Sure, it's not the hundreds of dollars I'd estimated previously. In the past I've said "the data brokerage industry is a multi-trillion dollar industry" and come up with figures ranging from $100-$700 per year owed to the user.
However, it should be said that this is just data brokerage. Not all businesses sell the data they collect, instead they keep it proprietary and use it themselves. Google, for example, sells advertising, not user data.
So I think my estimations here have been very conservative overall, and the real value may well be much higher.
Also, it's not just about it being a small amount from an individual, it's the fact that they're robbing everyone blind that really gets my wick. No one really understands the value of user data, not intuitively, and the whole transaction is done in a deceptive manner to abuse this fact.
This wasn't a seeker missile, it was GPS guided. If the Russian machine had been fully set up then they probably would have blocked it, however Ukraine got to it before they were ready.
It's not about chasing profit though, it's about getting to net zero as quickly as possible using finite resources. Any money that goes to nuclear could be going to renewables, which would get us there more quickly.
I mean, most of what I said is backed up by a Future Energies Study, that went into far more depth than you or I are aware of, but you go ahead and think you know better.
I mean there is some reason not to, at least until proper alternatives are set up. I work in the HV industry, and in my opinion we've rushed to close larger, relatively efficient coal plants and replace them with smaller, far less efficient diesel and gas generators that can be hidden behind tall fences in industrial estates. These pollute far more per MW than coal plants, but they're out of sight, out of mind.
We definitely should be going hard into current renewable technology to fill out demand. That's the fastest way to net zero in many regions. There is something to be said for big rotating generators though, ie large turbines, as these provide voltage and frequency stability - renewables are often inverter driven, even wind turbines, so these are always following the grid and can destabilise if voltage or frequency goes. Meanwhile, a large machine has inertia so it will want to keep spinning and maintain the same output when large loads switch in and out. This sort of thing can be provided by nuclear power. So if we build lots of renewables now to get clean, then build nuclear to fill out, that might be the best solution.
You misunderstand. I'm saying the end user energy company justifies being on the more expensive side by advertising that they use renewables, but actually when they buy electricity renewables is cheaper for them. So they're paying less but charging the end user more.
The cost saving of renewables is rarely passed on to the consumer.
Oh, they’ll do the ad campaigns and raise the prices in the name of green-ness.
A classic example of this is electric utilities charging more and saying "all our electricity comes from renewable sources!" while ignoring the fact that renewable energy is typically cheaper for them to buy on the market.