Crypto transactions mostly just transfer money from one gamblers account to another's whereas AI is resulting in money going into real things like data centers.
the reason I don't really stress about valuations any more is the m2 US money supply has grown 20% in the last 5 years, cumulative inflation over last 5 years is ~24%, assets have no ceiling because fiat has no floor. -- you hear 4t now but thats 3t from 5 years ago.
Crypto is very difficult to value in terms of cash flows, whether BTC should be $120K or not is a big question mark. Regular companies do have standard valuation techniques that are currently silly.
By ‘standard valuation techniques’ you mean: regular companies produce value and wealth and represent what a society can create whereas crypto is like ‘a shiny object sitting there with people trying to gauge how much someone is willing to pay in the future on the premise it will be worth more’ ? :-D
I’m not very deep in the art or collectible business.
Germany’s constitution (the Basic Law) does protect freedom of opinion and expression, but it explicitly allows restrictions via “general laws” to protect personal honor, youth, and human dignity.
Recent enforcement shows how this plays out: police raids have targeted individuals posting “hate speech” or “extremist” content online. What constitutes hate speech or extremist content is “conveniently” interpreted at times.
The OP claimed that people's homes got raided for "daring to insult the ruling class", your source claims that people's homes got raided for posting extremist racist speech online. Unless you believe in some ridiculous conspiracy where ZE JEWS CONTROL ZE BANKS, this has absolutely no relation to your ability to insult the ruling class: Black people and Muslims are not "the ruling class".
And if you do believe in such a conspiracy, please post your personal information such that I can forward it to the relevant agencies and have your house raided. Because we have been through that shit in this country and have no desire to ever see it again.
Your comment has been debunked countless times. This man's home was not raided for his antisemitism (which is really damn bad!) but for calling a guy an idiot [1]. I suggest you stop spreading lies.
That's a different case though. The Habeck meme thing happened somewhere near Bamberg, the CBS article recounts "state police [...] raided this apartment in northwest Germany".
Look, I'm not saying that the police or the ministry of the interior never abuse their power, far from it. (There was also the Andy Grote case a few years back.) But please remember that the original claim we are discussing, from a few comments up in this chain, was that Germany has neither "Freiheit noch Sicherheit" right now. It's ridiculous rabble-rousing to insinuate that because of these outlier events, while concerning, Germany has neither freedom nor security.
Germany does have limited Freedom. I won't move an inch in this matter. The exact paragraph behind the Habeck or Grote case is now being abused by the literal thousands each year. And violent crime is on the rise, we are currently back at a 2005 level. It is very easy to find sources on this matter.
Your claim is blatantly false. Any claim of the contrary is wrong. I won't go as far as to insult you in the way you did. I was talking about violent crime, which is indeed on the rise [1] (here sourced by the far right "Tagesschau" \irony), you are linking a study on crime, which includes non-violent crime such as petty theft. Violent crime is at a level not seen for 15 years. I suggest you read the comments of people thoroughly before embarassingly accusing them of spreading propaganda - which can be disproven with a 5 second google search.
No place has absolute freedom, not sure what you are rambling about. Making up some extra categories that suit your own narrative doesn't change reality.
You are making typical argument shifting excuses. No one is talking about "absolute freedom" no matter how that is defined, notwithstanding even your infantile attempt at using insult in your absence of rational argument.
Please don't paint an - given wired and unjust - incident as the norm and not as am exception.
Extrapolation from one local incident to Germany is unfree is like extrapolation from one politically motivated murder, that a country is in a civil war...
Sure, I have painted the incident, let‘s paint the norm. Just two ministers of the last government have sued 1400 people using 188 StGB [1]. An FDP politician sues 250 people this way in a month alone. We have seen an increase of lawsuits using this paragraph of 215% in the last three years.
Propaganda is painting this as something different than it is.
Here we consider speech for what it is: something you can express freely, within the limits of civil society. If you pass those limits, then you incur in problems.
Germany let someone speak freely a tad too much in the twenties and thirties, and they don't want to make that mistake again.
I understand the point of "absolute free speech", and I would subscribe to it if it wasn't that groups like AfD, or Trump's flavor of conservatism, hide behind it to achieve their authoritarian goals. To avoid that authoritarian result, you have to police certain types of speech like Germany does.
I say it again, it's nasty and needs a very strong set of counterbalances, which Germany - unlike the US - still has. Therefore this remains a much more freer country than Say-whatever-you-like-on-Rogan America. Freedom for us is free healthcare, a welfare state, an ethics-based concept of societal rights and obligations.
We don't market ourselves as the beacon of free speech and FREEDOM by making both empty words fueled by extreme individualism. We still believe in Solidarität and on social-oriented policies, both on the right and left side of the isle. We have ferocious political battles about topics that are too violently policed, by the way, like right now about Palestine and Israel, and people take to the streets FREELY, despite some despicable police brutality episodes. We do have the contradictions and complexities of any modern western society.
