I'm yet to see any evidence that that particular meat based glue is actually harmful in any way. The only argument against it was "it looks disgusting". No one ever argued that it was harmful - not even the certain celebrity cook who made a lot of money of the controversy. The problem here is consumer protection, and the reason why EU has banned all mechanically separated meat, including "pink slime" type is because it's considered to be a meat of much lower quality than what it was sold added to without labeling. As a result, consumer was fooled into buying meat that was of much lower quality (mechanically separated meat of any kind) than what was assumed based on what is stated on the label (meat separated by conventional methods). The only health based issue ever raised with it was Canadian problem with using ammonia during production of the meat, which was forbidden for entirely different reasons and just happened to extend to this particular product. There is no peer reviewed evidence that mechanically separated meat is a health problem. It's a consumer protection problem however, and should be treated as such.
Transfats are considered harmful when consumed in large dosage (they are legal in EU as well for example, within limits). FDA has typically been more conservative than its EU colleagues in regulating food over statistical increase from large scale consumption, due to different concepts of personal freedom across the regions as well as different levels of corporate pressure.
Antibiotics in farm animals are not harmful to humans and are in fact beneficial by suppressing most virulent strains that are more likely to infect humans. This has been proven long ago. The issue that is often raised is that having so much antibiotics fed to farm animals causes development of resistant strains of bacteria, that might be able to jump species and infect humans, causing severe potential epidemic as a result as antibiotics would be inefficient on these types of bacteria. FDA, like its EU counterparts does not issue bans based on incomplete evidence, and real evaluation of the risk is yet to be done due to extreme complexity of the analysis. At the same time there is work done, within those agencies and outside to find a solution to the issue, ranging from different farming practices to split species and prevent chances of cross-species infection (mutation) which is one of the main reasons why most of the highly efficient farms are actually a much lower risk of starting an epidemic than small scale "many species in one place" farms that are often advertised as being better at it in PR. AFAIK almost all known outbreaks so far have been traced to such small farms. There's also some very promising work with other forms of animal biome management, such as feeding them probiotics that empower benign and beneficial bacteria which will occupy harmful bacteria's niche protecting the animal. So they are working on the long term solution, while the short term solution in place (animal splitting and efficient farming) has proven to hold quite well so far. As a result, there's no reason for outright ban.
You just took a big shit on the entire medical profession. As someone who had a pleasure to work with doctors for about a year's stint in the army, I would like to tell you a heartful "fuck you asshole".
Most of the people who go into medical profession take it very seriously. And unlike assholes like you, they actually have the knowledge, real scientific one, not based on hearsay, google and self study without context. As a result, they are in a far, FAR better position to make medical decisions on your behalf, unless you hide things from them, denying them knowledge necessary for your treatment. Which is often the case with your type, as you "do not trust the doctors", causing them to make bad judgments by not providing them with relevant information, which you use as a reason to trust them even less. A self feeding delusion.
Frankly, I do not mind you hurting yourself in this way. It's your body, if you want to shove your dick in the shredder shouting "I trust my judgment over the safety manual, I have a dick of titanium and balls of steel!" it's your choice. If you want to choose to ignore professional medical advice in favor of unproven methods, go ahead. Again your choice. The only people I do feel sorry for are the people who will be influenced by your stupidity and may end up suffering needlessly as a result.
That's pretty much up in the air, and pointedly that kind sexual misconduct that is in question doesn't even exist in laws... well anywhere outside Sweden really. Certainly not in UK. Heck, even in Sweden prosecutor that wasn't buckling for femnazi publicity dropped the case. Than another one who really wanted it picked the case up and started the shitstorm. Or was asked to by special interests, who thoroughly infiltrated Swedish prosecutors office at that point because of all the IP enforcement pressure.
Yes, UN is actually a tool of illuminati. Also, your local electric company is the part of the same conspiracy, pumping mind control waves though your house wiring and right into your brain!
Except that I stood next to several transformers with HVDC. That were a decade old or so. Wikipedia page talks about US, which is known for a very, VERY old grid technology, due to the fact that there was no interest whatsoever to upgrade "what works". Until 2003 woke a lot of people up for a short while. After which, when it didn't repeat itself, they fell asleep again.
