Dr. MacKay is using the United Kingdom as an example but it would be easy to extrapolate to France or any other 1st world nation. He gives some examples in his talk.
The "Cliff Notes" version is this: Nuclear power produces 1000 W/m^2. Wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources produce something like 2.5 to 20 W/m^2. Consumption for UK, France, and many other European nations is about 1 W/m^2. So, if France wants to meet energy demands with wind, sun, and rain then they will have to cover at somewhere between 5% and 20% of it's land area with renewable energy producers. Or, they can use some other nation's land area, like Libya, if they ask nicely.
Using nuclear, on the other hand, takes very little of France's land, and that is where they get much of their energy now.
I'm pretty sure that the French are insane. If you have a counter example then please share with the rest of the class.
PS, Fukushima's problem was a lack of properly sited generators, which meant they were damaged in the Tsunami, which means that you can't assume that some hypothetical battery storage will work either.
I know that, you know that, but do think a gaggle of reporters know that? Or that they care? They'll eat it up like a trained dog getting a treat after doing a trick if it thinks it would please their masters, or they'll scream and run like frightened chickens if they think it serves them. Get a media darling like Musk involved and they'll likely find a reason to make this "a good thing".
And Vogtle? I'm familiar with it's recent troubles. As I recall Obama went there to speak about the future of nuclear power being bright, maybe that was a different nuclear reactor. Anyway, Obama changed his tune a bit on nuclear power after the election. Then Fukushima happened and shortly after Obama and his appointees kneecapped it. I keep hearing about how expensive nuclear power is, usually from Democrat politicians, when it's Democrat politicians making it so expensive. It's easy to make nuclear power expensive when you can throw wrenches in the works for six years. Nobody knows if it could have been made on time and under budget now. Fukushima was irrelevant to the safety of Vogtle, it's not on a fault line, or near the ocean.
You have it about right. My point is that as useful as a big battery can be to wind and solar it can be just as useful, or even more so, to nuclear power.
Big complaints on the use of nuclear power is safety and it's inability to load follow. A big battery would be helpful in addressing both issues.
I'll admit my knowledge may be dated so if you can provide a current source I'd appreciate it. Just looking at Wikipedia I see (in round numbers): 25% brown coal, 20% "hard coal" (not sure what that means), 15% nuclear, 10% natural gas, and 35% from renewable wind/hydro/bio/solar. (I know, not 100%, I said I rounded.)
So a plurality of electricity comes from brown coal. A majority or very large minority from fossil fuels. Maybe half from "zero carbon" nuclear and other? If Germany has been spending decades getting off of burning brown coal then they've been doing it VERY slowly, or were burning just mountains of the stuff for a long time. You'd think that they'd be doing a bit better than this after making such a fuss about it, don't you?
In the USA, by comparison, is roughly 1/3rd each, coal, natural gas, and "zero carbon" sources. Natural gas produces almost half the carbon as coal, and very little sulfur and other pollutants. On the balance the USA seems to be dong pretty good on it's carbon footprint, Id think. A lot of that has to do with nuclear power. We may have stagnated on nuclear but we don't plant on going backwards like many other places in the world.
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.
That was in 1786, the USA that we know today did not exist until 1789. They've been at war with the USA even before it existed. I'd rather they didn't get our money to continue that war. Without their petrodollars they'd likely revert to their habits from the 600s. I'm not too concerned about why they hack each other to pieces so long as they do it over there.
I look forward to the day we don't have to care about what some sultan says about the price of oil. With the USA exporting oil now that day may come very soon.
How do Americans finish high school knowing literally nothing about the world outside their borders ?
To get government money US high schools have to teach American history, not world history. I studied computer science and engineering in college, so it's not like I had to know any history to graduate. I did however take electives in Spanish (not history exactly but we had to know something about the Spanish culture to pass), Western History (centered on Europe from 1789 to 1989), and a course on the history of technology, so I consider myself likely to be better educated about world history than the average American, as pathetic that might sound to you. Since there was not a lot of technology exported from the Middle East I didn't concern myself with what happened there, except when it intersected with America and Europe. Seems to me that things are generally peachy for us Americans so long as there is not one unified empire there.
