Just as in most other parts of central Europe winds seems to be perfectly anticyclical to solar, e.g. higher when solar is lower: https://weatherspark.com/y/87583/Average-Weather-in-Warsaw-P...
4,077 karma · joined January 8, 2014
Coal is about 2x, gas about 1,3x and nuclear is about 3.6x the LCOE of wind, in 2020, without differentiating between onshore and offshore wind.
Educationalist here, actually it isn't :) For many people, this just makes you feel bad - and that's it. For that feeling to result in meaningful action a bunch of conditions have to be met, e.g. the absence of eating disorders (including things like stress eating etc.), a concept of self-efficacy (the idea that one actually is able to change out of one's own will), impulse control, knowledge about food and dieting, the time and money to eat healthier and so on. Often people are perfectly aware that their behaviour is unhealthy, but they lack one or more of those conditions. It therefore is better to focus on providing people the actual means to change (knowledge, methods, better food in school and at work, a supportive environment, taxation to make unhealthy food/drugs more expensive (a thing in the EU)).
Note that I'm fully in support of emphasizing the unhealthy aspects of obesity, though. Providing the facts often just isn't enough.
But my reasoning was:
* Most importantly, TSMC's market share grew uniformly, and they already were quite dominant before (market shares: 2013: 49%, 2014: 54%, 2015: 55%, from [1])
* I don't know whether that additional revenue is from Apple. Apple's use of TSMC has to have started in 2013 if they shipped the products in 2014, and to my knowledge didn't end in 2014.
* If Apple could use a node size in 2014, actual development of that has to have started quite a few years before.
Ignoring the 2014 outlier (2013 was the year Apple started using TSMC) the growth curve looks pretty uniform for the last two decades.
It also isn't like Germany didn't want nuclear proliferation. Public demand to be allowed to produce nukes already started with Konrad Adenauer in the 1950's, and parts of the conservatives still bring up the topic from time to time (e.g. Rupert Scholz in 2007).
That link between nuclear proliferation and nuclear energy production is sadly often missing from the discussion here. No country builds nuclear reactors only for the energy. It's always for the nukes. Nuclear energy has always been expensive and has been massively subsidized since inception.
Not energy, but only gas.
> What does this mean for people on the ground? Energy prices can easily go 10x (so a $300 bill becomes $3000/month).
Almost no household pays $300 for heating here. We life in a large flat and paid 120€/month last year (including warming all water for the year).
> You’d have to drop the heating of your home by 20 degrees and you’ll still be seeing $1000/month bills.
If we drop heating altogether our flat cools down to 11°C during winter (found out the hard way because our heating system broke down during winter a few years ago), so reducing heating by 100% means a delta of 9°C. Reducing target temperature to 18°C instead of 20°C would save perhaps 25% of gas. I personally expect increases of about 1000€ for the whole heating season for our household (i.e. about triple costs).
The German depencence on gas is bad for multiple reasons, but your numbers are quite hyberbolic.
The decline hasn't much to do with nuclear, but instead with the conservative government shafting the previous infrastructure projects and subsidies for wind and pv. It was so clearly visible in the stats that it got named after the politian responsible ("Altmaier-Knick").
https://www.spektrum.de/news/erneuerbare-energien-der-energi...
This is actually the opposite. The EU here is enforcing market competition in segments that became entrenched by monopolies (remember this is not specifically about Apple).
The stats are deaths per million people.
Empirically, this is actually beyond doubt by now. Piketty et al. were in the news 10 years ago with this very topic, showing that inequality is detrimental to growth, for many countries and over very large periods of time. And there has been a bunch of additional studies after that publication that support these findings.
(I get what you mean, but IMO reducing Bismarcks policy too introducing pensions seems way to simplistic. Especially how that worked out a few decades later...)
And yes, all of this is easily findable public data.
* minimum times, i.e. they don't automatically have rights afterwards, but have to obtain a permission for working first ("Arbeitserlaubnis")
* those minimum times prolong as long as immigrants live in special immigrant housing ("Aufnahmeeinrichtung"), i.e. as long es they don't live in normal housing. Which they can only get if the ministry grants them that (in my town there are still quite a share of syrian immigrants living in that kind of housing, not normal housing in town).
* additionally, even after that, the employer has to show that a) no German of comparable qualification wanted the job, and b) no EU citizen of comparable qualification wanted the job.
Edit:
> that study data was from 2016 onwards... There was enough time..
"onwards" is only 2017. Your source only compares 2016 to 2017. 2016 is the year when most syrian refugees arrived in Germany. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fl%C3%BCchtlingskrise_in_Deuts...
Almost all, as becomes evident if you compare the drastically different homelessness rates in other countries.
When studying the effects of invermectin, at least checking for worms in the patients' feces would have been needed.
So? As with many societal topics there is no neutral position here, because all arguments eventually boil down to questions of ethics/morality. Biases only become a meaningful topic if they introduce factual errors into the content. Have you found factual errors?