I don't know which bubble you're in, but since Elon took over, Twitter became absolutely unusable.
The decline happened with bots flooding the platform, with the "creator reward" program rewarding meaningless engagement bait, and with people who I respect in the Tech bubble leaving the platform, which led to an even faster decline.
That was just not the case before the takeover; back then, you would enjoy scrolling through it, engage in authentic conversations, and learn a thing or two.
The Greens were not in Office when the nuclear exit was decided 2011.
The Greens actually prolonged their life time during Covid, after RWE, EON and EnBW argued that it does not make sense economically to let them run longer.
No insurer wanted to insure nuclear, and no energy company wanted to keep losing money on nuclear.
Since nuclear is the most expensive form of energy generation, it makes sense to switch it off first.
> No insurer wanted to insure nuclear, and no energy company wanted to keep losing money on nuclear.
The German government(s) helped kickstart the global solar price drop by their subsidy programs in the early 2000s that allowed for economies of scale, so I'm surprised that—if they're really worried about climate change—they would not subsidize the alleged expenses of running the low-carbon generation of nuclear.
> Since nuclear is the most expensive form of energy generation, it makes sense to switch it off first.
It's so expensive that prices in France, which generates >60% of power with nuclear, are at the same levels (or lower) as Germany, while producing less carbon per kWh than Germany (a quarter from some articles I've found).
See perhaps:
> […] Alternatively, Germany could have kept the existing nuclear power in 2002 and possibly invest in new nuclear capacity. The analysis of these two alternatives shows that Germany could have reached its climate gas emission target by achieving a 73% cut in emissions on top of the achievements in 2022 and simultaneously cut the spending in half compared to Energiewende. Thus, Germany should have adopted an energy policy based on keeping and expanding nuclear power.
Politically that would have been done how? I think in restropect removing nuclear powerplants that make awful targets in a conflict doesn't strike me as a bad choice either.
> Politically that would have been done how? I think in restropect removing nuclear powerplants that make awful targets in a conflict doesn't strike me as a bad choice either.
The only people causing conflict is Russia, and Germany had to be dragged kicking and screaming in shutting down Russian supply pipelines, so don't go talking about "security" when the actions from Berlin showed there was zero consideration for it:
Actually no, or unlikely, since it’s a massive escalation. Even in Ukraine Russia does not strike the nuclear plants. They strike all the other power plants though.
The chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Saturday expressed "serious concern" after Moscow accused Ukrainian forces of launching a drone attack on the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in southern Ukraine
> It's so expensive that prices in France, which generates >60% of power with nuclear, are at the same levels (or lower) as Germany, while producing less carbon per kWh than Germany (a quarter from some articles I've found).
Maybe you should take a closer look how those prices come to be.
Every single nuclear watt is being subsidised and has been for decades.
Last time they wanted to play the free market game, they had to bring the company back into the forgiving hands of the French taxpayer.
I have rather Germany invest into future tech then waste it on rotting reactors which are obviously unfit for the current state of global warming already.
Nuclear was clogging up the grid with it's expensive energy. It is gone now and the grid is diversifying while it follows the path of complete decarbonisation.
There is absolutely no reason to look back for Germany and only those whose ideology is "looking back" seriously do that currently.
The difference is that Germany's investments in renewables at a time when they were still expensive helped to create an economy of scale, which brought down prices for everyone and helped trigger a huge amount of investments worldwide. France build an unsustainable nuclear industry that was forced to sell electricity below cost and had to be renationalized to survive.
> Every single nuclear watt is being subsidised and has been for decades.
This is just plain false. In the 1990s and early 2000s, EDF was generating a whole lot of profit, which it wanted to reinvest. The governments of the time (both left and right) said: "Nope! We’ll take that, thank you." As a result EDF stopped making new nuclear plants and, most importantly, new nuclear engineers and technicians. When the government suddenly decided to have EDF build a new plant 15 years later, the 1980s generation was all but gone, the industrial know-how had vanished, and thi construction costs very logically skyrocketed. Oh, and in the meantime EDF had been (and still is) forced to sell electricity to its competitors under production cost.
Can coal plants buy insurance against global warming? Can a hydroelectric dam buy insurance against downstream flooding?
Very few things in the power grid has insurance against major accidents. It is even doubtful for example if a forest fires caused by transmission lines will be repaid in full by the insurance of the power company, and to the degree that will pay all costs to property and land owners
I agree with everything you say, but the initial "Atomausstieg" was decided in 2000/put into law in 2002, when the Greens were in office. The exit was delayed in 2010 (and then accelerated again in 2011) by the CDU/CSU/FDP, but the initial decision for the exit was very with involvement of the Green party
Funny how Vue Vapor 3.6 beta and Ripple 0.3 show the exact same performance (1.0) as Octane, but their bars are a tiny bit longer so the Octane team can pretend to have a justification to put their implementation on top.
We just run a script that runs the benchmarks and updates the chart. It’s rounds numbers too. We’ve been as honest as possible in all the benchmarks - there’s no point in lying about a metric.
Only if "the aggregate revenue of the Licensee and its affiliates exceeds 20 million US dollars (or the equivalent in other currencies) in total over any consecutive 12 months"
Pasta should be made of whole durum wheat.. which is 12g/100g. What's this "good" you speak of? There's certainly worse (soft white/red flour with germ/bran removed), but where do we find the +3g?
> Each of the hundreds of varieties of wheat cultivated in the United States falls under one of six classes depending on its planting time, harvest, hardiness, color and shape. The protein content of these wheat varieties ranges from 10 to 15 percent; durum wheat is the second highest. One hundred grams of durum wheat has 13.68 grams of protein; soft red winter wheat has 10.35 grams; soft white wheat contains 10.69 grams; hard white wheat has 11.31 grams; and 100 grams of hard red winter wheat has 12.61. The highest protein content occurs in hard red spring wheat, which contains 15.4 grams of protein per 100 grams.
The brand that uses khorasan wheat in some versions? Yeah they're a little higher (14.7g/100g). We're stretching the definition of pasta now (it's certainly the highest protein grain you can find)
They do, but they have to use the standard numbers for durum (like everyone else, even growers - individual berries vary, of course). The only one I can find with these high numbers is the khorasan wheat versions[0].
I think my comment is being misunderstood. I don't think AI music has any value. I'm just calling out that Tidal's right and left hands are saying two different things. The left hand: AI music has no monetary value. The right hand: AI music is valuable enough to host on the platform. This is the schism that doesn't make sense to me.
Isn't it easier to just .. start loving it instead?