Question about 2: ". . . Israeli sovereignty over all the territory once held by the British Mandate of Palestine."
The Likudnik hasbara one sees about this issue make much about two points: the partition resolution approved by the UN General Assembly (which the Zionists accepted for tactical reasons and the Arabs rejected) and the fact that the British Mandate originally included both sides of the Jordan ("The Palestinians already have a state, it's Jordan!").
The latter ignores the fact that Britain divided their Mandate into two parts and applied the Balfour Declaration only to the western part, with the approval of the League of Nations.
Wouldn't it be more precise to write, " . . . Israeli sovereignty over the part of the territory once held by the British Mandate of Palestine to which the Balfour Declaration was applied ."?
This may seem like quibbling, but there is a lot of legal hair-splitting going on, with Israelis making much of a UN resolution which refers to "occupied territories" rather than "the occupied territories".
No, it would not. Only about a third of American households have a gun, and the recent surge in gun sales appears to be due to a subset of gun owners stocking more and more guns.
I am a regular reader because you bring an informed perspective to MENA events, skeptical of simplistic explanations.
I continue to be disappointed that you don't apply the same sort of skepticism to energy issues.
The Guardian article you linked to is ridiculous, simplistic and credulous. As commenters there have pointed out, Germany has slashed its electricity exports. That means other European countries have had to replace the electricity they were importing from Germany. It means nothing to report that Germany has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions if other European countries have had to increase theirs.
Keeping electrical grids stable and reliable while using increasing amounts of renewable energy is going to be hard and expensive, with many technical challenges. On the same day you link to that Guardian article, The Oil Drum has now posted a report, "German Power Grids Increasingly Strained".
I continue to support the rapid deployment of fourth generation nuclear power plants concurrently with the rapid deployment of renewables. This will help address strains on the electrical grid, keep costs down, and allow us to deal with the 'waste' from second and third generation nuclear plants. (What others call waste, supporters of fourth generation nuclear plants call fuel.)
German domestic electrical consumers are paying about 2.5 times what I'm paying in my part of the USA. I'd like to keep it that way but also shut down the fossil fuel powered plants. (The electricity I purchase is mostly from coal-fired plants with some nuclear.) This is going to be much harder than you report, even taking into account the increasing cost competitiveness of wind and solar power.
"In the US, solar installations more than doubled, with 1.8 gigawatts in capacity added. That is roughly like two small nuclear plants."
Sorry, but it's not. You can't directly compare the nameplate capacities of two such disparate technologies. The capacity factor of a modern nuclear plant is in excess of 90%, while PV installations have a capacity factor of 15-20% depending on latitude and climate.
In terms of actual electrical generated, a nominal 1.8 gigawatts of installed PV is only equivalent to a fraction of one small nuclear plant.
I called my congressman and left a message: "When is the US Congress going to stop acting as if it were a faction of the Likud?"
Thank you for keeping us informed.
Question about 2: ". . . Israeli sovereignty over all the territory once held by the British Mandate of Palestine."
The Likudnik hasbara one sees about this issue make much about two points: the partition resolution approved by the UN General Assembly (which the Zionists accepted for tactical reasons and the Arabs rejected) and the fact that the British Mandate originally included both sides of the Jordan ("The Palestinians already have a state, it's Jordan!").
The latter ignores the fact that Britain divided their Mandate into two parts and applied the Balfour Declaration only to the western part, with the approval of the League of Nations.
Wouldn't it be more precise to write, " . . . Israeli sovereignty over the part of the territory once held by the British Mandate of Palestine to which the Balfour Declaration was applied ."?
This may seem like quibbling, but there is a lot of legal hair-splitting going on, with Israelis making much of a UN resolution which refers to "occupied territories" rather than "the occupied territories".
"Wouldn’t that be, like, everyone in the US?"
No, it would not. Only about a third of American households have a gun, and the recent surge in gun sales appears to be due to a subset of gun owners stocking more and more guns.
link to obsidianwings.blogs.com
Your other points are spot on.
I am a regular reader because you bring an informed perspective to MENA events, skeptical of simplistic explanations.
I continue to be disappointed that you don't apply the same sort of skepticism to energy issues.
The Guardian article you linked to is ridiculous, simplistic and credulous. As commenters there have pointed out, Germany has slashed its electricity exports. That means other European countries have had to replace the electricity they were importing from Germany. It means nothing to report that Germany has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions if other European countries have had to increase theirs.
Keeping electrical grids stable and reliable while using increasing amounts of renewable energy is going to be hard and expensive, with many technical challenges. On the same day you link to that Guardian article, The Oil Drum has now posted a report, "German Power Grids Increasingly Strained".
link to theoildrum.com
I continue to support the rapid deployment of fourth generation nuclear power plants concurrently with the rapid deployment of renewables. This will help address strains on the electrical grid, keep costs down, and allow us to deal with the 'waste' from second and third generation nuclear plants. (What others call waste, supporters of fourth generation nuclear plants call fuel.)
German domestic electrical consumers are paying about 2.5 times what I'm paying in my part of the USA. I'd like to keep it that way but also shut down the fossil fuel powered plants. (The electricity I purchase is mostly from coal-fired plants with some nuclear.) This is going to be much harder than you report, even taking into account the increasing cost competitiveness of wind and solar power.
"In the US, solar installations more than doubled, with 1.8 gigawatts in capacity added. That is roughly like two small nuclear plants."
Sorry, but it's not. You can't directly compare the nameplate capacities of two such disparate technologies. The capacity factor of a modern nuclear plant is in excess of 90%, while PV installations have a capacity factor of 15-20% depending on latitude and climate.
In terms of actual electrical generated, a nominal 1.8 gigawatts of installed PV is only equivalent to a fraction of one small nuclear plant.