I quote the parent poster: "UK here". The voting system in the UK does not know primaries as the U.S. has. Only the Conservative Party has experimented with open primaries since 2009. The last one was 2019 in the Constituency of Gower. If the parent poster were a resident of Gower by chance, he could not vote in any primaries in the last five years, if not, he probably has never had the chance to vote in any primary ever.

U.S. defaultism...

It's still an American company, registered in New York, and under U.S. management.

The current chancellor of Germany, Friedrich Merz, was the chairman of the supervisory board of the German branch of BlackRock between 2016 and 2020.

People will adopt electric, the doom-and-gloom all aside. Norway has already, Sweden is following suit. Germany and Austria are at 18% electric for new sales now, despite the government ending the subsidies 1.5 years ago. (40% are hybrids due to a somewhat strange tax exemption for company cars.)

The U.S. is somewhat lagging behind, because right now, it's some kind of anti-virtue signalling to go fossil despite the advantages of electric. This fad will ebb.

It's not just the technology which is expensive, it's also the fuel which is expensive. If you use fossil hydrogen, or hydrogen made from natural gas, what's the point to begin with? You still generate carbon dioxide you emit into the environment. If you use hydrogen made electrolytically from water, then hydrogen is just a way to store electric energy. Why not use batteries instead, which are far more efficient at about 80% vs. 35% total efficiency?

There is only one situation where hydrogen could make sense: if you can use surplus electric energy in your hydrogen generating plant, so you can get the energy basically for free. But that means that you have quite the discontinuous process, which sounds not very efficient.

A second problem with fuel cells is the way they are spec'd out. To save on cost, they are combined with a traction battery and cover only about 30% of the total power output of the car, acting as a range extender for the traction battery rather than the direct power source for the motor. This makes sense if you are moving mainly in flat terrain and in stop-and-go traffic, where you only need short bursts of high power output. But if you are living in mountainous terrain (as I do), they don't fit. Just the mechanical energy necessary to lift a car about 1000 or 2000 feet will exceed the traction battery's energy storage, and the time to travel up that ramp is too short for the fuel cell to recharge the battery. It means that somewhere around 1000 feet, your battery runs empty, and now your car has only 30% of power left to pull it upwards. Europe with its many mountain ranges, from the Pyrenees over the Massif Central via the Alps to the Balkan Mountains is not the right terrain for fuel cell cars, as they are quite challenged to get across.

The town of Innsbruck, where I live, was testing a fuel cell powered bus two years ago on the line 590 (Innsbruck - Neustift im Stubai). With a height difference of about 1500 feet between the bus stops Innsbruck Süd and Schönberg, the bus was losing power for about a third of the distance, having only fuel cells for about 75 kW of the 225 kW of installed electrical power.

Stand-alone trees create the same amount of risk for birds, especially birds-of-prey with their tactic of nose-dive attacks. If the wind changes slightly, they can get off-track and fatally hit the trunk and branches of trees. This happens surprisingly often.

In general, migrating birds fly at altitudes of 3000 feet and more above ground, far out of the reach of windmills, and hunting birds fly at the level of their prey. For most birds, this means insects flying at less than 100 feet, out of the reach of windmill blades.

I would advice you to talk to some engineer from a power plant tasked with keeping the 60 Hz frequency for a larger network of power plants.

Thank you for providing an example for the outdated career advice of parents.

How do you ensure 60 Hz synchronicity with your approach?

The legislation in the E.U. takes exactly my stance, even if you don't like the analogy.

That's the same argument as "If you did not want me to break into your house, you would have moved in a underground bunker." Just because taking is easy, it still might be stealing.

But that does not mean that this code is still maintained, or that there are many people needed to maintain it or that new code has to be added. Maybe most of the legacy Fortran and Cobol code pieces have long been capsuled and are run as some kind of black box? Or they are replaced long ago by libraries of newer code in another language? Maybe, the last error message from them has been fixed a dozen years ago, and now, no one touches the code anymore, and extensions are written in separate containers?

Actually, they do.

Within one year, from April 2023 to Jan 2024, market prices per kWh dropped 50%, from about $200/kWh to $95/kWh. And this is no fluke powered by one-time events. A lot of progress in the last few years was indeed technological and came not from new chemistry. The Cell-to-Pack and Cell-to-Blade processes, which allow very large but still stable cells made the LFP cell viable for automotive application and Sodium cells at least for stationary use. Doting the LFP with Maganese, creating LMFP cell types can add another 20% of capacity within the same technology. Anodefree cells (where the anode will form itself with the first charge) will allow for even cheaper production. Organic cathodes might boost the capacity of sodium cells up to 600 Wh per kg, but are currently very expensive compared to iron phosphate - but if the organic compounds are cheaper to made, they will become competitive.

You won't find many of the new ideas in your everyday cell. But that's not because the ideas are not viable. It's because the current cell types are progressing themselves so fast, that they are still the most marketable option. But whenever the development slows down too much on them, the other options are ready to shine.

Because Sweden does not need them (yet). Thanks to its geography, Sweden has many pumped-storage hydroelectricity plants.

And still, White Phosphorus is deadly in doses of less than 1 ppm. Enumerating elements is completely meaningless when talking about toxicity. What matters is the substance which contains the elements. And two chemically closely related substances can be harmless and absolutely toxic. Botulinum toxin, often called Botox for short, is deadly in doses above 2 ppt (or about 150 nanograms for a grown adult), and all it contains are the very same amino acids, which make up about 15% of your body weight.

Same silly argument.