I assume the Australian state government did an analysis. It could be that they did find a cheaper and/or better solution, only they are betting that Tesla cannot deliver on time. If the margin is small enough then why not take that bet?
Also, would it be all that bad for Tesla if they were late? Imagine the headline, "Tesla gives away largest battery in the world!"
Then you have Mr. Musk with a big grin on his face on TV saying something like, "Yes, it's true. We gave away a very large battery because we missed a contractually agreed upon deadline. Other than that the customer is very pleased, they got it for free after all, and the battery works flawlessly. Only next time we don't take marketing advise from Dominoes Pizza!" Everyone laughs and then it's forgotten about a week later, if not sooner.
Imagine a Q&A during an announcement of breaking ground on a new nuclear power plant.
Reporter: Would you care to comment on the recent meltdown at the Springfield nuclear power plant? Person at podium: Oh, that was terrible and I feel sad for all those people displaced and otherwise affected. However we've made a deal with Tesla for their new battery backup system so nothing like that can happen here. We'll have enough reserve power on site to run the lights, computers, sensors, fire fighting systems, and cooling pumps for two days.
People believe new batteries are what wind and solar need to be replace coal and nuclear power. I believe that technology like this will help nuclear power more than it could wind or solar. A lack of a power source capable of running the cooling pumps was what killed the reactors at Fukushima. Chernobyl didn't have such a problem but that was (effectively) an experimental dual use (for energy or weapons production) reactor, it also lacked a protective dome that would be required had it been built anywhere else. Any new reactor would not likely even need a separate power source to shutdown safely but a big battery like this would be very useful for peak load management. It'd also look good to regulators, to the public, and look good for Tesla.
(Yes, I realize that I typed "power" when "energy" would be (more) correct, I just imagine that's how someone at a podium would speak to reporters.)
NyQuil, Dramamine, benadryl can all out children to sleep.
I have no doubt but: 1) I checked the labels of the allergy meds I have in my cupboard and looked at child dosages, I saw variations on "Do not use" or "Ask a physician". 2) Assuming you can get someone to write a prescription I would imagine using this in a not as prescribed manner, getting the kid to sleep in a car during the day as opposed to sleeping in a bed at night, is child abuse. 3) Without a prescription or trained medical supervision this is dangerous as hell, people have gone to prison for pulling stunts like this. 4) Isn't it a bit creepy and/or desperate to hire a woman with a sedated child to get around the carpool laws? 5) I'm pretty sure I don't want to know but, how do you know this? No, wait, don't answer, I'm absolutely sure I don't want to know.
What if I get 50% + 1 people to vote that we get to keep our petrol burning cars? Let me guess, you like democracy so long as the majority agrees with you.
I've seen the polls of what people in the USA are concerned about and (in no particular order here) it's their job, terrorism, clean air and water, your job, fuel prices, food prices. Global warming was at or near the bottom of the list, right next to their ability to get a good cell phone signal while they drive.
A lot of these issues currently have solutions in opposition to global warming solutions. If people want to fight global warming AND have low prices on food and fuel, jobs for everyone, clean air and water, then they need to get over their irrational fear of nuclear power.
There must be a lot of insanity in France if they think that they can both reduce nuclear power use while reducing their reliance on coal and oil. I've seen the math and the only way to do that now is with a bunch of solar collectors in Africa and wires run under the sea to France. Right now Africa is not a stable place and if they expect to meet this goal then they need to start building solar panels now.
Do they plan to invade Northern Africa to get their sun? That would be an interesting turn of events, would it not?
First, I wasn't serious about using a scythe to cut my lawn. We had an old scythe on the farm growing up and it's a meter long steel blade on a pole. It's heavy and not very practical or safe. Maybe we just didn't know how to use it is all.
Second, it's not about being nosy. It's about seeing a dude in his yard with a METER LONG BLADE ON A POLE!