Yet we don't have too many runaway billionaires that are more powerful than governments, and we are still ALL a bit better off because of that.
It's boring, but it works.
AfD is against all this, and it is because it's provenly funded by Russia and other enemies of the west. They appeal to the Volk, but in reality are infested by double-standards, hate, and a specific type of political individualism and authoritarian views that need to be stopped with all legal and societally-acceptable means possible.
It’s worth remembering who actually made the strategic choices that strengthened Russia’s hand and left Germany dependent and militarily weak. Those weren’t the AfD’s doing — they came from the CDU–SPD coalition governments, the same lineup that’s currently in power again.
• 2011: Under Angela Merkel (CDU) and the SPD coalition, Germany decided to abolish nuclear power after Fukushima, dismantling one of the few sources of domestic energy independence.
• 2011–2015: The same governments backed and defended Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2, tying Germany’s critical infrastructure even closer to Russian gas — despite repeated warnings from Eastern European neighbors.
• 2011: The abolition of compulsory military service further weakened Germany’s defense capacity and NATO readiness.
These weren’t minor policy missteps — they systematically made Germany more vulnerable to Russian influence.
And it’s also worth noting a historical irony: Angela Merkel’s family moved from West Germany to East Germany in 1954, one of the very few families to go in that direction. Between 1949 and 1961, roughly 2.7 to 3 million East Germans fled the communist East for the capitalist West — virtually nobody went the other way.
> Yet we don't have too many runaway billionaires that are more powerful than governments, and we are still ALL a bit better off because of that. It's boring, but it works.
A literal millionare is chancellor.
> reedom for us is free healthcare,
Last I looked I paid 10k a year for government mandated healthcare. Where can I apply for the free one?
I wonder what is the point of debating like this on the internet.
I say billionaires, you mention a "millionaire" chancellor.
We don't have anything against becoming rich. But if you think that Herr Merz, who I haven't voted for and politically dislike, is anything close to a tycoon, well I think we're swinging in two very different planes of reality.
He's a high-income lawyer who invested and has a net-worth of about 15 millions. If you think that's anything close to problematic, I don't know what to say. Maybe you should research the order-of-magnitude differences there are between a millionaire and a billionaire.
Re: free healthcare: if you have the means, and you work, you rightfully PAY INTO THE SYSTEM. If you can't and you are poor, it is free for you.
That is how a social-democratic society work.
The system is not perfect and could be better, but that is what "Free" healthcare is.
Also, we're so good at freedom that we do have private healthcare, so you could have payed into that system and gotten yourself your little indivisualim-tingling services.
You are arguing with a person who doesn't care what people say, facts are just other's propaganda against their emotionally held beliefs, the story is set in their head and thats it. Not a discussion really. Usual avoiding of hard facts that challenge their fantasies.
A fairly typical behavior I've seen countless times in topics about russian war in Ukraine in recent years. No point at all, a wasted time.
> facts are just other's propaganda against their emotionally held beliefs,
This is dishonest at best. It's a matter of opinion. I rarely - if ever - think of anyone who disagrees with me as spreading "propaganda". This is a dangerous narrative you have built in your head. I suggest you stop.
> But if you think that Herr Merz, who I haven't voted for and politically dislike, is anything close to a tycoon, well I think we're swinging in two very different planes of reality.
Of course I don't. I actually like his history, he is a successful man. But he is again so far removed from my own situation that I do not trust him to do what is best for me.
> If you think that's anything close to problematic, I don't know what to say. Maybe you should research the order-of-magnitude differences there are between a millionaire and a billionaire.
It is problematic. Yes, he studied and worked hard. But he has been wealthy for a larger part of his life than he has not been.
> e: free healthcare: if you have the means, and you work, you rightfully PAY INTO THE SYSTEM. If you can't and you are poor, it is free for you.
So it's not free.
> The system is not perfect and could be better, but that is what "Free" healthcare is.
I too, can redefine words beyond their meanings to fit my narrative.
> Also, we're so good at freedom that we do have private healthcare, so you could have payed into that system and gotten yourself your little indivisualim-tingling services.
You forget that people with chronic illnesses can just be declined of that option.
I’m far more concerned about a government led by people who have no formal education beyond high school, have never worked outside of politics, lack subject-matter expertise in the fields they oversee, and can’t even speak a foreign language — yet are sent abroad to represent the country — than I am about a self-made millionaire serving as chancellor.
Germany’s economy feels like a freight train rolling downhill — momentum without direction, and no one in the cabin who knows how to steer.
And no, the health care system is not “working.” It suffers from systemic distortion and ideological decision-making. Doctors face strict budget caps and fixed, low reimbursement rates for treating regular patients, but those limits don’t apply when treating certain publicly funded cases — where compensation is higher. That incentive structure inevitably leads to unequal treatment. I’ve experienced it firsthand with my own child and couldn’t believe it. As in: they denied taking my kid in but took in two “publicly funded cases” while I was there.