US grid is basically built and is maintained on 50s tech. AFAIK they're still on analogue meters across substations. Much of Western Europe moved to digital a while ago.
Not going to even bother with "they're not saying what they are saying" argument. That is just a hilarious case of spin doctoring. I don't much care to answer stuff like that as you can't win - you'll just keep claiming that "you're not saying what you're saying" as well, and that would kill any logic and sanity in the argument in the bud.
So you don't actually work with grids - you just had it explained to you by people that do. That explains a lot. You have superficial information, but you don't connect it to reality. That explains a lot of your misconceptions.
A couple of hints: Electricity going any meaningful distance from a plant is not AC in a modern grid. Older grids like in US? Sure. But elsewhere it's going to be a DC high voltage line - HVDC. Only shorter transmissions are HVAC, usually three phase which needs a transformer as well. This is because of inherent problems with AC that can cause it to have more problems with wire resistivity and issues with frequency control that tend to cause things like cascading failures over the entire grid. Most big power plants have AD/DC converters sitting right in their substation. Most large substations responsible for region coverage have DC/AC converters doing the same thing. This is because it's more efficient to transmit HVDC over HVAC so that losses are actually smaller in spite of conversion losses on two way conversion. At the same time, switching to DC effectively improves grid stability as local phase control issues resulting from brown and blackouts do not affect the grid beyond AC/DC converter.
Inter-regional transmission for bigger cities will be HVAC. That is why such network are more prone to cascading failures. The reason why I was talking about HVDC is because it's one of the staples of more modern grid - modern transformers actually have around 95% efficiency of AD/DC and DC/AC conversion, making it generally economically sensible to convert as much of high voltage lines to DC as possible. In olden times when larger grids like US one were build, the losses were often well over 10%, which made it much less sensible over shorter distances.
A good example of why a HVDC is better is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_North_American_blackout. The ultimate cause was overload that caused HVAC transmission lines to go out of phase due to overload, trip breakers and cause a cascading failure. HVDC lines do not carry this risk - there is no phase to go out of. Lines would have likely overheated and caught fire eventually, but not before routing would have caught up and rerouted power or shut down local transformer stations to reduce load. Also known as grid balance. And I'm happy I never had to be working with US grid, because it's god damn ancient in comparison to what we have in Europe, due to the fact that they basically chose to not spend any money on upgrades for a long time, and just replace old stuff mostly with the same cheap old stuff that they found to "work well enough". Except that it's not good enough anymore due to spot generation and it's about damn time they started upgrading their national grid.
To summarize the original, long forgotten argument that ignited this entire chain of discussion: Things that make network more prone to cascading failures, such as things that cause spike in the grid, or make it able to propagate more efficiently impact grid stability in a negative way. Things that do the opposite impact the grid in a positive way. As a result, solar and wind spot generation does in fact impact grid stability in a negative way. Can't get out of that one, unless we use your argument of "no spot generation for them then!" That certainly does solve the problem on paper. And in reality, it certainly solves the problem of "being able to sell solar and wind to households"...
Finally, it's not my interpretation. It's what they are saying. Literally. One of the major parts of deals on energiewende is based on the fact that "we need to upgrade our grid to modern technology to enable spot generation on massive scale". You can't get out of that one with populist bullshit.
I am taking it seriously, unlike you. You are telling us that we have smart grid already. Reality is, we do not. Our grid is still built on standard star topology, where DC lines bring in the power and AC lines spread it over the region. We do not have the control systems built in the grid... well anywhere really. There have been some pilot deployments, and that's pretty much it. The biggest smart grid deployment currently in existence, as far as I'm aware is in China, where Honeywell scored a huge contract to develop smart grid for China. Another big project is developlment in Germany as a part of Energiewende. Everything else is marginal to nonexistent.
Reason is clear too - costs. Sure we can stick a digital meter on every transformer and every household, and equip them with communication equipment to report these readings to a data center that will process the data and control the power feed. It's just that the cost would be astronomical, and likely not worth the (potentially big) savings.