Right, not a new idea., just not common. The link you gave shows an example of a pretty typical electric drive system for large vehicles. Not a hybrid since there is no means to provide electric power except from the engines on board. I do see how that could be he basis of a series hybrid though.
What I described would be called a parallel-series mild hybrid. As I propose using a relatively small electric motor it could not operate (for long at least) without the ICE running. Chevy offered something similar in their light trucks to what I proposed for a while but sales weren't great so it did not last long. Shifting the primary driver from the ICE to the electric motor and you have something like the Chevy Volt. I'm having trouble verifying it but as I recall the Volt had a simple single speed transmission, it could engage a direct link from the ICE to the wheels only when cruising. This was to improve efficiency further while not adding significant weight with a full size ICE and multiple speed transmission.
We were shifting from fossil fuels more than 50 years ago. Alcohol prohibition put a wrench in those works. Now if you want to run something on ethanol you have ATF breathing down your neck just looking for a reason to shut you down. Sure, you can find 85% ethanol and no ATF around. That's because the big companies with a bunch of lawyers got the licenses and such from the ATF and nothing leaves the property until it's mixed with enough gasoline, methanol, or whatever to make it poisonous for human consumption. Not that it stops the determined from distilling it back out.
I believe that ethanol is a really bad idea but if we want to actually see if it would work we need a market free enough that people can experiment. I used to get together with people that did electric car conversions, bio-diesel, and other such things. Regulations on this stuff started to thin out those willing to do this stuff. That was a long time ago and my getting a different job required that I move so I lost track of those people. I still run into people doing this stuff but not as often as I used to.
A government plan to shift from fossil fuels is good, I guess. I just think that less government would get us there faster.
I put it away because when I used it to cut the grass one of my neighbors called the cops on me. Try it sometime, people will give you funny looks for using one.
I have a reel mower. I bought it when I had a smaller and flatter lawn. I never figured out how to sharpen the blades. I've moved since and got a push gas mower. Still a relatively small lawn but with a couple really steep places to mow. I just got a self propelled walk behind mower, and now mowing takes half the time it used to. My feet don't hurt nearly as much either when I'm done.
I liked that reel mower, nearly 20 years ago. Now my physician says I need to stay off my feet because of arthritis. I also got a gas snowblower recently, also self propelled. Didn't use it yet. Bought it when forecast called for a heavy snow, turned out to be a dusting. Just plain didn't get enough snow where I felt the need for it yet. I used to have to shovel snow but last winter I just used a broom.
I've seen those electric mowers and snow blowers but none of them will drive the wheels, an important feature for me. Maybe when I look for my next mower they'll be on the market.
That's cute to think that they can just ban them. They'll have to boil this frog or there will be riots. Phase in taxes or something. Or, they simply think that the markets will make electric cars more attractive by then, in which case this proclamation is just virtue signalling.
(I just realized the hilarity of using a frog joke when discussing France. Anyone else find that funny or is my insomnia making everything seem funny?)
Even if they run out of money for cheap bullets they'll just hack at each other with swords.
This is a religious war that's been going on for a thousand years or so, certainly hundreds of years. This will not end soon unless they succeed in killing themselves. If they just kill one faction off then they'll just export their warring ways.
I'm sure Trump's support of increased natural gas production, simplifying the nuclear power licensing, and competition from cheap coal, will drive CO2 emissions down.
Some might think I'm crazy for thinking increased coal production can lower CO2 output in the future. I've heard people in the battery business complain about the costs of electricity to run their labs. You can claim they need to be more efficient but if you are testing your batteries to be able to take a 120kW charge then you need 120kW to do that. If it takes cheap energy to speed this process along then give them cheap energy.
Also, competition is good for business. Does anyone honestly think solar and wind prices would fall as quickly if given a government supported monopoly versus having to compete with coal? This feeds back to the high costs of energy hindering research. As it is now people buy this stuff because the government pays them to. If it gets cheaper then we don't need the government to force people to buy it.
Simplifying EPA regulations that people weren't following anyway has to help some too. At least it can't hurt.
