belorn

If we look at mining companies, we kind of know that society will carry most of the risk and negative externalities, so regulations must exist to limit how and to what degree companies can operate.

If a mining company extract lead and silver from the ground, we kind of know that they won't be around to safeguard waste for all eternity, nor will they be able to restore the environment when the company eventually goes bankrupt. If society want to allow such commercial operations then it need to also strike a balance so that society don't have to bear too much of the negative externalities.

In Sweden, the goverment here owns the energy company that operate the nuclear power plants and the mining company.

Such anti-nuclear has some validity, but only if we can agree that burning fuel for energy and heat should not continue. Constructing new power plants and central heating systems that rely on burning fuel should be imminently stopped, and all existing plants should have their remaining life time determined and then sunset when they reach it. Any argument of external factors for nuclear are dwarfed by the external factors from burning fuel for energy and heat, double so for profit-maximizing locusts and warmongering oligarchs.

The biggest reason the world is seeing more active was is that we are dependent on a few unstable countries for our energy needs. Solar and wind power can produce very cheap energy when the weather is optimal, but suboptimal weather can equally produce extremely expensive prices to the point where social and economical stability start to break down. We are giving money to warmongering oligarchs because of the fear of what happens if prices goes up to high, which would not happen if energy and heating infrastructure was secure and geopolitical independent.

Sure, there are third parties. It just that people associate that with wasted votes.

The way Sweden taxes stocks is to give people a choice between two options. They can either tax the total change in ownership value between each year (profit vs loss), or to pay a fixed (lower) tax on the total value regardless of profit or loss.

The first option guaranties that you don't pay more in taxes than you earn on the stocks, and the later has higher risk vs reward. For some reasons, the later seems to be the most popular choice, despite the risk that the owner need to cover the cost of taxes regardless of what happens in the stock market.

Please become political and get party platforms to invest into massive sodium-ion batteries farms for northern Europe like Denmark, Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland and so on. There are no political party that has that as a strategy, and those that reject nuclear are instead promoting thermal power plants as the solution to the problem of variability in energy production from renewables. Even the green party, or to be precise the strategy that they pioneered and others on the left adapted, is to build thermal power plants today that burn natural gas and bio fuels, and then wait for green hydrogen. There is no political interests to change that strategy to sodium-ion batteries farms. To make just one such example, south of Sweden strated construction this spring for a fresh new thermal power plant and CCS, owned by local government that is run by a coalition of left and green. Instead of putting millions into emission producing thermal power plants they could build that cheaper and better sodium-ion batteries.

I know multiple people who would have voted for the green party, but decided to not do that because of their investments and political drive towards thermal power plants. The only political alternative to parties pushing for thermal power plants is those that want nuclear power.

The historical narrative is fairly straight forward. In the early 2000 the green party created a strategy to address climate change, and the main part of that was green hydrogen created from renewable energy. The idea was to replace existing oil and coal in the power grid with gas power plants, and in transportation it would replace diesel and gasoline.

From that two transition strategies was formed together with political alliances. The far left has opposed nuclear energy since the 60s, and hydrogen was a superior fuel without any of the drawbacks of nuclear, and so the green and the far left could join on this strategy. The center left and center right was also happy to build cheap natural gas power plants, reducing energy and heating costs for the working class, and provide new jobs. The natural gas power plants could be converted to hydrogen, which was the basis for declaring natural gas as "green" in EU, pushed by this coalition of political parties.

The strategy did not work out and green hydrogen never became economical viable, but despite this it is still the primary strategy for the green party. With climate change advocates in Germany being generally associated with the green party, the strategy being pushed end up being anti-nuclear and pro-natural gas. Abandoning this strategy would mean loosing the political alliances with the far left and center, and thus they are stuck with a failing strategy.

If those religious groups has views that undermining the constitutional order, then Germany could prosecute them. That is the underlying legal argument. The basic law give every German the right to any belief or non-belief, but then it also limit that freedom in case it undermines the law itself. Does the religion opposes human dignity, do it support democracy, and do it support the rule of law in Germany. Teaching that say that same-sex marriage is wrong could be seen as opposing human dignity, thus not allowed under the basic law.

Do we have any example of a "good" country that has banned political parties for holding the wrong political views? The most recent example I can remember is Russia when they prevented a anti-war party for participating in the election, but I doubt that is example that people want Germany to follow.

