Yes. And not every wavelength gets absorbed by cloud cover.

1. You don't get speeds up to 2.5 Gps easily over several hundred miles without relay stations.
2. To intercept a laser signal, you have to be right in the beam. The same applies for jamming. Cloud cover is a problem for visible light, but not for infrared light.

There were not 600,000 preorders. You can tell by the fact that they announced 600,000 preorders. If there actually had been they'd have announced "more than a million preorders." That's how it works.

There are not many U.S. style SUVs sold in the E.U. anyway. They don't fit on many parking lots or in parking garages.

No one disputes that things may not work for you as they work for me. I don't have a car at all, and I am pretty sure that does not work for most other people. But in general, an EV might work for you because the reasons you cite might not really be valid, but based on misconceptions. And if someone who has experience with EVs tells you that you might not judge correctly, because you assume things about EVs you should not easily assume, you could try to listen instead of feeling attacked. It might be that in the end, you are really not a good fit for an EV (neither am I, hence no car at all), but it would probably not be for the reasons you think.

Thatâs actually not what they are saying, but what you like to understand. Instead, they point out that EVs behave differently than internal combustion engine cars, and criteria which are fine for the later donât match nicely with EVs. Instead of profiteering from the experience and knowledge of EV owners, you prefer to feel personally attacked. So be it.

Then the new BYD battery/charger infrastructure is the right thing for you, with recharge times of 7 minutes.

Let's make a list:

• Mercedes eActros
• Iveco S-eWay
• Volvo FH Aero Electric
• MAN eTGX

That are just some cab-over long-haul semi trucks I can think of from the top of my head. They are already running in truck fleets right now all over Europe. German YouTuber Elektrotrucker has a vlog running since July 2024 driving them on long haul services.

Until my parents built their own bathroom into the apartment, we were using a bathroom which still had a coal fired boiler. So yes, we had the old infrastructure. My aunt, who lived in an apartment across the street, even had the water closet outside the apartment with a separate entrance from the stairwell. So yes, the infrastructure, at the time 70 or 80 years old, was still in place. And heating was done by tiled stoves in each room - every morning, my father had to light each oven, and each evening, we had to carry the ashes down to the trash bins at the road.

Luckily, wind turbines don't need much service. The farmer moves his equipment across his field way more often. You can schedule the maintenance during the time when there is no crops on the field. You also don't need to build the wind turbine as much away as possible from the next path. Why not place it directly beneath the access road which is already there? And for maintenance, you only need a small service van. If you have to replace anything large, you use the helicopter. There are not many mobile cranes which are able to lift something into 500 ft height. The rent contract with the farmer contains wording about the rules for access. As someone who has serviced cell phone antennas somewhere in the nothingness, I call that a non-issue.

As someone who grew up in exactly those supposedly haunted houses, I call bullshit. The house I lived for my first 10 years was built in 1905, the next house in 1895, and my children grew up in a house built in 1822. My brother moved into a house from 1378 (sic!), and has since moved into a house from 1890. None of those houses ever felt haunted.

I am still wondering which level of irony you are aiming for.

Actually, they don't occupy much land. You can easily use the land around a wind turbine. Most wind turbines I know of are built somewhere on a crop field, and around the wind turbine, the crops are still growing. Many wind turbines in the U.S. are built on land which was not used anyway for anything else. And if the wind turbines are off-shore, they use no land at all.

What I've just said is that it makes economic and business sense to move away from coal and oil as the main source of energy. And it also makes sense to do this in a coordinated way, because for instance right now, Sweden and Norway provide hydroelectric storage for Germany's Renewables, and there are many other opportunities for cooperation. If a bunch of business men would meet in a resort to form an alliance, no one would twitch an eyelid. But because it's politicians, suddenly a lot of people cry foul and throw around buzzwords to steer up emotions.

End the dependency from is not equal to end the usage of. If you use it, because it is convenient, but can easily switch to something else, it's not dependency.