I'm quite certain that what applies in Jakarta does not apply in the USA. For one there are far fewer people in the USA willing and able to drug their children to hire themselves out to fulfill a HOV lane requirement.
I say willing because people in the USA generally don't seem as desperate. I'm not saying they don't exist, just fewer. I say able because any drugs worth a damn are prescription only in the USA. Sure, you can get a Tylenol or something over the counter but if have anything more than a mild headache or upset tummy you need to get a prescription from a physician. Because people like to use over the counter drugs to make meth then you might get the good stuff for a while but repeated enough times and the person will be flagged. People showing up at a clinic or hospital to sedate their children will get reported quickly.
I'm sure the driver's behavior is moderated too by social mores. How is it that you get to work early every morning, Bob? Oh, I just stop at the drug store near my house and pick up some random woman and her sedated kid. They sit quietly while I drive and I drop them off on my way home, then I give her a few bucks. Easy really, you should try it. I don't think that would go over that well in the USA. I'm amazed it works in Jakarta.
Combined wind, solar, and hydro produce nearly 15% of France's electricity. They plan to cut their nuclear output nearly in half (from over 80% to less than 50%) while also tripling the renewable output, and on top of that account for growth in demand from electric vehicles.
I agree, it is impressive to have 50% of a nation's electricity from nuclear power. It's just mind boggling that they think they can replace nuclear power with windmills and solar collectors.
Germany tried that already and they had to resort to burning brown coal to keep up with demand. Japan tried shutting down their nuclear, oil consumption to make for the loss spiked. France thinks that they can do better?
This will be fun to watch... safely from across the ocean.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen the math here:
https://www.ted.com/talks/davi...
Dr. MacKay is using the United Kingdom as an example but it would be easy to extrapolate to France or any other 1st world nation. He gives some examples in his talk.
The "Cliff Notes" version is this:
Nuclear power produces 1000 W/m^2. Wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources produce something like 2.5 to 20 W/m^2. Consumption for UK, France, and many other European nations is about 1 W/m^2. So, if France wants to meet energy demands with wind, sun, and rain then they will have to cover at somewhere between 5% and 20% of it's land area with renewable energy producers. Or, they can use some other nation's land area, like Libya, if they ask nicely.
Using nuclear, on the other hand, takes very little of France's land, and that is where they get much of their energy now.
I'm pretty sure that the French are insane. If you have a counter example then please share with the rest of the class.
PS, Fukushima's problem was a lack of properly sited generators, which meant they were damaged in the Tsunami, which means that you can't assume that some hypothetical battery storage will work either.
I know that, you know that, but do think a gaggle of reporters know that? Or that they care? They'll eat it up like a trained dog getting a treat after doing a trick if it thinks it would please their masters, or they'll scream and run like frightened chickens if they think it serves them. Get a media darling like Musk involved and they'll likely find a reason to make this "a good thing".
And Vogtle? I'm familiar with it's recent troubles. As I recall Obama went there to speak about the future of nuclear power being bright, maybe that was a different nuclear reactor. Anyway, Obama changed his tune a bit on nuclear power after the election. Then Fukushima happened and shortly after Obama and his appointees kneecapped it. I keep hearing about how expensive nuclear power is, usually from Democrat politicians, when it's Democrat politicians making it so expensive. It's easy to make nuclear power expensive when you can throw wrenches in the works for six years. Nobody knows if it could have been made on time and under budget now. Fukushima was irrelevant to the safety of Vogtle, it's not on a fault line, or near the ocean.
You have it about right. My point is that as useful as a big battery can be to wind and solar it can be just as useful, or even more so, to nuclear power.
Big complaints on the use of nuclear power is safety and it's inability to load follow. A big battery would be helpful in addressing both issues.
I'll admit my knowledge may be dated so if you can provide a current source I'd appreciate it. Just looking at Wikipedia I see (in round numbers): 25% brown coal, 20% "hard coal" (not sure what that means), 15% nuclear, 10% natural gas, and 35% from renewable wind/hydro/bio/solar. (I know, not 100%, I said I rounded.)