So again, I ask you those two questions that you keep on dodging, and that keep demolishing any semblance of respectability you have:
1. Who are you to say that all the experts are wrong and you alone are right? 2. Which country do you live in that you have smart grids deployed everywhere?
Automation: Current spinning reserve is dedicated to "catching up" spikes from large power plants falling off the grid. I.e. catching up the lack in DC high voltage lines. They are not designed to catch up sudden fall off from local spot generation in AC lines. Substations and their automation is currently not designed for that. We have the designs. They're not implemented anywhere in the large countries. They are simply too costly to implement without a pressing need. Functionality of solar/wind: They do in fact lose power and gain power all at once across the region. This is because solar get hit by clouds at approximately the same time, while wind tends to have similar upper and lower tolerance limits for its gearbox, resulting in generation stopping across the entire region at the same time. Response time of spinning reserve: it's designed to catch up faults of large power plants falling off the grid (i.e. emergency reactor scramble of a nuke). As a result, it's controlled by automation designed to detect faults in DC lines first and foremost, not AC lines. Net metered solar/wind causes brownouts and blackouts in AC lines first, which means that by the time spinning reserve caught up, entire substation controlling that part of the grid may have taken itself off the grid already.
Let me ask the question that you keep on dodging. Why is it that you think that you are right, and all the best and brightest minds in the industry who insist that huge investments in the grids of today are necessary to enable spot generation are wrong? Why do you think that necessary automation has already been rolled out when everyone from wind and solar makers to grid utility companies to university professors keeps telling us that it's not?
What country are you from? US and most of EU's grid is ancient, still mostly using 50s and 60s designs. Germany is currently in process of upgrading its grid to enable spot generation. It's costing it billions of euros.
So I ask again. Which country is actually ready for widespread spot generation? It certainly isn't any of economic power houses of the world - US, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Russia, China, Brazil and Australia are all not ready for it.
UN isn't a governing body. It's a collection of diplomats from around the globe.
What could happen is US getting pushed out of certain diplomatic circles, causing decline in its ability to leverage its influence over issues important to it. The loss is not the type that is easily evident to average citizen - but consequences of that loss usually are, as they can be for example about a US company not getting deals it needs to get or losing bids or even getting its property nationalized abroad, things like that. Diplomatic pressure is one of the main ways of ensuring that your national interests are taken into account abroad. Losing ability to apply it can be crippling in certain scenarios, or force you to take a much less efficient, and less functional means of accomplishing the same task.
Then there's the general aspect of know-who. A lot of things are done on upper level though people who know people. When you're cut out of certain aspects of diplomacy, this particular resource dwindles fast.
Actually I'm talking crap. I just rotated the whole idea in my head and requirements in addition to live smart metering would be: 1. Additional localized hot reserve power for loss of power across region due to downward spike. 2. Significantly more complex automation logic on grid and substation level, as they would not only have to balance load on the DC line vs AC line, but within AC line as well based on feedback from both the grid and smart meters across the area.
I give up. You have now aggressively running strawman arguments on multiple fronts. Signal clarity? What? We're talking about power input/output in the grid.
And on the funniest note: you are actively arguing AGAINST solar and wind right now. If either one is not allowed to include net metering in their ROI calculations, which is your suggestion, much of their market would collapse overnight.
But you're too ignorant to understand even this. It's pretty sad really, that in your drive to show that solar and wind are better then they are, you are arguing that they are worse than they are.
The last thing that US wants to do is to start sending threatening signals to any involved. US wants to stay out of this mess. It has nothing to win, and a lot to lose by getting dragged into this ancient fight over what is essentially fishing and drilling rights in a disputed region claimed by several of its allies as well as China.
If you really think that US will get into a shooting war against China over this, I have good news for you. They won't. This is classic East Asian saber rattling where everyone in the region will extract a lot of internal good will towards governments taking "tough stance on old regional enemy", and status quo will remain. It's a bit like the current situation with the islands, where reporters from western news agencies were able to go take photos of the islands in spite of Japanese prohibition, as long as they didn't tell japanese coast guard watching them that they did it.
