Comment Re:Mac-like functionality? (Score 1) 121
Yeah, I love playing hunt the window. If they’re going to copy Mac OS they should do it properly, not constantly half-ass it.
Yeah, I love playing hunt the window. If they’re going to copy Mac OS they should do it properly, not constantly half-ass it.
So exactly the same as windows 10? Disappointing.
Similar enough? What does it do when you click an icon for an app with multiple windows open?
Does Windows 11 finally introduce the ability to click on an app icon and bring every window into the foreground, similar to OS X? If not then you are left with either one icon per windows or having to hover and hope you pick the right window. It’s not a good UI.
But they broke Alt-Tab in Windows 10. Now it swaps between windows in some apps, but swaps between tabs in some browsers. Totally inconsistent and dysfunctional.
It's not just the snooping. It's the altering or deleting messages or the creation of new ones that allows the Mossad to really shine when destroying its neighbours...
There's too much money and too much religious crazy in the settlements in the West Bank to ever allow Israel to voluntarily make peace with the Palestinians.
I wonder if, given this was sponsored by the ADL, they have a special carve out for Canary Mission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_Mission)? I hope not, that group and many others like it have been trying to make life hell for a lot of people.
Less cash benefits Banks and the larger retailers. So they are punishing customers by increasing fees for using cards. It’s gotten to the point where I am tempted to go back to cash.
The lawyer lied to you. Was it your lawyer or the company’s lawyer?
You are grasping at straws. In a precedent post, you argue that too much money is spent on nuclear and not enough on renewables. Now you link an article showing that renewables investment were 6x those in nuclear in 2014 (hint: with the last renewables subsidies, it was more like 10x more in the period for 2016-222). Please make up your mind.
Firstly, I still stand by what I said - too much money is spent on nuclear and not enough on renewables. Too much money is spent on new coal, gas and oil, but I think we might agree on that (at least I really hope so). The 2014 article was your link - ebray.net. Look upthread if you've forgotten. You keep jumping around topics, and now you are attributing your irrelevant and outdated links to me. Not a good sign.
A lot of countries don't agree with you, especially those who benefitted from France cheap energy for the last 50 years. Yes, I know, you will point that France imported 2.7% of its electricity for the months of July/August/September in 2022; big deal. Funny how the renewables shill like you like to focus on very specific times, and forget about everything else. That just shows your insecurity to be honest. France never boasted around when they were net exporters for the last 50 years. Because when you are doing is working, you don't need to base your whole strategy on a communication plan.
You were the one who brought up France is a net exporter. I brought you back to reality - not any more. It's not my insecurity, it's your short term memory loss. You don't remember these points of yours. Again it was an irrelevant point of yours that I corrected.
Yes, they did. Germany did that for the last 30 years, they still burn coal and lignite for ~30% of their electricity. Which is why they still emit 6 tiems more CO2eq/kWh than France, as shown in the links I provided. Facts can be stubborn, I know.
If Germany spent $500 billion on renewables I will be really surprised, but I have an open mind. Please provide a reputable link.
Can't you read the article you linked? It says Sweden now tops France as net exporter. France was still net exporter in the first half of 2023. As I already said, if you really want to focus on the time France was a net importer, please at least get your facts straight: it was in July/August/September of 2022, where they had to import 2.5TWh (~2.7% of their annual consumption). And if they really couldn't have imported electricity, they would have restarted their nuclear plants, most of them were offline not because of enough water, but because the law forbids putting back water when it is hotter than a given threshold, in order to preserve biodiversity.
Again, it's your point and your hill to die on. You are the one who finds it really important, and you are the one who raised it. I don't care who in Europe is a net exporter and who is a net importer as long as less carbon is emitted. If you are going to raise it though, at least be accurate.
Lying does not work, especially when data is available.
It's late, and my French is pretty bad. I am not even going to try. So I'll give you multiple links in English, as it's the polite thing to do. Have some or all of them come back online now? It's a pretty damning indictment of nuclear power if half your plants are offline in a year due to environmental factors and repair required by LTO.
Yes, France electricity production has been effectively decarbonised since the 70s, when they dropped their coal usage to 0.3%, and gas usage to 6%....
Missing from response is any attempt to address the points I've made. The key point is that investing in renewables returns twice the electricity per dollar (or pound, euro, whatever) that investing in nuclear returns. We are not going to decarbonise electricity production by spending double what we need to, are we? So why are you advocating that we do?