So a plurality of electricity comes from brown coal. A majority or very large minority from fossil fuels. Maybe half from "zero carbon" nuclear and other? If Germany has been spending decades getting off of burning brown coal then they've been doing it VERY slowly, or were burning just mountains of the stuff for a long time. You'd think that they'd be doing a bit better than this after making such a fuss about it, don't you?
In the USA, by comparison, is roughly 1/3rd each, coal, natural gas, and "zero carbon" sources. Natural gas produces almost half the carbon as coal, and very little sulfur and other pollutants. On the balance the USA seems to be dong pretty good on it's carbon footprint, Id think. A lot of that has to do with nuclear power. We may have stagnated on nuclear but we don't plant on going backwards like many other places in the world.
I'm pretty sure that there are plenty in the Middle East still willing to wage war on the USA if given the chance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.
That was in 1786, the USA that we know today did not exist until 1789. They've been at war with the USA even before it existed. I'd rather they didn't get our money to continue that war. Without their petrodollars they'd likely revert to their habits from the 600s. I'm not too concerned about why they hack each other to pieces so long as they do it over there.
I look forward to the day we don't have to care about what some sultan says about the price of oil. With the USA exporting oil now that day may come very soon.
How do Americans finish high school knowing literally nothing about the world outside their borders ?
To get government money US high schools have to teach American history, not world history. I studied computer science and engineering in college, so it's not like I had to know any history to graduate. I did however take electives in Spanish (not history exactly but we had to know something about the Spanish culture to pass), Western History (centered on Europe from 1789 to 1989), and a course on the history of technology, so I consider myself likely to be better educated about world history than the average American, as pathetic that might sound to you. Since there was not a lot of technology exported from the Middle East I didn't concern myself with what happened there, except when it intersected with America and Europe. Seems to me that things are generally peachy for us Americans so long as there is not one unified empire there.
I assume the Australian state government did an analysis. It could be that they did find a cheaper and/or better solution, only they are betting that Tesla cannot deliver on time. If the margin is small enough then why not take that bet?
What is the price if he delivers on time?
Also, would it be all that bad for Tesla if they were late? Imagine the headline, "Tesla gives away largest battery in the world!"
Then you have Mr. Musk with a big grin on his face on TV saying something like, "Yes, it's true. We gave away a very large battery because we missed a contractually agreed upon deadline. Other than that the customer is very pleased, they got it for free after all, and the battery works flawlessly. Only next time we don't take marketing advise from Dominoes Pizza!" Everyone laughs and then it's forgotten about a week later, if not sooner.
I like this, this is good news for nuclear power.
Imagine a Q&A during an announcement of breaking ground on a new nuclear power plant.
Reporter: Would you care to comment on the recent meltdown at the Springfield nuclear power plant?
Person at podium: Oh, that was terrible and I feel sad for all those people displaced and otherwise affected. However we've made a deal with Tesla for their new battery backup system so nothing like that can happen here. We'll have enough reserve power on site to run the lights, computers, sensors, fire fighting systems, and cooling pumps for two days.
People believe new batteries are what wind and solar need to be replace coal and nuclear power. I believe that technology like this will help nuclear power more than it could wind or solar. A lack of a power source capable of running the cooling pumps was what killed the reactors at Fukushima. Chernobyl didn't have such a problem but that was (effectively) an experimental dual use (for energy or weapons production) reactor, it also lacked a protective dome that would be required had it been built anywhere else. Any new reactor would not likely even need a separate power source to shutdown safely but a big battery like this would be very useful for peak load management. It'd also look good to regulators, to the public, and look good for Tesla.
(Yes, I realize that I typed "power" when "energy" would be (more) correct, I just imagine that's how someone at a podium would speak to reporters.)
NyQuil, Dramamine, benadryl can all out children to sleep.
I have no doubt but:
1) I checked the labels of the allergy meds I have in my cupboard and looked at child dosages, I saw variations on "Do not use" or "Ask a physician".
2) Assuming you can get someone to write a prescription I would imagine using this in a not as prescribed manner, getting the kid to sleep in a car during the day as opposed to sleeping in a bed at night, is child abuse.