The German constitution allow the legal system to limit the fundamental rights of individuals who are found to be undermining the constitutional order. It can punish people as well as preventing people to form political parties. If the political views are so bad that they are seen as undermining the constitutional order, allowing people to hold those views and express them but not to form parties seems odd and counter-intuitive. If the views are that bad they should not be expressed regardless if its done with or without a party hat.

Why banning a political party and not the political views? It seems easier to punishing people based on what they say and write and throw them into prison, rather than trying to keep the same people from assembling together as a group and having people vote for them.

Make it illegal to hold and express the view that people should not be allowed to wearing the burqa. If someone is express that they are against same-sex marriage or against circumcision for non-medical reasons, let them sit in jail for a few years. Why allow people to legally hold those view and express them but then forbid them from being political about it?

Culture is as mutable as borders of nations. Culture and nations are often seen as synonymous, to the point where one often get defined by the other.

Valuing a nations culture, values in society, borders, and maintain coherence within society are not far right idea. All political platforms strive more or less for those things, through they do differ on what values they want to focus on and deploy different strategies.

In this email leak, it is all emails from members of the party, not just elected officials. It is also emails sent from the outside to party members. Is that going too far? In term of transparency, allowing the public to see everything that happens and communicate within a political party would give some insight in what kind of people a party is made from.

It is definitely an interesting discussion to have in where the lines should be drawn in transparency and public insight into political landscape and behavior inside it. In Sweden, every person, regardless of position, has their income as public information. How much a person pay it taxes is also public information, so in some sense you can guess how much assets a person own and how much they have in the bank based on what they declared.

Sweden is fairly well know for its public access to official records, and any email sent to an official position in government is part of the public accessible record. Politicians however all have private emails and are users of instance messages services that are not part of the public record. Public access is also only for the public role in government, not for example the role of being the party leader.

Would it be a good thing or bad thing if this was scaled up so email servers and instance messages services was all public if the message involved a member of a political party, without allowing any back channel or ways to avoid the public record?

To give people a bit of insight into the domain registry industry, when a registrar increase domain prices there are generally four reason why they do it.

1) The registrar want to increase its margins.

2) The registry upstream increased their price. For .com, Verisign agreement with ICANN allow Verisign to increase the price by 7% in each of the final four years of every six-year cycle. As such they increased it in 2024 and will do so again on November 1, 2026.

3) The registrar is not a direct registrar and uses a middle man, and the middle man want to increase its margins.

4) The buyer or the registrar is operating on a different currency than the registry, and the registrar is compensating for changes in the currency valuation.

The study is not showing what you think it do:

> system costs are comprised by overcapacity of the technology itself, electrolysers and hydrogen storage, back-up power, influence on spinning reserve and transmission systems cost.

Green hydrogen storage solution has shown to be much more expensive than what earlier studies predicted, and are still not economical competitive to be used in industries that need the hydrogen itself rather than burning it for electricity.

> Thus, the simulation of, e.g., nuclear power involves back-up-power and peak-load power in order to cover all hourly electricity demands in a least-cost manner

This is an assumption that they don't explore.

> It should be emphasized that all the alternatives have exactly the same use of biomass and they all contribute with carbon for CCU, CCS and biochar to achieve a fully climate neutral society in all sectors including agriculture, industrial processes and LULUCF.

Again, they explicitly claim that all their solutions must burn fuel for electricity.

> The “LC mix biomass restricted” alternative is still comprised by a least-cost combination of offshore wind power (84%), solar PV (13%) and CCGT (3%)

> CCGT and therefore also the least-cost mix either use natural gas or biomethane

CCGT, as is thermal power plants, which is what is exactly what Sweden is constructing and what I linked above. A combination of wind, solar, and burning fuel for power. The difference between LC mix biomass restricted and least cost mix is how much fuel that grid is expected to burn.

Their model of just 3% CCGT do fly a bit against what Denmark is doing. They have over 100% wind capacity, and yet need to import almost 50% of the energy demand. Reducing that imports to 3% seems a bit like wishful thinking.

If the intent was disprove the need for thermal power plants by linking to that study, then the study itself disproves that in no unclear terms. The result of the study is that combining wind, solar and gas is the cheapest strategy to generate electricity.