> I remember when you could half-remember a comment from a website, type that into Google, and get taken to the article you were looking for.
Is that even possible today considering there is so much more information and pages around today than in 2010? Old google worked with old Internet. The old Internet does not exist.
The fact that Angela Merkel closed down all nuclear power plants was probably a big part of the lower interest in EVs in recent year. Although they invested a lot in solar and wind, the solid base of electricity generation disappeared and thus the trust in electricity for transport disappeared amongst automotive management and the population at large.
There's no technical need to do that, because someone who can always deliver electricity would be able to struck contracts with those that always need it, i.e. heavy industry, esp. aluminum and chemistry. The reason why downregulation was necessary in the 2000s and 2010s was regulation ("Einspeisevorrang"), not technology.
If someone takes it near the power plant, and all the infrastructure is there for it. You don't build a (large) nuclear power plant just for these customers though.
Generally, with a high amount of renewable but fluctuating supply, we have to get away from the base load model, towards a residual load model.
This is not true, since you still need to pay for capex and depreciation. The reason it appears to be free is not because its production doesn’t cost anything, but because at times of a glut there‘s just no one willing to pay much for it. Please make some good will effort to acknowledge the difference between cost and price.
Now, about your question, why people should buy „expensive“ nuclear power: for the same reason that people buy health insurance for: volatility increases risk, and you’re willing to pay an ongoing premium to reduce systemic risks. Over- and undersupply of electricity are risks for a lot of businesses and lots of them spend a lot of money on capex to avoid them, e.g. hospitals that have diesel generators. Generators are for a different failure mode (rare, longer duration outages), but for the high frequency, short time interruptions and/or price spikes caused by unbalanced generation volatility, contracts with a nuclear power company are similar; the capex is just shifted to the power company, and the customer might pay a premium during those times that other sources would deliver energy „for free“.
That said, this is not a black-and-white scenario. Of course we can benefit a lot from solar and wind. I’m not very positive about large scale batteries and lean more towards having flexible consumers, e.g. H2 production for the chemical industry. But right now, we don’t have the choice of nuclear vs. renewables, it’s (renewables + nuclear) vs. (renewables + turbines run with Russian gas or LNG from the US and Qatar). My choice here is clear, and it should not be muddied by the Russian propaganda of nuclear power clogging our electricity grids.
Also, solar production and heating needs are anticyclical.
Also, the European grid is big (the biggest!), but not so big it can deal with seasons and weather patterns. Yet. Or ever.
The idea was that gas would fill in the gaps, until energy storage at scale becomes a thing (no, it is still nowhere near scale, only gas reserves can fill that role right now). Germany is investing heavily in hydrogen to fill this gap, but barring fundamental breakthroughs, I think it's a pipe dream. A 90% (roughly) total efficiency loss means 1000% oveprovisioning of generation capacity. That's expensive, even when cheap.
The original plan was to only shut the reactors down when enough renewable energy sources would be available to replace them. The Merkel government wanted to prolong the initially planned phase outs. Then Fukushima happened. Bad optics. So after pressure from the populace they instead of prolonging their runtime (as they wanted initially), they shut them down, but earlier than planned.
What are you talking about? Greens are neither pro-gas nor pro-Russia. They were amongst those warning previous governments of energy dependence on Russia, and were basically the most decisively pro-Ukranian party in the previous government.
They also weren't the ones who made the decision to shut down the remaining nuclear plants, despite what "conservatives" would like you to believe.
"the solid base of electricity generation disappeared and thus the trust in electricity for transport disappeared"
I'm sorry, but WTF?
This is the most unhinged drivel about German nuclear I have ever read on HN, and that's saying something.
There no problem with "trust in electricity", whatsoever, nor is there any lack of a "solid base". There has been no electricity grid collapse in Germany for decades(in stark contrast to the US, or f.e. Spain). Any problems with electrcity have been due to terrorism or building errors.
Even with that, in case you haven't noticed, EV cars run on batteries and don't need constant power. Perhaps for "preppers" or people living in remote areas it would be a factor, but I have never in my life heard anyone connect the use of EV power with the power station the charging comes from or how reliable the grid is.
WTF about your understanding of the German power grid, I would say.