You are aware that the EU must choose between nuclear or gas to produce electricity when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine. That backup capacity needs to be equal to the entire electricity demand. Renewables need to exceed that by a significant margin. So, either you build gas power plants and keep them idle, or you build nuclear power plants and switch them off when the sun is shining.
The problem is that nuclear had a fixed cost per year, not per unit produced. A reactor sitting idle costs about the same as a reactor running at 100% capacity.
This makes them fundamentally flawed as backup generation. Nuclear is already the most expensive source of electricity when operating at full capacity, having it run only 5% of the time makes it completely unaffordable as it'll cost 20x as much.
When used traditionally, nuclear costs about $175/MWh. Solar and wind costs about $50/MWh. Use nuclear as backup and it'll cost $3500/MWh. Orrr, you've suddenly got a $3450/MWh budget to spend on storage for renewable energy...
> Nuclear is already the most expensive source of electricity
Lmao, meanwhile France had the cheapest clean electricity of the developed world for the past 70 years, while Germany paid 2-5x more depending on the period
It's only expensive for new built reactors in Europe because we've given up on the technology a long time ago, countries which made it a national priority and kept the know how are still enjoying cheap nuclear energy. If Germany didn't spend decades and billions on green lobbyists in Bruxels the story would have been very different
Why do you think China is building 30 new reactors right now and have planned for dozen more? They have all the coal and manufacture the vast majority of solar panels and windmills worldwide but they still go for nuclear.
Almost as if having a diversified energy mix is desirable...
There is another under discussed alternative UHV power transmission, e.g. south to north: Morocco has great conditions for solar.
Or East to West, the sun rises and sets at different times.
We still need more storage and generation, but a better grid would help a lot.
No need to obsess with solar if it doesn't work for you, its just that solar is so good. It uses manufactured devices that you just point to the sky and makes your machine run. For stability of course you need something like nuclear or storage.
Industrialized countries generally need stability when it comes to electricity. People also want to watch TV whenever they like and take a hot shower whenever they feel like it.
Pursuing an industrial strategy predicated on eternal cheap Russian gas (a strategy no doubt encouraged by Russian influence post-GDR) left Germany vulnerable to this situation. It is indeed admirable that they are willing to give it up now for principals, unlike Orban and Hungary.
> This means renewables are economically worthwhile based solely on the fuel savings they provide. Even if they would never fully replace fossil power plants, but only reduce how much fuel those plants consume, they would be worth it. Simply reducing fossil fuel use during sunny or windy periods—or when batteries charged from these periods are available—saves more money than the entire investment in renewables. That's how remarkably cheap solar, wind, and batteries have become—and precisely why they're winning around the world today.
You factored in a new grid and backup nuclear plants/gas power plants requiring >100B investments in Germany or Tesla Megapacks in excess of 100 metric tons?
Take a look at what is needed to make Germany “green” by a reputable and independent institute:
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/p...
I skimmed the study you linked. It has a focus on the social aspects of renewable energy, namely would the population react with acceptance or resistance (or varying degrees thereof ) and is divided into the corresponding scenarios which influence the outcome. That said, the summary clearly states that it is both technically feasible and more cost efficient if suffiency with renewable is realized if you can build on wide social acceptance.
I think this paints your statements in a different light. You omitted the studies focus on social aspects.
Well, 5 years later past publication and with “the highest electricity prices, a high carbon footprint compared to neighboring countries, challenges with network stability and 3 years in a recession with major mass layoffs in the news every week” I can reassure you that the math of cost efficiency was certainly off and the population has serious concerns about the feasibility.
I do trust their math on carbon emissions and capacity calculations wrt to renewable energy and gas power plants though.
So, you take the results on their calculations, divorcing them completely from the preconditions and all variables;not to mentioned outdated data - and we should take this as the base of our future argument?
Fraunhofer’s own math says 2050 electricity demand is ~700–750 TWh (≈80 GW average load), yet they assume 500–750 GW PV + wind — that’s 6–9× average demand and 5–7× today’s installed base (p. 15). On top of that, they still need 100–150 GW gas turbine backup plus major battery storage (p. 17), i.e. almost the whole peak load duplicated in flexible backup. In their model this cuts CO₂ by >95 % vs. 1990 (p. 11), which I accept technically. But given we already see close-call outages in Germany during “Dunkelflauten,” and given that today’s reality is ~40 ct/kWh for households instead of the 7–9 ct/kWh Fraunhofer projects (p. 65 ff.), I find their economic modeling divorced from the trajectory we’re actually on.
> You are aware that the EU must choose between nuclear or gas to produce electricity when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine.
Which does not capture the cost of a nuclear plant being forced off the market because no one is buying its electricity during the day and they have to amortize the cost over a 40% capacity factor instead of 85% like they target.
And this can be a purely economical factor. Sure a plant may have a 90% capacity factor but if the market clears at $0 50% of the time they still need to recoup all the costs on the remaining 50%, pushing up the costs to what would be a the equivalent to a 42.5% capacity factor when running steady state.
