I understand my post was not confusing. I was questioning why you need to pay twice for a service…

That the delivery was scheduled at that time is a whole other level. Crazy stuff!

Maybe give me the benefit of doubt and don’t interpret things? I meant that the service was already paid for by the sender and now somebody has to pay again? Seems strange to me at least…

I mean the sender already did, right?

Yeah in what world do you need to pay to get your parcel delivered ???

Business hours as in rural California where restaurants close at 7 pm? But you are right, vacation is pretty great here…

It happens so faaaast

Looks like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenocissus_tricuspidata

Our family home in Germany is completely covered in it…

Love it, thanks!

Great work! Do you have some more pics or maybe even a video?

If you are comparing gas to heat pump efficiency, it is more like 85-90% vs 350-500% efficiency.

Because in the gas furnace efficiency they only calculate the efficiency of burning gas but miss to include the auxiliary electricity that is needed to run the system.

In a heat pump system everything (running fans etc.) is included in the efficiency calculation. The efficiency itself is depending on the source of the heat pump. In a really harsh climate a ground / geo thermal source might make sense. But usually the average temperature is higher than you might think.

And for the environmental effect: modern gas power plants run at 50-60% efficiency so with a heat pump you are always burning less gas even if the gas plant is less efficient then the gas furnace.

It would be interesting to know what extreme cold means.

For extra fun preheat the plates with the water from the pasta. Additionally the pasta water can be added to most sauces to make them more thick.

Just don’t.

Okay lets see. What I meant is: at its time, the Ariane 5 was a great program. Now is a different time. Now we have got SpaceX (and RocketLab etc.) and at the same time the Ariane 6 is already outdated before it is ever launched. At the same time, the Ariane 6 program has run into major delays, so it is not even clear when the first launch will be – probably 2024.

Reusable rocket technology is where it’s at if we as Europeans want to stay relevant in the commercial launch sector.

The Soyuz is not a bad rocket, neither is the Ariane. It is just that technology has advanced quite significantly in the last few years. And rockets are just a (very visible) part of space technology.

I somewhat agree. The only way forward in most areas would be European projects. But we are lacking competent and agile institutions. They got so big and bloated – that for me it looks like they are not able to reform themselves. So first we need good (european) organizations, then we can pour the money over them…

I am a proud European, but do not kid yourself. The United States are light years ahead in space technology. The Ariane program is a complete clusterfuck as of now.

While I agree that it would have been better to phase out coal before nuclear power plants, I also think that those decisions have to be viewed in context and are more nuanced than ‘pretty stupid’.

For example, as other in this thread pointed out, nuclear power plants can be pretty safe to operate IF there is a good culture of safety and protocols in place. Which of course need to be followed and supervised by a strong regulatory body. Two of nuclear power plants in Brunsbüttel and Krümmel were missing this kind of safety culture in the opinion of the regulatory body. They were both operated by Vattenfall. If you lose trust in the operator of such critical infrastructure, then a decision to shut down nuclear power plants has to factor in all the arguments at hand.

Yes, of course, hydrogen is not an energy source (neither are batteries). Sorry if I was not clear about that, I thought it was clear from the context. I was talking about hydrogen and batteries as means of balancing fluctuating output from renewables.

I tend to agree that 44% fossil fuels are still too much, the transition could have been faster and needs to faster in the future. Not a lot of countries have done the successful pivot from fossil energy to renewable energy. The only example that comes to mind is Denmark, where they have great policies (and great wind resources). So I guess everything needs to be viewed in context.

Hmm I think what you mean is that some coal plants have been put into active maintenance. IIRC this was rather a countermeasure in case of absence of gas supplies. They are not part of the regular energy market.

Anyway, I think there is not only one way forward. Countries like France choose to use a big portion of nuclear, Germany does not. And every way has its own challenges. What is important is that energy supply should be independent of oppressor states and moving into a direction of carbon neutrality.

I hope this is a serious question, obviously this depends on your baseline. In 2013 Germany had a 56% share of fossil fuels, 27% share of renewables and 17% share of nuclear power generation. In the current year, the shares are: 59% renewables, 39% fossil fuels and 2% nuclear power generation. So in the last ten years there has been a switch in generation from both nuclear and fossil fuels to renewable generation. Could it have been better in the wake of the looming crisis of both climate and energy? Yes, I think it would have been better to keep some newer nuclear power plants running. But Cpt. Hindsight always has it easier.

In the long run every successful economy will generate its major share of electricity from renewables. Some countries will choose to generate a part with nuclear, others will choose to use a mix of hydrogen, batteries etc. to complement renewables. We will see what works best.