Germany is not in a position to continuously meet its own electricity needs, but is dependent on daily aid deliveries of electricity from abroad. The electricity needs of industry cannot be met in a market-oriented manner, but taxpayers have to spend additional money so that industry can continue to produce at all.
The absurdly high prices for electricity in Germany prevent any competitiveness. Ignoring all of this can only be described as WTF – what country do you actually live in?
Energy scientist in Germany here. Germany could fully supply it's national grid with German energy production. We just don't do it because it's cheaper to buy i.e. heavily subsidized nuclear power from France, or other sources. In the end, it's all markets across the whole EU - by design. Why should it not be, the European energy grid is interconnected for a reason.
As a Germany energy scientist you should be very angry that right now according to ElectricityMaps.com Germany is emitting about 17 times as much CO2 per watt as France is.
Germany also has some of the most expensive electricity in the world. It is so expensive it is making some industries unprofitable. BASF, a major German chemical company, has implemented plant closures due to high production costs.
Most countries choose either cheap and dirty or expensive and clean for electricity but Germany chose expensive AND dirty.
What you call "aid from abroad" is generally called a functioning wide area synchronous grid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_area_synchronous_grid) which covers most of the EU plus some Balkan states, Moldova, Ukraine, Turkey and the northwestern corner of Africa. So Germany can sell power to others when renewables are generating more than it needs (which is often), and import power, not necessarily because it couldn't produce it, but because importing it can be cheaper than e.g. starting up an additional backup plant. This is nothing special and has been working reliably for decades.
That's right, Germany sells electricity to other countries during the day and buys electricity in the evening because there is no sun then.
The problem is that other countries also have solar and wind power during the day and don't need this electricity at all. That's why Germany has to “sell” this surplus electricity, even though no one needs it. To ensure that the electricity is still "purchased", Germany has to pay money for it. In the evening, Germany has to pay money to buy back the missing electricity.
Paying money to have something purchased is generally referred to as garbage fees.
That does not seem to be a long term problem. Wind and solar can be down regulated with ease (and within fractions of a second), a negative prices only happen because producers got a flat-fee per kWh which is pretty much phase-out now. The problem is rather that Germany (plus Luxembourg) is still a single price zone, i.e when wind is blowing in Hamburg, the per-kWh price in Passau is also nill. While this is nice for Bavaria (the main culprit, as usual), there is an enormous cost for this in the form of re-dispatch fees as long as the grid is not strengthened a lot.
What gaga show? Bavarian industry is being subsidized via cheap electricity from the north, who in turn is paying higher prices than they would otherwise.
Bavaria has been subsidizing the north for decades and yet you think you can betitle us?
This is not just about electricity. We are talking about billions of EUR in transfers. The money is flowing one direction only. So called “solidarity” is a hard ask given this arrogance.
The money is flowing in one direction only now, but what the "Stammtisch" likes to forget is that Bavaria has benefited from transfers until as recently as 1992, and from 1950 to 1986 (36 years!) the money also flowed in only one direction - but the opposite one, from other states to Bavaria. (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A4nderfinanzausgleich#Fin...)
You are accusing me of belittling "you", after you wrote "gaga show".
That's ironic. And no, money is not flowing in one direction only. As I already wrote, Bavarian industry is effectively massively subsidized by the north investing massively in renewable energy production and overpaying for their own energy because demand is driven by the south (who is fighting tooth and nails against building their own wind turbines for ideological reasons).
Greetings from Hessen (another Geberland, just like Bavarian, but without the Bavarian exceptionalism, which most of Germany just sees as arrogance)!
I call it an opportunity. Let France built reactors on their borders (looking at you, Chooz) and earn money. What's the problem here? Everybody gets what they want.
Those "perfectly safe" reactors were hopelessly outdated (the ones last shut down in 2023 were built from 1982 to 1988/89) and nearing the end of their useful life. What no one mentions about nuclear power in Germany: since they weren't allowed to start a nuclear weapons program of their own, one of the reasons for having a civilian nuclear program was already missing, so the German nuclear plants were mostly showcases of Siemens nuclear technology. Once Siemens decided to completely withdraw from this sector in 2011, there was no pro-nuclear lobby in Germany anymore, so the fate of the remaining nuclear reactors was sealed, although some more political theater followed (and still continues).