Take Vogtle running at a 40% capacity factor, the electricty now costs 40 cents/kwh or $400 MWh. That is pure insanity. Get Vogtle down to 20%, which is very likely as we already have renewable grids at 75% renewables and it is 80 cents/kWh.
Take a look at Australia for the future of old inflexible "baseload" (which always was an economic construct coming from marginal cost) plants.
Coal plants forced to become peakers or be decommissioned.
Electricity is fundamentally priced on the margin and if you start forcing nuclear costs on the ratepayers they will build rooftop solar and storage like crazy, leaving you without any takers for the nuclear based electricity.
You can say that "no one would do that" but it is the end state of the market.
> Considering that the EU classifies nuclear as equally renewable as solar, why should we rely solely on solar?
Why waste money on horrifyingly expensive new built nuclear power? Who looks at Flamanville 3, Hinkley Point C and friends and draw the conclusion that they want some more?!?
> Electricity is fundamentally priced on the margin and if you start forcing nuclear costs on the ratepayers they will build rooftop solar and storage like crazy, leaving you without any takers for the nuclear based electricity.
The regime can just make it illegal to do rooftop solar or home batteries. In a functioning country this is easy enough to push through as a safety measure (lithium battery fires are legit scary, at least in videos). In the U.S. you can just start a campaign to get people fired for endangering their neighbors with dangerous woke energy, no legislation needed at all.
Yes, if you want 100% renewable. However, 100% is not the goal right now. Studies have shown that 97% solar coverage can be cheaper than nuclear in sunny areas, for example. Obviously Europe isn't necessarily the sunniest so that number would have to be lower.
What are you going to do at night, or in Germany when it’s cloudy and rainy for a month straight?
I can show you my electricity consumption from my heat pump in the winter compared to the electricity my PV system produced. Hint: it doesn’t work. And batteries aren’t an option either, because I can’t generate any excess electricity during the day. Take a look at the Fraunhofer study.
> And batteries aren’t an option either, because I can’t generate any excess electricity during the day
You can't generate excess electricity because you don't have enough land or rooftop (I mean maybe you do, I'm talking about the typical homeowner). Utilities can overbuild panels because they're extremely cheap.
LFP batteries have a self-discharge rate of 2-5% per month. Once they're cheap enough, over-building batteries to move summer sunshine into the winter months also becomes an option*. At $100/kwh, you could power Sweden 6 months a year for about $60bn (EDIT: $6tn, sorry) in batteries (yes labor and everything else will probably double that cost). And that doesn't even account for recent advances in sodium batteries, which reportedly bring that price down to $20/kwh
* (Any battery experts know why this might be wrong? I'm using basic arithmetic, not physics. That tells me a battery charged to 100% in July or August will still have > 70% charge left in December)
Germany would require a ballpark of 100 MILLION tons of Teslas Megapack grade batteries to run on battery for 2 weeks - which is even shorter than what we had to endure due to “Dunkelflauten”.
Why would Germany need to run solely on battery for 2 weeks? Do you expect 2 weeks with 0 sun and wind all over continental Europe?
In any case, at $100/kwh, it would cost $250bn (EDIT: $25tn sorry) in batteries and maybe the same in installation costs to power Germany for 6 months a year. At the lower $20/kwh price tag it would be more like $5tn, compared to Germany's ~$4.5tn GDP. Over 10 years it could be done.
I mean not the whole Europe and this is obviously geography-dependent, but those "dark periods" are fairly common for Germany, as in there are weeks-long periods where Germany itself produces basically no electricity from wind or solar. In the most extreme case some years back, that "dark period" lasted almost two months.
This isn't to say they can't import it from elsewhere, they just can't make any of their own. Adding more capacity wouldn't do anything, it would take an incredible amount of batteries to handle the more extreme end of those "dark periods".
But that's my point. It would cost 1 year's worth of German GDP in batteries to power Germany on batteries for 6 months. No one would ever need that much battery backup. And while it's a huge number, it's not an unfathomably huge number.
That's the absolute most that handling the absolute worst case could cost today. It can only get cheaper from here. And there's no need for government debt.
Batteries are definitely an option for day -> night shifting. If not today, then soon, and without requiring and technological advances.
Seasonal or month-long periods of low-generation are another matter, and as-yet an unsolved problem. It may be that synthesizing fuels ends up being a sensible option here.
Well, you gonna pay for building gas power plants that never run? Customers will need to pay for gas power plants that cover the entire electricity need (read up on Fraunhofer on the thinking: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/p... ) . But that infrastructure will sit there idle most of the time. That’s not driving down electricity prices. And you’ll still end up with higher carbon emissions than France.
> Well, you gonna pay for building gas power plants that never run? Customers will need to pay for gas power plants that cover the entire electricity need
Paying for the plant but not having to pay for it to run most of the time is probably cheaper than having it running most of the time.
Maybe there's opportunities for net metering for customers with backup generators. At the right price per kWH, I would run my generator and feed into the grid... personally, my fuel cost is likely too high for that to make sense very often, but I think there's likely some hidden capacity there with the right incentives.