This is about preserving face for all parties involved. Even the dumbest, most warmongering politician in US will not want to get in the middle of that.
They're the biggest ethnic minority, while being the most wealthy and educated one. Not to mention they're still the biggest ethnic group among the new immigrants. If you try for a violent breakoff, you'll have a hell of an internal problem on your hands.
They have massive cash reserves that come from having huge surplus in their trade balance for many years. Not bonds - money. These are the funds they are using to buy basically whatever they are allowed world wide today.
It's still far from trivial, which you do not seem to grasp. Seriously, you are actively trying to tell that you, with your engineering degree and experience from 1994 can comfortably tell people who are the best and brightest in the industry today that they are ALL wrong.
In fact, if you are correct, you should be writing Bundestag today with your findings ASAP. You would be pulling tens of thousands out of energy poverty if you are correct, and likely making tens to hundreds of millions with your solution saving the state billions they are currently spending.
My guess is that you are in fact utterly clueless on the subject. Reasons ranging from your dated experience in 1994 when we didn't have the problem yet (it didn't start surfacing until recently, and surprised people running grids enough that we had quite a few brownouts and blackouts around the world because of it) to your lying about your actual experience and education. It's hard to guess, but considering that you are calling the solution "trivial", I have to guess you're completely removed from reality of today. Or working in a company where investment of a few billions is considered "trivial". Which is pretty much nowhere in the world as far as I know.
Immigration. Same as has been going on many times before. Han generally don't ethnically cleanse if they do not have to. They have enough people willing to simply immigrate into the region and slowly turn it into theirs democratically.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm yet to see any evidence that that particular meat based glue is actually harmful in any way. The only argument against it was "it looks disgusting". No one ever argued that it was harmful - not even the certain celebrity cook who made a lot of money of the controversy.
The problem here is consumer protection, and the reason why EU has banned all mechanically separated meat, including "pink slime" type is because it's considered to be a meat of much lower quality than what it was sold added to without labeling. As a result, consumer was fooled into buying meat that was of much lower quality (mechanically separated meat of any kind) than what was assumed based on what is stated on the label (meat separated by conventional methods).
The only health based issue ever raised with it was Canadian problem with using ammonia during production of the meat, which was forbidden for entirely different reasons and just happened to extend to this particular product. There is no peer reviewed evidence that mechanically separated meat is a health problem. It's a consumer protection problem however, and should be treated as such.
Transfats are considered harmful when consumed in large dosage (they are legal in EU as well for example, within limits). FDA has typically been more conservative than its EU colleagues in regulating food over statistical increase from large scale consumption, due to different concepts of personal freedom across the regions as well as different levels of corporate pressure.
Antibiotics in farm animals are not harmful to humans and are in fact beneficial by suppressing most virulent strains that are more likely to infect humans. This has been proven long ago. The issue that is often raised is that having so much antibiotics fed to farm animals causes development of resistant strains of bacteria, that might be able to jump species and infect humans, causing severe potential epidemic as a result as antibiotics would be inefficient on these types of bacteria. FDA, like its EU counterparts does not issue bans based on incomplete evidence, and real evaluation of the risk is yet to be done due to extreme complexity of the analysis.
At the same time there is work done, within those agencies and outside to find a solution to the issue, ranging from different farming practices to split species and prevent chances of cross-species infection (mutation) which is one of the main reasons why most of the highly efficient farms are actually a much lower risk of starting an epidemic than small scale "many species in one place" farms that are often advertised as being better at it in PR. AFAIK almost all known outbreaks so far have been traced to such small farms.
There's also some very promising work with other forms of animal biome management, such as feeding them probiotics that empower benign and beneficial bacteria which will occupy harmful bacteria's niche protecting the animal. So they are working on the long term solution, while the short term solution in place (animal splitting and efficient farming) has proven to hold quite well so far. As a result, there's no reason for outright ban.
You just took a big shit on the entire medical profession. As someone who had a pleasure to work with doctors for about a year's stint in the army, I would like to tell you a heartful "fuck you asshole".