3) Without a prescription or trained medical supervision this is dangerous as hell, people have gone to prison for pulling stunts like this.
4) Isn't it a bit creepy and/or desperate to hire a woman with a sedated child to get around the carpool laws?
5) I'm pretty sure I don't want to know but, how do you know this? No, wait, don't answer, I'm absolutely sure I don't want to know.
I was referring to parallel-series hybrids not being common, not the diesel electric.
What if I get 50% + 1 people to vote that we get to keep our petrol burning cars? Let me guess, you like democracy so long as the majority agrees with you.
I've seen the polls of what people in the USA are concerned about and (in no particular order here) it's their job, terrorism, clean air and water, your job, fuel prices, food prices. Global warming was at or near the bottom of the list, right next to their ability to get a good cell phone signal while they drive.
A lot of these issues currently have solutions in opposition to global warming solutions. If people want to fight global warming AND have low prices on food and fuel, jobs for everyone, clean air and water, then they need to get over their irrational fear of nuclear power.
There must be a lot of insanity in France if they think that they can both reduce nuclear power use while reducing their reliance on coal and oil. I've seen the math and the only way to do that now is with a bunch of solar collectors in Africa and wires run under the sea to France. Right now Africa is not a stable place and if they expect to meet this goal then they need to start building solar panels now.
Do they plan to invade Northern Africa to get their sun? That would be an interesting turn of events, would it not?
Some other guy in 2038 will say "yeah.. we'll postpone this 20 more years, we're not ready".
Right, because in 2038 they'll have their hands full trying to get all the computer clocks set right.
First, I wasn't serious about using a scythe to cut my lawn. We had an old scythe on the farm growing up and it's a meter long steel blade on a pole. It's heavy and not very practical or safe. Maybe we just didn't know how to use it is all.
Second, it's not about being nosy. It's about seeing a dude in his yard with a METER LONG BLADE ON A POLE!
Right, not a new idea., just not common. The link you gave shows an example of a pretty typical electric drive system for large vehicles. Not a hybrid since there is no means to provide electric power except from the engines on board. I do see how that could be he basis of a series hybrid though.
What I described would be called a parallel-series mild hybrid. As I propose using a relatively small electric motor it could not operate (for long at least) without the ICE running. Chevy offered something similar in their light trucks to what I proposed for a while but sales weren't great so it did not last long. Shifting the primary driver from the ICE to the electric motor and you have something like the Chevy Volt. I'm having trouble verifying it but as I recall the Volt had a simple single speed transmission, it could engage a direct link from the ICE to the wheels only when cruising. This was to improve efficiency further while not adding significant weight with a full size ICE and multiple speed transmission.
A failure to comprehend on your part does not equate to a moving of goalposts on my part.
We were shifting from fossil fuels more than 50 years ago. Alcohol prohibition put a wrench in those works. Now if you want to run something on ethanol you have ATF breathing down your neck just looking for a reason to shut you down. Sure, you can find 85% ethanol and no ATF around. That's because the big companies with a bunch of lawyers got the licenses and such from the ATF and nothing leaves the property until it's mixed with enough gasoline, methanol, or whatever to make it poisonous for human consumption. Not that it stops the determined from distilling it back out.
I believe that ethanol is a really bad idea but if we want to actually see if it would work we need a market free enough that people can experiment. I used to get together with people that did electric car conversions, bio-diesel, and other such things. Regulations on this stuff started to thin out those willing to do this stuff. That was a long time ago and my getting a different job required that I move so I lost track of those people. I still run into people doing this stuff but not as often as I used to.
A government plan to shift from fossil fuels is good, I guess. I just think that less government would get us there faster.
Why not a scythe?
I put it away because when I used it to cut the grass one of my neighbors called the cops on me. Try it sometime, people will give you funny looks for using one.
I have a reel mower. I bought it when I had a smaller and flatter lawn. I never figured out how to sharpen the blades. I've moved since and got a push gas mower. Still a relatively small lawn but with a couple really steep places to mow. I just got a self propelled walk behind mower, and now mowing takes half the time it used to. My feet don't hurt nearly as much either when I'm done.