Germany will require 100-150 GW capacity which cost about 1000 EUR/kW and would require an investment of 100+B EUR.
Electricity prices already skyrocketed in Germany and no end in sight.
Listen: I invested in PV, in low energy houses, in heat pumps - but the PV/wind strategy doesn’t work the way people would like them to in their ideology and Germany has proven that.
I think I'm more or less agreeing with you. You've got to build the gas plants (or something), for the dark and windless days of winter, right? That's going to be expensive, but PV/wind won't solve it, so you have to build it.
Now that you've built those plants, would you rather pay to operate them year round, or only when needed?
PV/wind won't help you reduce capex for winter, but it should reduce opex on gas. And that's something.
Spending capex on interconnections may reduce the total dispatchable capacity needed; if it's done carefully. Having more time zones in one grid helps because peaks correspond with time of day; having more latitude helps because day lengths and cloud cover varies. Having more of both helps because still air tends to be geographically bounded. But long distance transmission is expensive.
I’d rather build nuclear plants and not keep them entirely idle but forego the investment into additional PV and wind. Don’t get me wrong: when the sun shines and the wind blows we cover 100% of our need essentially. That’s great. But we can stop now.
Because we produce too much on some days and put our grid at risk and we produce too little to often on others and put our grid at risk
Yes, they mention hydrogen caverns and thermal storage on pp. 5–6 — but those are more theoretical potentials than real, scalable solutions today. That’s why even in Fraunhofer’s own scenarios we still see 500–750 GW of wind + PV (6–9× average load) and 100–150 GW gas backup on top. In practice, it’s the massive renewable overcapacity that smooths supply, with storage playing only a limited supporting role.
How are they not scalable? And realize that even in the fantasy of an all-nuclear world, electrolyzers are still required: they are needed to make the hydrogen that's the feedstock for synthesis of ammonia, without which world agricultural yield would be much lower.
Given that this all-nuclear world has electrolyzers, what then prevents these from being driven by renewables (perhaps buffered short term by batteries), and the hydrogen then stored (as has been done for decades in underground storage caverns, just like natural gas is stored)? And once that is done, what prevents some of that hydrogen from then being profitably used to drive turbines when electricity prices are high? Gas turbines burning hydrogen are nearly identical to ones burning natural gas (just minor differences in the combustors) and have been available industrially for decades.
Using reasonable projections for cost (some of which have already been superseded by lower figures), we can estimate the cost of providing synthetic baseload from wind/solar/storage in Europe, using historical weather data. It comes in cheaper than nuclear.
You need either nuclear or gas (like 100% capacity, idle most of the time) in addition to massive investments into the grid to make it work (at least in Germany).
I don’t understand how people seem to NOT understand that you need the ENTIRE capacity when wind and solar act up as a backup and what the cost of that is. It’s not me making that up but the Fraunhofer: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/p...
There is no storage in existence that would allow us to run an industrialized country from battery backup. We are talking ballpark 20 TWh of storage which would require 100 MILLION ton Tesla Megapack gear.
This is straight up misinformation. Nuclear power is not a peaker.
Gas is, batteries are. Nuclear power provides baseload and must be paired with a peaker too - almost always gas (France uses epic amounts of gas when its nuke plants are down for maintenance).
The reason why we have gas as a peaker instead of batteries? Gas is cheaper, and batteries dont get lavished with subsidies like nuclear power does.
>I don’t understand how people seem to NOT understand that you need the ENTIRE capacity when wind and solar act up
We look at real models based upon real data, for example:
I’m not saying “no gas”. I’ saying: no more PV or wind because we already stress our grid with too much electricity on some days and we have periods of days or week where we need to essentially generate 100% without any PV or wind.
You linked the same study for 5 times in this thread - you still misrepresent it's focus. The study concerns itself with the influence of social acceptance and how that reflects on the cost and efficiency of 'going green'.
I accept Fraunhofer’s technical modeling: they explicitly size ~500–750 GW of PV+wind by 2050 (≈6–9× average load) and still keep ~100–150 GW of flexible gas turbines plus sizable batteries for reliability (pp. 5–7). They target ≥95% cuts in energy-related CO₂ vs. 1990, but that still leaves a non-zero footprint—nowhere near France’s nuclear-heavy intensity (p. 11). Where I part ways is economics: today’s ~40 ct/kWh retail reality makes their rosy cost outlook look detached from how this overbuild-plus-backup approach plays out on the ground. I can appreciate Fraunhofer’s technical simulations—they’re excellent at that—but I’m street-smart enough to separate modeling optimism from economic reality, and that’s a distinction worth keeping in mind.
Maybe some street smart and “nuanced” thinking is something to consider? :-)
Not all gas plants are made equally. There's a huge difference operation-wise between "able to scale at any moment from 0% to 100% within 15 minutes" and "can start going online within 30 days".
