I agree... but it all depend on the situation. For example, existing power grid, including conventional power plant can take 20% or 30% of intermittent power with close to no extra cost... And the energy mix, the interconnections, the location, the consumption habits all have an impact on the price. Simulation at a grid level, including demand response, thermal storage... can give some precise ideas.
Note that for doing apple to apple we should also include positive and negative externalities
Security wise, a much more decentralize system have some big advantages...
Yes managing intermittence have a cost, but battery is not the only solution out there.
A good diversified / complementary mix of source of energy reduce the level of the intermittence. Aside of thermal powerplant, some hydropower and biomass can be very flexible for example.
Solar and wind are so cheap now, that it make sense to build more than we need at peak, giving some extra buffer.
You can work on the demand side of electricity. Lowering the peak or making demand more flexible for example.
On the electricity storage, stationary batteries make sometime sense... EV can also play a role. There are also other solution like pumped hydro.
And thermal storage have a huge potential - and it is relatively cheap
This asymmetry makes enforcement easier when it profits the landlord, and make enforcement more difficult when it benefits the tenant... Your reflection seems based on the idea that there is a symmetry on the enforcement
Even if I am the owner of an apartment, I don't have the right to do a metal concert in my living room some Saturdays at 1 am... or don't have the right to paint my frontage the way I want... cause it creates negative consequences for other people.
Having vacant apartments and houses for long time in places where there is an housing shortage create much bigger negative consequences than few metal concerts...
I am volunteering in an housing rights organization in France, and I am and have been tenant in a city with high price and housing shortage.
There will always be many people taking "illegal deal" as sometime you have no other other solution, or other solution are even worse. And many many landlords are doing illegal things, including public housing.
Tenant don't have the same bargaining power / freedom / agency than landlord. Fighting illegal stuff that do landlord is long (usually longer than kicking out a squatter) and difficult. And you have little incentive to do it as a tenant : being in a fight with your landlord = being sure to have problem down the line
My feeling is that your comment ignores this asymmetry.
1) If it is where you lived they always could be (and were) kicked out quickly (and it was not that simple in other situations)
2) Now the law changed and it is much easier and faster to kick them out. It was always illegal to squat, now sanction are higher
3) Most squatters are not targeting houses. And all the time squats are mainly building not used for years (as it safer and easier for squatters, and sometimes as a way to "minimize" disturbances)
Please note that in Holland some kind of squat were legals for years (only for building not used for years and with obligation to not damage the property and to give it back quickly). Seems interesting to me
We have a lot of existing stuff ("political stuff" like cabron pricing, or "technological" stuff like double glazing or heat pump) that already make sense economically that we don't use fully. How AI deeply impact it ?
1) there are still trillions of "subsidies" (that includes some negative externalities)to fossil fuel each year according to IMF (IMF, not Greenpeace!).
2) Agents in the current system have incentives to prioritize short term benefits over longer term benefits. And a lot of climate related things are short term cost/investment for "profitable" long term benefits ; the current system sucks big time in this configuration.
3) The people having the least negative impact from climate change are the countries emitting the most greenhouse gas. The countries the more negatively impacted by climate change are countries contributing the least to climate change. There is a big misalignment of interest there making a purely "free market" "economical" solution difficult.
4) There are a lot of case in the real world were there is a strong economical incentive to switch to something different and were the different agents just don't... Because people don't want to change, because there can be some particular interest in the system, because of political motive... Human is not a rational animal, and his rationality is not only dictated by money
5) We need to do more than just switching from fossil to "green electricity"
Positive discrimination can see as racist, ok. (even if positive discrimination being here because of negative (generally unconscious) discrimination and because "diversity" is generally good for innovation and competitiveness).
But what here is " DEEPLY racist against white people" ?
Do you agree the important negative (often unconscious, based on cognitive bias) discrimination against minorities is a problem for the country competitiveness ? (negatively discriminated despite "merit")
Do you agree that reducing racial gap and gender gap in USA would be better for the country and its competitiveness ?
I am not a fan of quota, especially taken in isolation... But the underlying issued are huge, for a moral (not everybody have the same moral) but also economic standpoint
There is little ethics in politics and geopolitics.
In US politics there are the Jews, the pro-Israel Lobby, and also part of the Evangelical Christian who strongly support Israel for religious reason (while sometime being a bit antisemitic). More generally American people strongly support Israel - even if some are criticizing decision made by Israel. Electorally all that is important.
Election aside, everybody have his own interest, but for many decade Israel had been a solid ally of the USA in the middle East - which is/was a key region. And the coming decades it is hard to see how it can change as both have interest to work with each other
Muslims that are unhappy with the current situation with Israel, were probably not huge fan of the USA and Israel in the first place... This did not prevent leaders of many Muslim countries to work closely with the USA and growingly more with Israel : national interest first. Of course the current event increase the pressure of the street over their leader to not work with Israel on the short term...