Most of the people who go into medical profession take it very seriously. And unlike assholes like you, they actually have the knowledge, real scientific one, not based on hearsay, google and self study without context. As a result, they are in a far, FAR better position to make medical decisions on your behalf, unless you hide things from them, denying them knowledge necessary for your treatment. Which is often the case with your type, as you "do not trust the doctors", causing them to make bad judgments by not providing them with relevant information, which you use as a reason to trust them even less. A self feeding delusion.
Frankly, I do not mind you hurting yourself in this way. It's your body, if you want to shove your dick in the shredder shouting "I trust my judgment over the safety manual, I have a dick of titanium and balls of steel!" it's your choice. If you want to choose to ignore professional medical advice in favor of unproven methods, go ahead. Again your choice. The only people I do feel sorry for are the people who will be influenced by your stupidity and may end up suffering needlessly as a result.
Had an unfortunate mishap during masturbation and hanged himself from his balls on the nearest lamppost. Completely accidental.
Indeed. It would take airplane minutes to get to the terminal after landing. That is a lot of seconds!
It would also send a good message on "what we do with you fuckers who dare to tell our dirty secrets to the public".
That's pretty much up in the air, and pointedly that kind sexual misconduct that is in question doesn't even exist in laws... well anywhere outside Sweden really. Certainly not in UK. Heck, even in Sweden prosecutor that wasn't buckling for femnazi publicity dropped the case. Than another one who really wanted it picked the case up and started the shitstorm. Or was asked to by special interests, who thoroughly infiltrated Swedish prosecutors office at that point because of all the IP enforcement pressure.
Because word of law has significant impact on supralegal organizations and their actions...
Yes, UN is actually a tool of illuminati. Also, your local electric company is the part of the same conspiracy, pumping mind control waves though your house wiring and right into your brain!
Or what passes as one anyway.
Except that I stood next to several transformers with HVDC. That were a decade old or so. Wikipedia page talks about US, which is known for a very, VERY old grid technology, due to the fact that there was no interest whatsoever to upgrade "what works". Until 2003 woke a lot of people up for a short while. After which, when it didn't repeat itself, they fell asleep again.
US grid is basically built and is maintained on 50s tech. AFAIK they're still on analogue meters across substations. Much of Western Europe moved to digital a while ago.
Not going to even bother with "they're not saying what they are saying" argument. That is just a hilarious case of spin doctoring. I don't much care to answer stuff like that as you can't win - you'll just keep claiming that "you're not saying what you're saying" as well, and that would kill any logic and sanity in the argument in the bud.
So you don't actually work with grids - you just had it explained to you by people that do. That explains a lot. You have superficial information, but you don't connect it to reality. That explains a lot of your misconceptions.
A couple of hints:
Electricity going any meaningful distance from a plant is not AC in a modern grid. Older grids like in US? Sure. But elsewhere it's going to be a DC high voltage line - HVDC. Only shorter transmissions are HVAC, usually three phase which needs a transformer as well. This is because of inherent problems with AC that can cause it to have more problems with wire resistivity and issues with frequency control that tend to cause things like cascading failures over the entire grid. Most big power plants have AD/DC converters sitting right in their substation. Most large substations responsible for region coverage have DC/AC converters doing the same thing. This is because it's more efficient to transmit HVDC over HVAC so that losses are actually smaller in spite of conversion losses on two way conversion. At the same time, switching to DC effectively improves grid stability as local phase control issues resulting from brown and blackouts do not affect the grid beyond AC/DC converter.
Inter-regional transmission for bigger cities will be HVAC. That is why such network are more prone to cascading failures. The reason why I was talking about HVDC is because it's one of the staples of more modern grid - modern transformers actually have around 95% efficiency of AD/DC and DC/AC conversion, making it generally economically sensible to convert as much of high voltage lines to DC as possible. In olden times when larger grids like US one were build, the losses were often well over 10%, which made it much less sensible over shorter distances.