Of course, this was just the final chapter of a story that began way back in 1986, when Chernobyl led to no further reactors being built in Germany and other countries shelving their plans for nuclear power. If you think the situation in Germany is curious, then look at Austria, who already in 1978 decided to "temporarily" mothball a 100% completed nuclear power plant, a decision which turned permanent in 1986 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Austria). Or Italy, which shut down all four of its nuclear power plants (from the 60s and 70s) by 1990 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Italy).
They were absolutely not hopelessly outdated. Nuclear reactors can last 60 to 80 years.
When I checked electricity maps today Germany was emitting 17 times as much CO2 per Watt of electricity as France. That is what idiotically shutting down nuclear reactors instead of coal plants does and German environmentalists should be ashamed of themselves.
German electricity is also some of the most expensive in the world and is causing companies to close plants in Germany. BASF, a major German chemical company, has implemented plant closures due to high production costs. Germany's energy policy is a disaster that has made electricity both expensive and dirty.
Agreed, but that's over a decade against now. Time to move on. If Germans just don't want nuclear in their back yard, but have now issue buying from France (soon Poland perhaps), then so be it.
Nuclear reactors are about the most expensive way of producing energy. If you want cheap energy you certainly want to phase out nuclear, which is only viable with massive subsidies or externalities paid for by the tax payer.
Yes and nuclear was especially funded like that by countries with nuclear weapons. Is not a coincidence that there's so much overlap between countries with much nuclear power and weapons.
Not that nuclear power plants create weaponisable isotopes, they don't, but having a healthy functioning nuclear industry really helps.
Conflating nuclear power and nuclear weapons is the mistake Germany made that led to their deeply stupid decision to shut down their perfectly safe nuclear reactors.
Personally I think we do need nuclear weapons but not nuclear power. We can't rely on the US anymore for a nuclear umbrella so Europe needs to have its own (and just the UK/French ones is not enough).
It's the only real deterrent against Russia. But nuclear power I'm not in favour of due to the long-term waste and potential safety impact.
The decision was made in response to Fukushima, 15 years ago. Generational trauma from Chernobyl probably played a role as well. How does this relate to nuclear weapons at all?
Renewables have been built on the back of decades of subsidies, tax credits, mandated purchase obligations (RPSs), and net metering policies that shift integration costs to non-participants. Singling out nuclear here is intellectually dishonest unless you apply the same standard to all sources.
A grid running 70%+ renewables needs massive storage, transmission overbuild, and firm backup capacity costs that don't appear in solar/wind LCOE figures but are real and substantial. Nuclear provides firm, dispatchable, carbon-free baseload with a ~90%+ capacity factor. Solar capacity factors are 20-30%, wind 30-45%.
The OECD's 2020 Projected Costs study shows that at a 3% discount rate with a $30/ton carbon price, nuclear was the cheapest dispatchable option in most countries. Nuclear becomes comfortably cheaper than coal and gas under carbon pricing at low discount rates.
> The electricity needs of industry cannot be met in a market-oriented manner
Do you care to elaborate? AFAIK, the EU electricity market is... a market?
The design is debatable, as always with these things. Perhaps you wanted to say something precise about subsidies?
One important consideration is that Germany profited from cheap Russian gas, and continued building Nord Stream 2 post Russian operations in Ukraine in 2014. This is a bet that a huge geopolitical risk would not actualize, which it did in 2022.
> you are allowed to film/photograph when you are actively doing it
Does it really count as "actively doing it" when the glasses are constantly filming while you do other stuff.
With a phone/camera people can see you are filming or taking pictures.
In many countries the shutter needs to make a sound when taking pictures.
For video surveilance cameras a noticeable sign or sticker is needed.
Works well on all paltforms, desktop and mobile. The sync works also great. It also backs up to text files on your computer, so that you can back up your files with your regular backup process and you can also easily move away if you would like to one day.
Standard Notes is in the same position as Simplenote was 10 years ago. Automattic acquired Simplenote but never really did anything with it. Standard Notes was acquired by Proton last year and development has slowed to bug fixes only. I would be wary to migrate to Standard Notes.
