turns to 5 GW of fossil based imports. The French grid would collapse without 30 GW of fossil based production to manage cold spells.
Using absolute units instead of proportional figures is deceptive. This is Frances' electricity generation breakdown: https://aleasoft.com/france-leading-european-nuclear-energy-... Fossil fuels are 7%.
You said:
> Non-intermittent sources of energy don't need to be supplemented by alternative sources of energy.
Like I said the. The French grid would crash during cold spells if not supplemented with 30 GW of fossil fueled power production.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you don't like that one, though it did talk about massive insolvency in the real estate. Here's another from 2022: https://uschinatoday.org/features/2022/01/11/cities-lost-in-...
It's not that I "don't like that one" - it was a tweet containing a headline that looked like it linked to an article about Ghost Cities but actually linked to something else entirely, and you didn't realise because you didn't open it. Maybe it hinted at other problems in China, I am certain there are many problems there! But you wanted to make a point about ghost cities, and this article didn't make that point. And…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using absolute units instead of proportional figures is deceptive. This is Frances' electricity generation breakdown: https://aleasoft.com/france-leading-european-nuclear-energy-... Fossil fuels are 7%.
Why are you lying then? Why are you attempting to shift the topic? You said: > Non-intermittent sources of energy don't need to be supplemented by alternative sources of energy. Like I said the. The French grid would crash during cold spells if not supplemented with 30 GW of fossil fueled power production.
I'd suggest reading people's comments in greater detail, before accusing people of lying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right - I included the bottom line on trade. There's plenty more context in the article, and only a small sliver is at all good for the Brexiteer. Everyone agrees it's been between 6-30% worse on the trade front, and the OBR estimate is middle-of-the-road in that regard. Enjoy the kool-aid.
"Everyone". Everyone said there would be a run on the pound as well. Stay delusional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you lying then? Why are you attempting to shift the topic? You said: > Non-intermittent sources of energy don't need to be supplemented by alternative sources of energy. Like I said the. The French grid would crash during cold spells if not supplemented with 30 GW of fossil fueled power production.
They could always build more nuclear plants to fill additional demand. Again, non intermittent sources don't need supplemental sources of energy, as long as there's sufficient supply. By comparison, a country cannot possibly run their grid entirely with solar on account of intermittency. I'd suggest reading people's comments in greater detail, before accusing people of lying.
Lazard expects peakers to run at 10-15% capacity factor because you know, how often do we have cold spells in France or whatever other reason causes them to run? A couple of weeks a year at most. Lets say 15%.
Lets calculate what Hinkley Point C costs when running as a peaker. It has a CFD at $170/MWh for 30 years. Lets assume it runs at a 85% capacity factor and that $20/MWh are O&M costs.
153/0.15 + 20 = $1040/MWh
You want to solve the problem by forcing electricity costs on the consumers at double of the peak of the energy crisis.
All because you view the world in nuclear fanclub fantasy land glasses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could always build more nuclear plants to fill additional demand. Again, non intermittent sources don't need supplemental sources of energy, as long as there's sufficient supply. By comparison, a country cannot possibly run their grid entirely with solar on account of intermittency. I'd suggest reading people's comments in greater detail, before accusing people of lying.
So now you suggest that we should build peaking nuclear plants in an attempt at covering your previous blunder with pure insanity. Lazard expects peakers to run at 10-15% capacity factor because you know, how often do we have cold spells in France or whatever other reason causes them to run? A couple of weeks a year at most. Lets say 15%. Lets calculate what Hinkley Point C costs when running as a peaker. It has a CF…
You're right that nuclear is more expensive than continuing to burn fossil fuels. And the reality is nobody has a plan to build fossil fuel free grid based on wind and solar. Absent a miraculous breakthrough in energy storage, solar and wind will always have to be deployed in tandem with fossil fuels. If we're looking at actually eliminating carbon emissions, nuclear is the only viable option besides geographically limited sources like hydropower.