If USA were dropping big time a key ally in a key situation for this ally, this would send a very very bad signal to all allies. But we see that Biden is much more critical about Israel than USA used to be. While still being an ally.
Note that the issue in not the Nakba anymore. From memory Oslo was about giving to a demilitarize Palestinian state about 10% of the Palestine mandate territory mostly in "islands" controlled by Israel, then progressively over a long period, increasing it to 22%, with quite no hope to get East Jerusalem back. And now (even before oct. 7) that seems impossible, far too much for the Israelis. (in 1992 89% of the population was "Palestinian")
In general westerners don't care about what happen abroad when there is nothing connected to them. In French media we have seen many stuff about Nagorno-Karabakh (with an Armenian point of view), because there are Armenian in France, and because it fits the narrative of the clash of civilizations Christian Vs Muslim. But it was far, in unimportant countries for us, few dead, no suspense, nothing spectacular...
Israel Palestine is another beast :
- Jerusalem in Holly for half of the world population and most westerners
- Israel as been important in US politics for decades (partly because of the first point) and the USA are direct and strong ally
- Most non western country have been colonized or assaulted by westerners in "recent" history... This conflict is also the echo and symbol of this : westerners assaulting non westerners (while giving moral lesson to the world)
- For some westerners that is the echo of Muslim and terrorists attacking westerners - us (9 11, Paris attack are in all minds), and for some kind of a symbol of the clash of civilization
- And this is happening now, with a lot of pictures, media coverage, with new images everyday, some suspense, some twist...
" The question is, what is so special about the Israeli/Palestine conflict that leads to these outsized protests? "
- Jerusalem (and more globally Israel and Palestine) is holly for Jews, Muslims and Christians ; more than half of the word population and more than 90% of US population
- Israel is a key ally of the USA, and this is a topic important in US politics for long time - including for some evangelical voters for religious question
- Westerners have colonized (or inflicted violence to) most of the non western countries on this planet in "recent" history... Israel is seen by some as a Western country colonizing just another developing country, with support of other western countries... echoing recent history for many. It is as such a symbol for a long time.
- USA, France... have had some big Islamist attack, what happened in Israel echoed to this for some people... and echoes to the clash of civilization western word vs Muslim which is central in the ideology of a growing number of westerners
- It is easier to understand, more divisive, with more people or causes we can identify with, than in Syria (everybody hates ISIS) or Yemen (arabs fighting arabs fighting other arabs in a desert ?)... And we have more images
Not sure you know what democracy is... Democracy is not just voting for your MP, it includes unions, strikes and collective agreement
If Tesla agreed (like 99,9999% of companies) with the democratically designed collective agreement, there would be no targeted strike. Strikes are one of the main democratic bargaining tool employees and unions have... including on key point of businesses.
We have a different sensibility when it comes to words ; for example I personally find Macron's "petites phrases" more problematic than Melenchon's ones, and I find both as good (but with different style) debaters, able to use facts, arguments and figures.
We both agree that word and discourse are important. But I think going deeper than what you heard on mainstream media is important to have a clearer picture. I think that concrete situation (eg. who are in their parties, who are their allies, what is the power dynamics...) is important. And I think that what people do is often more important than what people says. My argumentation was mostly based on this ; and I felt that your answers were mostly based on some "words" you heard on some medias, and often your "feeling" about it.
We both hate and fight against Zemmour. But while I did not read entire books of him, I am reading media not aligned with my conviction for years, I spent many hours reading and listening Zemmour, Zemmour supporters, and people putting work to describe Zemmour situation. I talked with far right people. I am not hating them and find them dangerous just because this smell shit from a distance, I have argument. I know they are not some crazy incoherent dudes. I know them enough to be able to easily be the devil advocate if I wanted.
When it come to LFI or Melanchon, you are just saying things so distorted, showing that you really don't know them. They wanted to increase the minimal salary by 15% (what a revolution), you think they want to double the minimal salary... We can argue about their program, but some serious economists backed it. You really have a grotesque view of LFI and their program (note that like any party, there are many different people in LFI). And I personally don't really like them (but voted for them once). I don't have a grotesque view of Zemmour I think.
Our last source of disagreement is I guess Democracy. Your definition of democracy seems to be "what is lawful under the 5th French Republic" ; even when it is against the vast majority of what French people want, even when it is against what 100% of the elected union want, against the elected parliament, and even Le Figaro journalists (and most other journalist) have to mobilized themselves several times because of the threats against freedom of the press. Personally I want more democracy.
The main point here is that when you don't have the support of police and military at all, the risk for democracy is lower... when you have their support, it is easier to be more authoritative. Do you agree with this ?
1- Macron is known for his inflammatory and regular "petites phrases" (but often said more calmly than Melenchon), like "people who are success, and people who are nothing"... Some of his minister (eg. Darmanin) too, with some fake news sometimes.
And there are discourses and there are actions... