Same compromise I made when I bought the base range version of my car with LFP chemistry. But I would not go lower in range than that. LFP is already much safer than any gasoline engine. I would like sodium just for the reliable range on low temperatures. Probably in the next years we will reach comparable density for sodium.
Battery density is energy per kilos. The problem is not only were to put the battery, but also the added weight.
The article above seems to be on the side that to indiscriminately target civilian infrastructure is a war crime. The wording of the article can be confusing for sure.
Targeting civilian infrastructure like Russia does is a war crime. Just threatening to do that is not as clear. I think that nobody will doubt that to actually follow through with the threat would be a war crime.
2.2% of Fukushima prefecture is nothing compared with the damage that fossil fuel is doing every single year to the entire planet. Even ignoring climate change, we are breathing pollution that is killing us. Radiation is a natural thing all around us, and our body evolved to correct for that below a certain threshold. Closing nuclear in germany before closing carbon killed a lot of people. If nuclear displace carbon I am more then happy with nuclear
Not to be pedantic, but Wikipedia shows US$7.5 billion for the entire plan that means 3.75 billion for each reactor that is more or less in line with what stated above. Still, 7.5 is much cheaper then 35.
I am a nuclear fanboy, because it is a clean and safe form of energy. But the EPR costs and building time are a tragedy for the entire sector and I have no problem in admitting that. But there are good third generation reactor like the hitachi abwr that are fast to build (less the 48 months) and relatively cheap (less than 5 billions).
The real problem is the amount of safety changes required to gen3 design after Fukushima (that was a gen2 reactor that suffered the worst earthquake and tsunami ever in the history of Japan and caused maybe a 1 single death after 4 years, just to put things in prospective).
But this is a problem in general for European nuclear. An APR-1400 costs 4.5 billion in Korea and 9 billions in Europe.
Because Europe is economically and militarily codependent on the US and they just need to wait for Trump to be removed next election. We are not codependent with Russia (not to the same extent) so we can threat them more harshly. But as we are cutting economic ties with Russia, we are also cutting investment to the US.
The best progressive writing Trek did was when they addressed a social issue by having the actors pretend it wasn’t an issue at all.
Is Jay-Den being gay not exactly that? Nobody cares in universe. But somewhat it is a big thing for a lot of people for no reason at all.
I understand your point, but I think you are having a lesser opinion of new trek because you are missing some of the messages they want to share with the viewer.
In Ko’Zeine the conflict is not between self and tradition, but more about the internal conflict of Darem. The enemy here is his own crippling self-expectation, not society. I think this conflict resonate a lot with modern morality topics such as LGBTQ+ acceptance.
In Vox in Excelso is the same: the fake battle is a compromise. Both the federation and the klingon knows it is a farse. But they go with it anyway as a way to preserve their own self representation in a post burn galaxy. To me Vox in Excelso is political realism. The klingon are not treated as an obstacle to be tricked, but as political partner in a mutual charade. In the episode this is explicitly framed as a klingon solution to a klingon problem.
I am not disagreeing with you, but old trek does this all the time.
In season 5 episode 17 (the one with the J’naii androgynous race) the setup is exacly the same as Ko’Zeine: from the start you get the answer that suppressing your true self is bad. The J’naii are seen as bigoted and the federation position as the right one. I do not think there is any ambiguity about which side the viewer is supposed to take. The only difference is the end result. Or look at how Dr. Crusher treats Klingon ritual suicide in season 5 episode 16: their culture is treated entirely as a stubborn, barbaric hurdle to be overcome by the ‘sensible’ 24th-century human perspective.
And TNG is also full of examples of “the federation knows best”. In Season 7 Episode 13 the federation works around a similar problem with the forced migration on the holodeck. Or Season 2 Episode 18, where the enterprise force the merge of the Bringloidi and the Mariposans. Or when in Season 1 Episode 8 we dismiss Edo society position immediately as immoral despite them living in a paradise society.
Discovery writing is all over the place I agree, but Starfleet Academy writing does not look that bad to me. What is so much worse then previous trek? If we do not cherry pick the best of the past against the worst of the new, writing is better or on the same level of what we saw before.
Can you give me a practical example of Starfleet Academy lacking the kind of nuance you would like to see?
We need food to live. What we need to pick is which solution causes less damages overall per mouth fed.
He just refused help from Ukraine. Either he is demented, or he is just searching for justifications for pushing against who he consider the real enemy, Europe and Ukraine. Or both.
Speed is relative to a frame of reference, so my understanding is that percentages of impulse are about power, not about speed. The 0.25c limit is a safety limit against a fix reference (maybe the center of the galaxy?) to reduce the relativistic effects, and does not require power to maintain. Effectively, with “full impulse” you are asking for the maximum power output until your speed relative to the galaxy center is 0.25c. Given in this example it is said we need to keep at 1/8 impulse because of power constraints I can only assume this is referring to power, not speed. With no reference frame and time component, none of these dialog make sense whatsoever, but we should be used to writer not understanding physics by now 😬
Nuclear load following is routinely done in France. You can see more details here: https://www.nice-future.org/docs/nicefuturelibraries/default-document-library/france.pdf
Nuclear can be throttled, we do it all the time.
There is no paywall in Bruno, nor login, in the open source version. It is file system based, with no external dependency.
The US has enjoyed a strong alliance with Europe for decades. US and European economies are interconnected and interdependent. Europe expect the US to behave like an ally, the current Trump government does not.
Trump is hostile to Europe, but the entire American apparatus, soft and hard power, economic influence was built on this alliance. This makes the US more dangerous, more unpredictable then Russia. That makes the US a bigger threat, because the US can cause so much more damage to Europe. The US is actively supporting the only undemocratic government in the EU that fully support Russia against Europe.
Russia is killing European, Russia is committing war crimes every days, Russia is conquering Europe, Russia is destabilizing European democracies, Russia is spreading hate and misinformation.
Russia is a more direct and explicit threat to Europe then the US. The US has the capacity to do much more damage because Europe is integrated and dependent on the US then it is with Russia.