Most current plants are either designed to run basically all the time, or only run a couple of hours multiple times a day.
A renewable grid needs generation which is fully shut down for months, but can scale up to 100% within days when weather forecasts predict it'll be needed. The current plants might work as a stop-gap measure, but long-term we'll need to build something designed specifically for this application.
That report is from 2020. Costs have fallen greatly since then, particularly for battery storage. And even so, that report doesn't say fossil fuels are needed (although the "net zero" solution still is allowed to burn some, I'm guessing because CO2 absorbed into the oceans isn't being counted?) It even says explicitly that hydrogen would be used for long term storage! See pages 5 and 6.
With hydrogen available renewables can straightforwardly get to 100%. Germany has plenty of geology for hydrogen storage. As I mentioned elsewhere, long term thermal storage is also a possibility, with recent developments there suggesting very competitive capex.
If not, grow that industry. Just like one would have to do with nuclear if one were to adopt that technology. You do realize that existing burner reactors cannot power the world for more than a few decades, right? The available cheap uranium runs out. Breeder reactors are not commercially available, or available at a cost competitive even with existing commercial burner reactors.
(The French have given up on their breeder development program, cancelling Astrid, the proposed next project, until at least 2050.)
Renewables and storage seem much more quickly scalable than nuclear, as demonstrated by the yearly percentage rate of increase in their deployment.
France generally export quite large amounts of electricity. But whenever a cold spell hits that export flow is reversed to imports and they have to start up local fossil gas and coal based production.
What they have done is that they have outsourced the management of their grid to their neighbors and rely on 35 GW of fossil based electricity production both inside France and their neighbors grids. Because France's nuclear power produces too much when no one wants the electricity and too little when it is actually needed.
Their neighbors are able to both absorb the cold spell which very likely hits them as well, their own grid as the French exports stops and they start exporting to France.
As a fan of a sport that greatly relies on accurate weather forecasts with an interest in weather models my impression is that more supercomputer budget isn’t necessarily the issue (eg., more granular models can be less accurate) but the lack of data on the initial state is… Things like snow on mountains, soil conditions, vegetation, soil humidity and simply the problem of just having relatively few data-points makes stuff tricky… That stuff changes with season. I have seen some magic improvements coming from small shop companies tweaking the models here and there a bit - massively impressed.
Now, running these simulations even further into the future - I have my doubt much useful prediction is gonna come out.
To your knowledge is there anybody working on a “littering the globe with huge quantity of cheap self-contained sensors” kind of project? Or is that the kind of work best done from the air or from orbit?
I am no authority to speak about this - but I believe expanding sensors and improving on data gathering is a continuous and on-going effort (e.g., weather station on ships, airplanes, stations deployed on sea etc.). Better weather satellites are also a thing. But then there is just so much more that could be done and all these data-points are still unevenly distributed (e.g., planes and ships follow routes).
Weather models are improving quite a bit “behind the scenes” but again - I think we are far away from getting anything reliable for several days into the future; not to speak months or years.
I would never again found a company in Germany - not because of the super high tax or these arbitrary rules like you need to pay insane amounts to the Chamber of Industry and Commerce (IHK) or the GEZ for radios you don’t have; but: dealing with the bureaucracy and the tax authorities is just insane. Like you are required to pay a registered tax accountant do your books then they have “screenings” where you PAY him again to check his work and explain it to the IRS - only to find you missed paying 13.09 EUR of social security for the artist guild. Spent 5k in tax advisory fees and countless working days dealing with the questions over 13 EUR.
I hear you in general, but GA engines need to work more reliably and go through way more intense operational challenges than automotive engines. Picture this: you take off at 100°F on the ground at full throttle with only air cooling to save weight and reduce potential failure points, then climb to 10,000 feet where the outside air temperature drops to around 65°F (or even freezing conditions). The baffling is a bit worn, and the pilot maintains 70 knots in the climb, pushing cylinder head temperatures (CHT) to 420°F or higher. Then the pilot gets chatty and pulls the engine back to near-idle while CHTs are still at 350°F, before pushing the nose down to kill altitude—causing CHTs to plummet to 250°F in minutes. Through all these extreme thermal cycles and temperature swings, the engine simply cannot quit on its pilot.
GA engines may look antiquated—with their carburetors, magnetos, and mechanical fuel pumps—but this apparent simplicity is entirely by design. These “outdated” systems are actually time-tested solutions engineered for ultimate reliability when failure means catastrophe. While car oils use metallic detergent additives, aviation oils must use ashless dispersants to prevent spark plug fouling that could cause engine failure. The oils must handle sustained high RPM operation and brutal temperature cycling while meeting strict FAA specifications that prioritize proven reliability over cutting-edge performance.
Every component, from the dual magneto ignition (no electrical system dependency) to the mechanical engine-driven fuel pump, represents decades of refinement focused on one critical goal: the engine will not quit when you need it most. It’s not that these engines are behind the times—they’re precisely engineered for their mission-critical role where proven, simple systems trump technological sophistication.
