etcetera is found in ~500 years old books, and et cetera itself comes from et caetera, from the Greek καὶ τὰ ἕτερα. Which one should we use then? Should we only use the Latin from 1 BCE/CE or the vulgar Latin that evolved after? :-)
Maybe I do not feel it like a big issue, since many Latin languages use it a single word (such as Italian with eccetera, Spanish, Portuguese), due to the evolution of the language.
This seems very cool, but last release is from 2014, last commit is from 2018, and there are various bug fixing PR that have been waiting for years to be merged :(
What about https://github.com/jazzband/docopt-ng?
Italy has been slowly going down for the last 30 years. Too many small businesses that are not competitive, providing lower salaries; populism rose.
The State of Italy is spending ~30 billions each year for improving the insulation of old buildings, without lowering emissions significantly or having a real effect on the economy. With all the money that have already been spent just on this measure, Italy could have built so many nuclear reactors that it would have ensured zero carbon emission electricity for many years. That is just an example.
Do you have proof that she gain money or benefits because of its involvement in such group, and/or that that group is funded by the nuclear industry, as you said? I found no information about that, just a generic and vague "partners" page.
> It was co-founded by the ENS, the French Nuclear Society (SFEN) and the American Nuclear Society (ANS) in 2015.
They say that on that page. So at that point, it's on them to make clear if they've created a seperate and independent org that can actually live up to the obviously false from the start claim of being "grassroots". As far as I can tell this is just a project run by those nuclear industry orgs, not an independent charity so all funding is entirely opaque, and asking for donations is just a front.
But someone is paying to get that team of about thirty to every global COP gathering so they can "flash mob" and paying to producing the multiple slightly too glossy websites and get them in all the papers.
Just the time off from their employers in the nuclear industry must add up.
Thanks for pointing it out. The website is rather opaque with respect to funding.
It looks that both associations are non-profits, with a lot of students, scientists, professors and professionals. This does not seem incompatible with their grassroots claims, but they really need to clarify funding and expenses of this new group.
This does not invalidate IPCC or JRC reports on nuclear power, nor the scientific papers, or the fact that there are various pro-nuclear environmental movements and political parties that are transparent about their funding and relations. Nuclear is more popular between younger people that are more worried about climate change than the effects of Chernobyl nowadays.
The cost of energy does not only depend on the cost of production: Denmark has a lot of cheap wind energy, but it costs almost three times more than in France. And the higher share of intermittent sources you have, the less valuable the production of energy can be, because it is sometimes produced when not needed, so you need to build up infrastructure, accumulators, etc.
The difference in electricity costs between France and Denmark (and pretty much any other such simplistic comparison you see) is often highly influenced by taxation policy.
You can tax energy use to encourage conservation or you can subsidize it via general taxes.
The wholesale electricity prices in Denmark and France are both directly in line with the EU average. Switch to consumer prices and Denmark becomes the maximum, and France drops below the average.
You can see a similar pattern with gas (both natural gas and gasoline) prices, they're roughly the same wholesale but Denmark's consumer prices are higher.
Is it Denmark really putting taxes on electricity so high that a kWh costs 2 times more than in France? Just to reduce consumption?
The interesting data you linked clearly shows the problem with high mix of renewables: even if the average wholesale price is the similar, the final cost can be way higher because people need electricity at 6 PM and not so much at 4 AM, and the costs of a more unstable system are higher (such as delivery costs). Similar production price, totally different value. That is the difference between LCOE and the costs estimates which include other factors, such as the firming intermittency price estimations published in Lazard 2023.
The similar patter you see in oil and gas could be because of taxes, but the difference is below 10 %, not 200 %.
The biggest difference is that Denmark built its wind farms a lot more recently than France built its nuclear power plants. The cheapest power plant is the one that is already built.
Nonetheless, I would expect France's electricity prices to rise significantly in the coming years as their 1970s plants all age out and decommissioning costs + the cost of brand new plants kicks in.
They have also publicly announced that they won't be replacing all of the nuke plants that will age out (presumably because of cost). So, the % of nuclear power on France's grid will decline with solar or wind or carbon producing fuels having to make up the difference.
France's total electricity production from nuclear is expected to rise, actually: the government, after abandoning the plan to have nuclear covering just 50 % of its electricity mix, removed the cap on the total nuclear power installed. In addition to that, almost all the existing reactors got their life extended (so up to 50 years of operating life), and the final aim is to reach 60 years. 6 new reactors have been approved, and another 8 could get approved. Basically, the whole President Holland's plan from 2014 on reducing nuclear has been dismantled.
Denmark's renewables are highly subsidized, construction is quick (which means short-term loans), so it should not impact so much on energy prices.
Finland has built the first-of-a-kind highly delayed EPR 3 reactor Olkiluoto 3, and the electricity prices felt sharply nonetheless.
I do not see the reason why decommissioning costs should make electricity more expensive in the future, because the owner has to pay and prove that the decommissioning will be done even if the company goes bankrupt (by allocating funds in advance or by providing an insurance).
This is not to say that a solution is better than the other: it is always a matter of finding a good energy mix for a network. France is investing in energy efficiency and renewables as well.
France went from choosing between new nukes and renewables (renewables were the obviously cheaper choice) to choosing between extending the life of the nukes it already has and renewables (no surprises, old nukes were cheaper). This doesn't contradict the suggestion that the high cost of new nukes is prohibitive when set against renewables.
Denmark's electricity is almost three times more expensive than in France. Solar+wind does not cancel out variability. Backup is needed. LCOE does not mean lower prices. Higher shares of renewables drives up costs for the network to rebalance. Producing a lot of energy when it is not needed means producing low value energy. It really depends on the electricity mix.
The final price does not depend only on the production price.
You cited Lazard 2023: if you read the firming intermittency price estimations, you figure out that solar and wind in the California grid costs 2/3 times more than when just considering the LCOE. Solar and wind production can be cheaper, but the final price is way higher, and it further increases when renewables take a larger share of the energy production.
I just plugged a USB-C docking station, and I can almost use the smartphone as a standalone computer, if it wasn't for the very low resolution that Android decided to use for the external monitor. It does not look like this is configurable on Android, isn't it? Has anyone tried this kind of setup?
>if it wasn't for the very low resolution that Android decided to use for the external monitor. It does not look like this is configurable on Android, isn't it? Has anyone tried this kind of setup?
I guess it depends on your docking station, phone, and what SoC and video output chip it has and less on the Android build.
I plugged my OnePlus 7T running Android 12, in my 4k monitor via a USB-C to DisplayPort cable and the monitor reports 4k@60Hz resolution, and the phone is from 2019, so high resolution is definitely possible and frankly that's pretty amazing that this feature exists and it works this well (suck it iPhone :p)
AFAIK, other android phones, like Pixels, don't have DisplayPort via USB-C output capability or might be limited to lower resolutions. What phone do you have? Try plugging to DisplayPort directly without the dock.
> AFAIK, other android phones, like Pixels, don't have DisplayPort via USB-C output capability or might be limited to lower resolutions. What phone do you have? Try plugging to DisplayPort directly without the dock.
Fairphone 4, which should support DP over USB-C, but I do not have a USB-C to DP cable at the moment to try. Thanks for your suggestion :)
Maybe I do not feel it like a big issue, since many Latin languages use it a single word (such as Italian with eccetera, Spanish, Portuguese), due to the evolution of the language.