Great info on German and Norwegian power production, by the way. Totally irrelevant, but good to know.
You are projecting. You are the one defending renewables to the death, at the expense of making rational choices.
See, this is where it's gotten silly. You are claiming that spending doube per TWh is a rational choice? Do you call your internet provider and demand they double your bills? Do you do that for water and taxes as well? I don't need to ask if you do it for your electricity privder.
You are disparaging renewables
Nope. Renewables are good, but they also have disadvantages, like all energy sources. I don't put them on a pedestal like you do.
Your exact quote was "Since quite a few years now, most of the money is poured down the drain on renewables." Then you linked to an article fromm 2014. Sounds quite anti-renewables to me.
I am a low-CO2 emissions energy source shill, if you want. The fact that it includes nuclear bothers you, I can see that from your post, but you will have to live with it. On the other hand, you are a renewables shill.
You literally said you think spending on renewables is pouring money down the drain, even when they produce twice as much energy as nuclear. I'm pro-renewables, yes. You aren't. And you're not logical because you are advocating we spend twice as much money as we need to decarbonising the grid. You've provided no rational argument as to why we should, other than nuclear is the way forward.
You say you're not anti-renewables but it seems you are, calling their spend wasteful.
You are mis-reading, or projecting, or both. I say that investing only on renewables is less efficient than investing on both renewables and nuclear. This has even been shown through experience, with France again. And yes, France share of renewables is actually higher than that of Germany, as the French energy minister kindly reminded Germany.
This is the difference between communication and actual actions, to reduce climate change.
No, I'm quoting you, as I have done furthher up. You're somehow pretending this is an argument between Franch and Germany. It's not. I could not care less which country has the most renewables. You're shilling for nuclear even though it's more expensive. It makes no sense, you seem to take it as an article of faith.
There, this is your logical fallacy right there. Since quite a few years now, most of the money is poured down the drain on renewables, as you can see there for instance (just look at the graph Electricity Production Investments for Europe, China and North America). And so far, the decarbonation of our energy production is not very apparent (sarcasm), with a record year for CO2 emissions in 2022.
All around the world there was 6x the investment in renewable energy compared to nuclear in 2014. Why is this relevant? Let's look at info from the last couple of years. The world invested $US418 billion into renewables and $US40 billion into nuclear in 2020. New renewables in 2020 produced a total of 614 TWh of electricity, taking the world renewable energy production to 8,300 TWh. Nuclear went backwards - it dropped 4% worldwide. New nuclear totaled 26 TWh and it was in China and Russia only so the data is somewhat dubious. New nuclear cost more than twice what new renewable energy cost to build, and running costs aren't included in that figure. Of course, in a lot of countries their nuclear investment has produced no returns and continues to balloon in cost.
You are trying to argue the facts, but you can't. $US40 billion will be invested in Hinkley Point C, and hopefully it will produce electricity at that point, 26TWh per year. But in the meantime that $40 billion could have produced 58TWh of electricity. Every dollar going into nuclear rather than renewables is a waste of 50 cents. You can keep trying to change the argument as much as you like, but it won't change the facts.
Just look at Germany, if you want a very specific example. After $500 billion spent in the last 30 years, they still emit 5-6 times as much CO2eq/kWh than their neighbor, France (380g CO2eq/kWh vs 73g CO2eq/kWh for 2022).
Yeah, sure, irrelevant facts are great. You're trying to change the argument again, but it's pretty obvious that Germany did not invest that $500 billion in renewable energy over the last 30 years.
And you can add to that fact:
- that France is having to provide them with electricity almost every day between 7pm and 8-9am of the next day (you can look at the commercial exports from France [rte-france.com] any day in the past month for instance)
- and that France has been that way since the 70s, when they built most of their nuclear plants. If you want to look at the cumulative CO2 that Germany has emitted in excess since 50 years, compared to France, be my guest.
Also, do you know how much France spent in the 70s to decarbonize their electricity generation? Adjusted for inflation, about 13 billion euros [www.ina.fr]. How many meltdowns in France? Zero.
France is now a net importer of electricity, while Germany is now a net exporter. Half of France's nuclear reactors are offline and may never be switched back on. This is your poster child for effective decarbonisation of electricity grids?
