If this technology takes off, could we tile the Sahara with solar panels? It is close to the equator, and it seems like it might be one of the ecosystems which would be least impacted by the addition of solar panels.
It will take nearly 10,000 miles of cable for four offshore transmission lines—far more than existing suppliers could serve up. So Morrish started a cable-supply company to build a factory, with a tower taller than the Washington Monument, in which colossal cables will be lowered as they are coated in insulation.
The factory’s construction near the Scottish village of Fairlie has been delayed several times. Locals are doubtful it will happen.
“It’s a nice area, a scenic area, and you’re going to build a huge factory running 24/7?” said Rita Holmes, a longtime Fairlie resident.
Maybe it's just the infrastructure nerd in me, but a giant tower which produces undersea cables for distributing renewable energy sounds like a cool tourist attraction. They could put big windows on the tower so people can see the cables being made.
Local (national) surplus energy stored also locally (home battery, chargings cars, powering local industry from renewables at moments it isn't needed elsewhere), so all kinds of buffers. To also use it within the same country at other moments.
Diversify solar wind and thermal etc
Exchange cross-borders despite geopolitical risc. Countries with more sun hours or more steady wind or abundant geothermal sources or more hydro ... could export their surplus or capacity but also import.
For solar: if storage exceeds need, the daytime countries at any moment should power the nighttime countries, but only to balance local smart grids I think?
What was the fucking point of this? It seems so stupid and petty. Like why even go through the trouble?
I know there have been maritime issues between China and others within the last few years or so, but seriously - what is the fucking point of doing this?
China is probing the US's willingness to get involved in another conflict.
"Stupid and petty" is how international bullies operate. Pointless violence is how immature people express their "strength".
I know there have been maritime issues between China and others within the last few years or so
All of the maritime issues have been caused by China attempting to claim the entire South China Sea as their private property, in defiance of international agreements about national coastal waters. All of those issues were provoked by China trying to exert control over coastal waters that are rightfully the property of other nations, such as Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines. China is a bad neighbor.
All of those issues were provoked by China trying to exert control over coastal waters that are rightfully the property of other nations, such as Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines. China is a bad neighbor.
China is a bad neighbour, and fuck the CCP. But all the nations around the SCS have ridiculous claims of them controling huge swathes of water way outside their coastal waters. China is just by far the most aggressive about it.
I hardly think its whataboutery talking about the topic in question, the claims in the south China sea. Did you miss the parts where I explictly said China was by far the worst for this?
But you'll also notice that even though this incident is outside the internationally recognised waters of the Philipines it is claimed by China, the Philipines and Vietnam. Despite not being near enough to any of them to properly claim it.
Considering the US literally couped Australia when their prime minister refused to give unconditional support for a spy base, this is small fry!
p.s. that military base in Australia now exists, the US has full autonomous control of it, stations soldiers there, and the antennae currently guiding the Israeli missiles leveling Gaza
I don't think it's valid to compare a full-scale ground invasion with smashing up a patrol boat. Ground invasions are overt acts of war, no matter how much the invader might want to label them as "special". In this case I don't think China wants an open conflict with the Philippines, not yet anyway. If you're actually invading you don't vandalize one boat with hand tools and then run off, like teenager leaving a burning bag of shit on someone's porch.
This is about China doing whatever it wants, and international law be damned. It's more of a Cartman-esque demand for obedience and submission.
So you do agree that it is a fairly moderated act, compared two how the other two main powers in the world operate, which is outright illegal and mass murderous invasions.
Depends on where you live. For a european, african or an american, it's a bit meh. For a japanese, korean, phillipine, taiwanese, vietnamese or an indonesian...it makes front page.
Reminds me of that footage of the Chinese and Indian militaries beating the shit out of eachother with wooden sticks because they were worried even small arms fire could cause enough echo to start an avalanche.
If by "avalanche" you mean "escalation of conflict", yes. They don't allow firearms because of one side shoots, the other side shoots back, then everyone is shooting and it's a real war. Without guns, they have to actually go up and fight the other guy, which is much less effective fighting. A few guys beat up a few other guys, instead of dozens shooting and killing dozens.
wsj.com
Hot