Most of what you describe can be accomplished with diesel Jet-A engines. These used to be unthinkable for GA because they were too heavy, but clean-sheet designs are making it possible.
Much easier to fuel, no electrical system dependencies, no spark plugs to foul, liquid cooling to keep the temps more constant, and dual redundant FADECs. Plus much better range.
It is not true that reliability requires old-style engine design, it's more a question of cost. Modern jet airliners (their engines but also really everything about them) have a ton of complexity, including a myriad of electrical control systems, yet they are no less reliable.
It's just that this is not a fair comparison because manufacturers of said airliners have more resources for R&D.
Except now we’re back to one of the main points of the article - modern airliners cost billions of dollars to develop and certify, and GA aircraft will never get that level of investment.
Professional here also introducing an element that's unexpected. We expect that they'll have more training, they've often done simulator training which is more realistic, they have a lot more hours and so on.
But because it's a job they have much less Plan Continuation Bias aka "Get-there-itis". Flying New York to Dallas? I did that yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that. So if the weather looks bad and maybe we shouldn't, well then I guess we just don't go, I'll go tomorrow, or maybe somebody else will, it's just a job.
GA pilots are notorious for this problem, and it puts them in vulnerable situations where they're one problem away from disaster, as weather is worse than they hoped, things don't happen the way they expected, and gradually they go from "It'll probably be fine" to "I hope I live to learn from this experience".
GA engines use low compression ratios and high displacement to generate power at lower RPMs, reducing mechanical stress and heat buildup that would be catastrophic during sustained high-power operations like climb and cruise. The need for low propeller RPM means designs either go for a gearbox-driven high compression, low displacement approach like Rotax, or the low RPM, low compression, high displacement route like Lycoming—and given these constraints, the good old Lycoming design isn’t all that bad.
The comment was not AI generated. I had grammar spelling and language fixed because english is not my first language and culturally the way I express myself does come across as harsh to sensitive American audiences.
Do you believe anything I say is inaccurate or do I need to accommodate another “please don’t do X because otherwise I feel offended/cannot trust a random stranger/…” stance?
Sorry, it is very obviously AI generated. And yes, there are several inaccuracies or misleading statements in those three short lines.
>The oils must handle sustained high RPM operation
Flat out wrong, most GA piston engines are quite low RPM and even the "higher RPM" engines are rated lower than an equivalent car engine. Redlines are lower than car engines too.
>aviation oils must use ashless dispersants to prevent spark plug fouling
Also flat out wrong, lol. FAA allows use of straight mineral oil and although most people break-in with mineral oil and switch to oil with ashless dispersants, the use of straight mineral oil for an engine's entire life is perfectly legal.
>(the oils must meet) strict FAA specifications that prioritize proven reliability over cutting-edge performance
Another lovely LLM hallucination. I would love to see any sort of FAA "specification" on engine oil that causes a serious performance compromise.
The main thrust of your comment is - and I quote - that the use of carburetors instead of fuel injection is "entirely by design." That is entirely bullshit. Fuel injection was not a mature technology until the 80s and didn't even become the default in new passenger cars until the 90s. If you are designing, let's say, the Lycoming O-320 - one of the most popular GA engines today - in the early 1950s, you used a carburetor because it was the only real option.
I say this all as a supporter of old, simple systems, and as a man who has trusted his life to old, reliable, simple engines. I would love a debate about the actual reliability and factors of reliability of GA engines. But I would have that debate with a human. Because, for all their merits and uses, LLMs currently struggle to produce real insight.
You might be in for a bad awakening when comparing the reliability and safety statistics of Lycomings to the Rotax engines in Flight Design planes. Even though I entirely share your enthusiasm in general - these “old technologically outdated Lycosaurus engines” are really reliable in comparison…
Rotax engines have been extremely popular in Europe for LSA equivalents - but boy do I recall countless stories of engine failures. The most crazy one was of a flight instructor that had a total of 12 (!?) before he quit flying. A lot has to do I believe with the “creative ways the engine and its components are stuffed into different airframes”.
"Over the 6-year study period between 2009 and 2014, 322 engine failures or malfunctions involving light aircraft were reported to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and/or Recreational Aviation Australia (RA-Aus). These reports involved single-engine piston aeroplanes up to 800 kg maximum take-off weight.
Aircraft powered by Jabiru engines were involved in the most engine failures or malfunctions with 130 reported over the 6 years. This represents about one in ten aircraft powered by Jabiru engines in the study set having reported an engine failure or malfunction.
Reports from Rotax powered aircraft were the next most common with 87 (one in 36), followed by aircraft with Lycoming (58 – one in 35) and Continental (28 – one in 35) engines.
When factoring in the hours flown for each of these engine manufacturers, aircraft with Jabiru engines had more than double the rate of engine failure or malfunction than any other of the manufacturers in the study set with 3.21 failures per 10,000 hours flown."