A good example of why a HVDC is better is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_North_American_blackout. The ultimate cause was overload that caused HVAC transmission lines to go out of phase due to overload, trip breakers and cause a cascading failure. HVDC lines do not carry this risk - there is no phase to go out of. Lines would have likely overheated and caught fire eventually, but not before routing would have caught up and rerouted power or shut down local transformer stations to reduce load. Also known as grid balance. And I'm happy I never had to be working with US grid, because it's god damn ancient in comparison to what we have in Europe, due to the fact that they basically chose to not spend any money on upgrades for a long time, and just replace old stuff mostly with the same cheap old stuff that they found to "work well enough". Except that it's not good enough anymore due to spot generation and it's about damn time they started upgrading their national grid.
To summarize the original, long forgotten argument that ignited this entire chain of discussion: Things that make network more prone to cascading failures, such as things that cause spike in the grid, or make it able to propagate more efficiently impact grid stability in a negative way. Things that do the opposite impact the grid in a positive way. As a result, solar and wind spot generation does in fact impact grid stability in a negative way. Can't get out of that one, unless we use your argument of "no spot generation for them then!" That certainly does solve the problem on paper. And in reality, it certainly solves the problem of "being able to sell solar and wind to households"...
Finally, it's not my interpretation. It's what they are saying. Literally. One of the major parts of deals on energiewende is based on the fact that "we need to upgrade our grid to modern technology to enable spot generation on massive scale". You can't get out of that one with populist bullshit.
I am taking it seriously, unlike you. You are telling us that we have smart grid already. Reality is, we do not. Our grid is still built on standard star topology, where DC lines bring in the power and AC lines spread it over the region. We do not have the control systems built in the grid... well anywhere really. There have been some pilot deployments, and that's pretty much it. The biggest smart grid deployment currently in existence, as far as I'm aware is in China, where Honeywell scored a huge contract to develop smart grid for China. Another big project is developlment in Germany as a part of Energiewende. Everything else is marginal to nonexistent.
Reason is clear too - costs. Sure we can stick a digital meter on every transformer and every household, and equip them with communication equipment to report these readings to a data center that will process the data and control the power feed. It's just that the cost would be astronomical, and likely not worth the (potentially big) savings.
So again, I ask you those two questions that you keep on dodging, and that keep demolishing any semblance of respectability you have:
1. Who are you to say that all the experts are wrong and you alone are right?
2. Which country do you live in that you have smart grids deployed everywhere?
Correct. Problems you ignore:
Automation: Current spinning reserve is dedicated to "catching up" spikes from large power plants falling off the grid. I.e. catching up the lack in DC high voltage lines. They are not designed to catch up sudden fall off from local spot generation in AC lines. Substations and their automation is currently not designed for that. We have the designs. They're not implemented anywhere in the large countries. They are simply too costly to implement without a pressing need.
Functionality of solar/wind: They do in fact lose power and gain power all at once across the region. This is because solar get hit by clouds at approximately the same time, while wind tends to have similar upper and lower tolerance limits for its gearbox, resulting in generation stopping across the entire region at the same time.
Response time of spinning reserve: it's designed to catch up faults of large power plants falling off the grid (i.e. emergency reactor scramble of a nuke). As a result, it's controlled by automation designed to detect faults in DC lines first and foremost, not AC lines. Net metered solar/wind causes brownouts and blackouts in AC lines first, which means that by the time spinning reserve caught up, entire substation controlling that part of the grid may have taken itself off the grid already.
Let me ask the question that you keep on dodging. Why is it that you think that you are right, and all the best and brightest minds in the industry who insist that huge investments in the grids of today are necessary to enable spot generation are wrong? Why do you think that necessary automation has already been rolled out when everyone from wind and solar makers to grid utility companies to university professors keeps telling us that it's not?
What country are you from? US and most of EU's grid is ancient, still mostly using 50s and 60s designs. Germany is currently in process of upgrading its grid to enable spot generation. It's costing it billions of euros.
So I ask again. Which country is actually ready for widespread spot generation? It certainly isn't any of economic power houses of the world - US, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Russia, China, Brazil and Australia are all not ready for it.
UN isn't a governing body. It's a collection of diplomats from around the globe.