You can dance around all you like, but fundamentally you say you want both nuclear and renewables but are defending nuclear regardless of how wasteful the spend is. You are disparaging renewables despite the fact that spend on renewables is twice as effective as spend on nuclear. You say you're not a nuclear shill but you're acting like one. You say you're not anti-renewables but it seems you are, calling their spend wasteful. If nuclear were effective I'd support it, but it's just not.
Again, you are the one opposing nuclear and renewables. Nobody, especially not me (check my earlier posts) said the answer was to go full on nuclear. But you are the one saying to go full on renewables, because they will magically scale and solve all the world problem.
I've shown you some of the problems with nuclear. I will ask you this though: If it winds up taking an extra 5 years to build Hinkley Point C, will it have been worth it? 10 years? 20? At what point do you see an investment in nuclear as a bad idea? And if we pour all the money down the drain with nuclear, how do we decarbonise our energy production?
Luckily for us, actual countries don't listen to you, and are building a mix of nuclear/hydro AND renewables. Your only purpose is to delay that, so that the impacts of climate change are bigger. You are a sociopath.
Using facts and logic to point out the many many flaws in your argument doesn't make me a sociopath. You don't have any counter-arguments you are just clinging to nuclear like it's a religion.
The fact you say that just says how little you know about how nuclear plants are financed. Go do your research (you can start here, the Cost and Finance section), and look up the terms pre-payment and external sinking fund.
Oh, I know all about pre-payment and external sinking funds. More than you, apparently:
In 2016 the European Commission assessed that European Union's nuclear decommissioning liabilities were seriously underfunded by about 118 billion euros, with only 150 billion euros of earmarked assets to cover 268 billion euros of expected decommissioning costs covering both dismantling of nuclear plants and storage of radioactive parts and waste.
It's even worse in France, where EDF needs three times what it has right now to decommission its nuclear plants. Everyone knows the sinking funds are BS and hopelessly inadequate - why didn't you?
The reasons why they nationalized EDF can be found elsewhere...
My French is not up to the job of following your link. However, everyone knows that It's not local politics or handwaving and nationalism, it's EDF shutting down half it's nuclear reactors because they are unsafe and thereby going broke because of it:
Right now, over half (29 out of 56) of EDF’s French nuclear reactors are currently offline. The company is already hugely indebted and faces a massive bill of up to 100 billion euros (£85 billion) to keep its ageing nuclear fleet going. And EDF’s flagship EPR reactor is over-cost and over-time everywhere it is being attempted to be built..
Again, how do you follow the EU energy market and not know this? This is common knowledge.
This is not LTO. This is just your way to critisize something that you don't understand. LTO doesn't mean running forever, just extending the life of the nuclear plants after inspections, retro-fitting new security feature, and doing so only when it is safe.
Yes, I'm bad, I was being flippant. Although I do note that even through all the cheering for LTO there are safety and remediation costs that still need to be plugged into the equation. And that is why half of France's nuclear reactors are currently offline - fixing them will cost a fortune, and it's doubtful it's even possible to fix most of them without blowing out the cost of energy even further.
Nope, this is your own cognitive dissonance at work. This generation will be fine (in terms of delay and costs) after the few first prototypes. Same as the previous generation was fine in the 70s after the first few prototypes took longer than expected.
For instance, following Flamnville in France, the next EPR will include a lot more standard parts.
Just look at the last EPR built by China: some of them were started after Hinkley Point C, or Flamanville, but as they could use that experience they were on-time and on-budget.
Great, so you are relying on China's open information policies to determine how well the builds went, and you're positive that after the first few billion-dollar disasters in the West it will all be fine, based on what happened in the 70s. Your responses are absurd, and your backing away from your earlier claim that you knew the costs of China's nuclear reactors and their project overruns shows you are just making stuff up.
I was starting to answer point by point to your post...
But then you realised you couldn't, didn't you? You had to skip over quite a few, like LCOE, running costs, lack of fuel, nuclear proliferation issues, especially in unstable regions, and the economics of it all, to claim that the economics will work out.
Fundamentally, this isn't an engineering problem it's an economic, political and geological one. Yes, we can build a thousand nuclear power plants. But we can't build them, fuel them and run them, without massive cost overruns that result it being uneconomical to run them, resulting in us not decarbonising our energy production. For ever year that all the amazing eath-saving nuclear power plants don't get built coal and gas power plants continue to spew carbon into the atmosphere. And we don't have an infinite pool of money, so we can't build the renewable energy plants we need if we have wasted all the money on power plants that will produce very expensive electricity.
fortune: No such file or directory