(When you read on, it appears the Jabiru engine was improved and now has less failures)
I do not know how widespread Rotax engines are in Australia and how large the GA is there. Also, I do not track standardized failure rates of engine models around the world - but shared anecdotal evidence. Except two instances, ALL reports or stories from friends and acquaintances around engine failures involved Rotax engines (probably 5:1 ratio). Tracking planes with up to 800kg in the study eliminates all Pipers and Cessnas - which I admit I used as a baseline comparison for my statements. I guess the only plane with a Lycoming/Continental engine below 800kg that comes to mind is the Pa18 from the 1940s/1950s.
Now, I definitely do not say that these are bad engines, but there is a lot of chatter in Europe how these engines are plugged into a wide range of airframes and there are more complex system interactions than meets the eye which can cause some problems. Or put differently: C172 and Pa28 are probably among the most common airframes to stuff the Lycomings and Continentals into. I suspect we kind of figured out how to make these work reliably.
Rotax works in MANY many different combinations and many different airframes - so there is that.
> there are more complex system interactions than meets the eye which can cause some problems
I will grant this for sure. Kind of like modern cars though, it's a double-edged sword. On the UAS programme I'm working on it has been absolutely invaluable to be able to just plug into the 912 ECU's CAN bus and gather a ton of engine telemetry (and send it down to the ground for monitoring at the GCS).
Thank you for posting the links and starting the discussion about 912 reliability. I'm going to have to dig into it a little and see if there's any takeaways I need to bring back to my team.
With zero evidence to support this other than my own experience with N=4 of these, I have a suspicion that part of the problem could be that they're not getting sufficient maintenance and inspection because of how simple they are from an O&M perspective and how robust they are in nominal and off-nominal conditions. When I was first working with it and flipping through the operators manual I was kind of shocked to discover that the only real pre-flight actions are: check coolant level, rotate the prop and make sure the oil reservoir burps. There's a startup and warm-up procedure that we follow to the letter but short-term you almost certainly won't notice if you skip it. Before we had our robust telemetry system and checklists in place, we accidentally flew it with only one ECU lane turned on once and didn't notice until we were on the ground. Engine was already off after landing when someone came on the radio and asked "hey guys... in-flight we're supposed to have both lanes A and B on right?" "Yeah..." "The Lane B switch was off when I approached the aircraft...".
To summarize what I'm getting at: this engine, in my experience so far, has a ton of really robust redundancy features and those redundancy features work so well that you may not notice that you've got issues until you've run out of redundancy. I can only think of two situations where we've had issues bad enough that it caused it to "run rough" and trigger a deeper investigation:
- Because our aircraft is unmanned we have electromechanical relays in series with the Lane A/B switches that we can control from the ground both for engine-start safety (the engine can't be started unless both the crew chief and remote pilot have turned on Lanes A and B) and to be able to kill the engine remotely after landing or in an emergency. We had an electrical issue that was causing the relays to chatter, resulting in Lanes A and B getting sporadic power.
- Somehow in one revision of the ever-evolving full-system checklist the "check water separator" item got dropped and no one noticed. It flew probably 10+ flights on that checklist before we had a really rough start, in an environment that was highly conducive to water accumulation in the fuel (large daily OAT and RH swings). We were horrified at how much water came out when I realized that no one had been checking... and yet there had been zero negative effects until there was a big negative effect.
Totally get where you’re coming from—German can feel like a surgical tool when it comes to precision, especially in law or certain engineering domains where it’s still dominant. But from my (very subjective) experience, that sharpness doesn’t always carry over to areas like machine learning or modern software architecture.
Most cutting-edge research and discussion happens in English, and honestly, I find it pretty tough to have a deep technical conversation in German—even with other Germans. The language just doesn’t seem to reflect the latest advancements in those fields.
I used to agree with the “German is super precise” sentiment—especially when it came to legal or philosophical stuff. But the more I’ve immersed myself in English, the more I’ve seen how nuanced and expressive it can be too. And ironically, German law often ends up being a case-by-case “interpretation party” anyway.
Don’t get me wrong, I still appreciate the poetic weight of words like Müßiggang—there’s real beauty there. But when it comes to actually getting things done or discussing complex, evolving ideas? I’m not sure German gives us much of a practical edge anymore.
> I find it pretty tough to have a deep technical conversation in German
...loan words?
Dutch doesn't have a word for computer other than computer, SSD is SSD, machine learning is machine learning, WiFi is WiFi (with a 50/50 split on people saying it the english or the dutch way), generative AI is generatieve AI and I don't think anyone would count loaning generative as-is as a typo either (maybe if you work for a publisher with a strict rulebook)
And from there you apply the normal grammar. To do stuff on the computer is computering (or, actually, we make verbs with -en so it's actually computeren) and machine learning applications are machinelearning-toepassingen. At least, to me it's normal to mix languages like that. It's also not like we avoid the word fingerspitzengefühl or überhaupt just because they once came from german, or like the english don't throw in a kindergarten or zwischenzug where applicable. It just gets mixed into the existing language