What could happen is US getting pushed out of certain diplomatic circles, causing decline in its ability to leverage its influence over issues important to it. The loss is not the type that is easily evident to average citizen - but consequences of that loss usually are, as they can be for example about a US company not getting deals it needs to get or losing bids or even getting its property nationalized abroad, things like that. Diplomatic pressure is one of the main ways of ensuring that your national interests are taken into account abroad. Losing ability to apply it can be crippling in certain scenarios, or force you to take a much less efficient, and less functional means of accomplishing the same task.
Then there's the general aspect of know-who. A lot of things are done on upper level though people who know people. When you're cut out of certain aspects of diplomacy, this particular resource dwindles fast.
I'll... defer to your superior expertise on "rampant diarrhoea". Mostly because I really, REALLY don't want to find what that pair of words means =D
That's probably because gmail supports outlook, just tell it to fetch your email from pop.gmail.com:995 and you're golden.
This is an argument about a few rocks and economic right from EEZ around those islands. Let's not mix apples and tractors here.
Actually I'm talking crap. I just rotated the whole idea in my head and requirements in addition to live smart metering would be:
1. Additional localized hot reserve power for loss of power across region due to downward spike.
2. Significantly more complex automation logic on grid and substation level, as they would not only have to balance load on the DC line vs AC line, but within AC line as well based on feedback from both the grid and smart meters across the area.
It's trivial once you have live smart metering all over every single household in the grid.
Do you understand the costs of such an upgrade?
I give up. You have now aggressively running strawman arguments on multiple fronts. Signal clarity? What? We're talking about power input/output in the grid.
And on the funniest note: you are actively arguing AGAINST solar and wind right now. If either one is not allowed to include net metering in their ROI calculations, which is your suggestion, much of their market would collapse overnight.
But you're too ignorant to understand even this. It's pretty sad really, that in your drive to show that solar and wind are better then they are, you are arguing that they are worse than they are.
The last thing that US wants to do is to start sending threatening signals to any involved. US wants to stay out of this mess. It has nothing to win, and a lot to lose by getting dragged into this ancient fight over what is essentially fishing and drilling rights in a disputed region claimed by several of its allies as well as China.
If you really think that US will get into a shooting war against China over this, I have good news for you. They won't. This is classic East Asian saber rattling where everyone in the region will extract a lot of internal good will towards governments taking "tough stance on old regional enemy", and status quo will remain. It's a bit like the current situation with the islands, where reporters from western news agencies were able to go take photos of the islands in spite of Japanese prohibition, as long as they didn't tell japanese coast guard watching them that they did it.
This is about preserving face for all parties involved. Even the dumbest, most warmongering politician in US will not want to get in the middle of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Australian
They're the biggest ethnic minority, while being the most wealthy and educated one. Not to mention they're still the biggest ethnic group among the new immigrants. If you try for a violent breakoff, you'll have a hell of an internal problem on your hands.
They have massive cash reserves that come from having huge surplus in their trade balance for many years. Not bonds - money. These are the funds they are using to buy basically whatever they are allowed world wide today.
It's still far from trivial, which you do not seem to grasp. Seriously, you are actively trying to tell that you, with your engineering degree and experience from 1994 can comfortably tell people who are the best and brightest in the industry today that they are ALL wrong.
In fact, if you are correct, you should be writing Bundestag today with your findings ASAP. You would be pulling tens of thousands out of energy poverty if you are correct, and likely making tens to hundreds of millions with your solution saving the state billions they are currently spending.
My guess is that you are in fact utterly clueless on the subject. Reasons ranging from your dated experience in 1994 when we didn't have the problem yet (it didn't start surfacing until recently, and surprised people running grids enough that we had quite a few brownouts and blackouts around the world because of it) to your lying about your actual experience and education. It's hard to guess, but considering that you are calling the solution "trivial", I have to guess you're completely removed from reality of today. Or working in a company where investment of a few billions is considered "trivial". Which is pretty much nowhere in the world as far as I know.
Immigration. Same as has been going on many times before. Han generally don't ethnically cleanse if they do not have to. They have enough people willing to simply immigrate into the region and slowly turn it into theirs democratically.