I liked that reel mower, nearly 20 years ago. Now my physician says I need to stay off my feet because of arthritis. I also got a gas snowblower recently, also self propelled. Didn't use it yet. Bought it when forecast called for a heavy snow, turned out to be a dusting. Just plain didn't get enough snow where I felt the need for it yet. I used to have to shovel snow but last winter I just used a broom.
I've seen those electric mowers and snow blowers but none of them will drive the wheels, an important feature for me. Maybe when I look for my next mower they'll be on the market.
That's cute to think that they can just ban them. They'll have to boil this frog or there will be riots. Phase in taxes or something. Or, they simply think that the markets will make electric cars more attractive by then, in which case this proclamation is just virtue signalling.
(I just realized the hilarity of using a frog joke when discussing France. Anyone else find that funny or is my insomnia making everything seem funny?)
Even if they run out of money for cheap bullets they'll just hack at each other with swords.
This is a religious war that's been going on for a thousand years or so, certainly hundreds of years. This will not end soon unless they succeed in killing themselves. If they just kill one faction off then they'll just export their warring ways.
I'm sure Trump's support of increased natural gas production, simplifying the nuclear power licensing, and competition from cheap coal, will drive CO2 emissions down.
Some might think I'm crazy for thinking increased coal production can lower CO2 output in the future. I've heard people in the battery business complain about the costs of electricity to run their labs. You can claim they need to be more efficient but if you are testing your batteries to be able to take a 120kW charge then you need 120kW to do that. If it takes cheap energy to speed this process along then give them cheap energy.
Also, competition is good for business. Does anyone honestly think solar and wind prices would fall as quickly if given a government supported monopoly versus having to compete with coal? This feeds back to the high costs of energy hindering research. As it is now people buy this stuff because the government pays them to. If it gets cheaper then we don't need the government to force people to buy it.
Simplifying EPA regulations that people weren't following anyway has to help some too. At least it can't hurt.
Following allegations that drugged babies from poor households were being used as "jockeys," or passengers for hire
Holy crap, if this is true I would think that congestion traffic is the least of your worries...
I'm surprised that isn't getting more discussion here. Did people miss that or is it that people don't think that is a problem?
Then again, I don't want to know the answer. I'll just believe what I want to believe.
That sounds like another fix that is easy, simple, and wrong.
I'm quite certain that what applies in Jakarta does not apply in the USA. For one there are far fewer people in the USA willing and able to drug their children to hire themselves out to fulfill a HOV lane requirement.
I say willing because people in the USA generally don't seem as desperate. I'm not saying they don't exist, just fewer. I say able because any drugs worth a damn are prescription only in the USA. Sure, you can get a Tylenol or something over the counter but if have anything more than a mild headache or upset tummy you need to get a prescription from a physician. Because people like to use over the counter drugs to make meth then you might get the good stuff for a while but repeated enough times and the person will be flagged. People showing up at a clinic or hospital to sedate their children will get reported quickly.
I'm sure the driver's behavior is moderated too by social mores.
How is it that you get to work early every morning, Bob?
Oh, I just stop at the drug store near my house and pick up some random woman and her sedated kid. They sit quietly while I drive and I drop them off on my way home, then I give her a few bucks. Easy really, you should try it.
I don't think that would go over that well in the USA. I'm amazed it works in Jakarta.
Combined wind, solar, and hydro produce nearly 15% of France's electricity. They plan to cut their nuclear output nearly in half (from over 80% to less than 50%) while also tripling the renewable output, and on top of that account for growth in demand from electric vehicles.
I agree, it is impressive to have 50% of a nation's electricity from nuclear power. It's just mind boggling that they think they can replace nuclear power with windmills and solar collectors.
Germany tried that already and they had to resort to burning brown coal to keep up with demand. Japan tried shutting down their nuclear, oil consumption to make for the loss spiked. France thinks that they can do better?
This will be fun to watch... safely from across the ocean.