That‘s the notetaking app that has several "editors", isn‘t it?
So that if you want to use feature A you need a different view inside the app than if you want to use feature B. And if you use both, you constantly switch?
The illustrations on the home page are some of the most hideous slop I've ever seen. Terrible first impression, and it really doesn't inspire trust in the quality of security of the service. Eventually companies will learn. But for now, eww.
Wow, I thought you were exaggerating / being the usual AI hater, so I opened the page expecting a some product screenshots with a few too many em dashes or something like that, fully intending to tell you to calm down. But dammmn it's bad! You weren't exaggerating at all!
Wow, it is really awful. This is such a pointless misstep given that Standard Notes has been around for years, was not vibe coded, is not an AI app - but this landing page makes me immediately assume it’s slop.
With the poles at the 1 minute mark, the robots enter holding them and their left hand never moves on the pole. Also note the stationary hand is matte grey while the moving hand is metallic silver.
Likewise with the wine gourds (?) at 2m30s and the nunchucks at 3m40s.
It’s a completely sensible design decision, much simpler to do cartwheels and vaults if you don’t have super delicate fingers fitted.
I think firstly the kids need to get education about this subject in school. The dangers online, the tools to use to protect oneself etc.
Secondly the parents need some similar education, either face-to-face education or information material sent home.
It will not prevent everything, but at least we cannot expect kids and parents to know about parental control features, ublock origin type tools or what dangers are out there.
We have to trust parents and kids to protect themselves, but to do that they need knowledge.
Of course some parents and kids don't care or do not understand or want to bypass any filters and protections, but at leaast a more informed society is for the better and a first step.
He kept 80%. The other 20% is owned by 8 different VCs. Seems like he's still in control. There's value in using other people's money instead of your own because it might make him less emotionally risk-averse in how he manages it.
Most of the time it's not about the money VCs send into it but the credibility that this brings. It looks a lot more mature when your idea is backed by a distribution of wealthy people.
The thing is that wether the ruling party is right or left there are limits to what they can do based on the real world we live in. For example there is a limit to how much they can lower or increase the tax. There is a limit to how much they can save on one thing and invest in another.
Often when a new party takes power, no big real changes are seen as it is not so easy to implement considering the real world. They have to go down some kind of middle path.
Disagree. There are effective strategies for creating more sustainable economies and societies. Affordable housing, education, universal healthcare will make us all happier and healthier.
We know how to fix lots of problems, and money is orthogonal to the issue.
Sentences like "They have to go down..." are really a symptom of a static "there is no alternative" view.
>Affordable housing, education, universal healthcare will make us all happier and healthier.
The past ~100yr of state policy has made a lot of economic winners out of people in these industries by putting it's thumb on the scale in their favor.
Any reversion to a "natural market state" or perhaps beyond, where the government weighs in to the advantage of those who do not make money on housing or healthcare would necessarily make loser out of all the people who right now benefit from the government having its thumb on the scale where it is currently positioned and they will fight tooth or nail to prevent this.
Its harder to implement change than to promise it, of course.
However, historically it made a lot more difference which party was elected.
In the UK in the 80s you knew that if you voted Labour things would bet nationalised, and if you voted Conservative things would get privatised. Since the centrist consensus (e.g. Blair and Cameron) emerged it makes a lot less difference.
That, IMO, is evidence that what has changed is not that the two parties are constrained from pursuing very different policies, but that they no longer wish to.
I think they have adopted a common ideology. The people in the parties have become more similar over the years, as have the voters they appeal too.
A few decades ago a very high proportion of Labour politicians were former trade union leaders, for example. Conservative voters tended to be more rural and more affluent.
Now a very high proportion are professional politicians who have never really done anything else. They are all people who have done well through the status quo and do not want to change anything.
> Now a very high proportion are professional politicians who have never really done anything else. They are all people who have done well through the status quo and do not want to change anything.
I really dislike that this is a thing. Politics should not be a profession. That being said, the obvious way of fixing this (term limits) would just end up giving more power to the civil service bureaucracies, which has problems.
Is that even possible today considering there is so much more information and pages around today than in 2010? Old google worked with old Internet. The old Internet does not exist.
reply