For the majority there is sadly a very simple answer…

Reason #1 to be at risked of being impacted by that malware? You don’t care and won’t read a technical article either.

Well… at least he was actually driving. I would normally expect phrasing like “the SUV drove…” (independently and without any controlling driver as all cars involved in accidents do *cough*) nowadays.

Claiming there’s no kettle on a british carrier is peak non-credibility.

And yet the shop owners will see this and then decide to just reject reality and still complain anyway about all those imaginary cars constantly stopping by to buy something.

Same as exactly everywhere else: conservatives have universally understood that they don’t have any solutions but don’t need them as culture-war brainrot and unfettered populism works much better anyway. So they now simultaneously fight every bit of progress ever made no matter if it’s in society, technology, infrastructure or whatever…

No, it’s literally just a bus that isn’t legally one. So they can get away without meeting basic requirements for a bus.

No, it’s an indirect deregulation thing. Private company “shuttles” that are only factually but not legally identical to busses don’t need to fullfill all normal requirements for operating a bus. Probably including liability that you passed on implicitly by using the app.

by factor of 3 obviously…

You wouldn’t believe the secondary costs caused by thawing salt. And then there’s the primary cost of operating vehicle park to spread a lot of salt each winter.

Although general streets would not be my first choice (you should start with bridges where corrosion is even more of an issue) every example of heated street I saw was just a matter of “yeah, simple math says this makes sense”.

PS: And that’s obviously not car-specific even. Every newly build bike lane should incorporate this idea. Modern bike and pedestrian bridges doubly so.

PPS: For reference: new bicycle-bridge in Germany… 16 million € to build, of which the added heating is a very small fraction (300k).

And adhering to the law would kill my thriving “pay me a dollar and I allow you to club a billionaire to death”-business. So what?

To be fair here, they really did it because they liked it.

“It” being the funny sounds of projectiles getting squashed against armor.

it’s centrists and progressives who arguably have more money who are buying these cars

What are they to buy alternatively? The basically non-existent sanely sized cars?

And now to the interesting question:

Does China plan to pump up that oil to sell it to the morons flooded with anti-renewable propaganda while changing to electrification via green energy themselves just like many other big oil producers?

I’m afraid I already know the answer.

Section 129 of the Criminal Code is colloquially coined as the anti-Mafia paragraph…

Guess against whom it is never actually used. Hint the answer starts with criminal and ends with organisations.

Wouldn’t it be great if just one company per 10 articles about European companies “looking for alternatives” was actually ditching US services for European alternatives?

How to recognize the flag of Greenland:

If Poland and Monaco had a baby…

The one has more military might then the 31, and it’s not close.

And the source is the same media that also tells you fairy tales about how the US can’t afford health care because they need to spend money on their MIC Europe…

That’s not even the whole story… He also told European governments to embrace far-right MAGA style populists.

If they could jsut fuck off silently and keep their insanity contained in the US this would already be an improvment.

There are basically two viable options:

Renewables plus short-term storage (for ~6 hours, which is enough to shift production peak to demand peak) plus long term storage would be one.

The other is renewables plus nuclear and long term storage. Here you can get by -compared to a fully renewable model- with less renewables (although that part is financially speaking neraly irrelevant) and slightly less long-term storage. Nuclear base-load mostly eliminates the need for short-term storage and makes power-to-gas as long-term storage more efficient (electrolysers work much better economically when you can have them run most of the time, instead of needing a lot to use up peak overproduction while not running the rest of the day).

If you want to look at numbers (and different models) there’s a big study of France’ grid provider (from end of 2021 I think) about nuclear power models by 2050. And they assume roughly (they modelled more or less nuclear) 35% nuclear / 65% renewables.

Also we can assume a demand increase for electricity by a factor of ~2,5 when industry, heating (where it didn’t already happen) and transport is electrified to get CO₂-neutral. So if you are going the nuclear route you would need (on top of a lot of renewables) nuclear capacities of more than 80% of today’s demand (80% / 2,5 = 32%…).

Also if you don’t already have high nuclear capacities available already you need to start building en masse preferably yesterday. Because to meet already agreed upon climate goals starting slowly now and burning a lot of fossil fuels for another 20 years until newly build reactors are ready will not work out.

And now compare this with reality: Basically every country talking about nuclear plans is still in some early planning phase, none of them are planning sufficient capacities and a lot of them are also still stuck in some imaginary and nonsensical nuclear vs. renewable discussion.

So to answer your question… He ist right because you either plan a sufficient amount of reactors right now or you don’t plan any at all. And if you can’t realistically pay the upfronted cost of a massive nuclear build-up right now, then that’s a reason not to do it. But building just a reactor (or 3) to pretend that it will reduce CO₂ quickly until you have a better solution or can afford to build more reactors is just stupid bullshit. That’s what a renewable upbuild is for, that actually helps reduce emissions within years, not in a decade or more when a nuclear power plant is build.

And he is right. But as nuclear is a scam not meant to solve anything and is just used as a distraction to spend years “planning” totally insufficient capacities at high costs so some lobbyist friends can burn fossil fuels longer, it won’t happen. Just like in bascially every other European country telling the fairy tale of some nuclear solution.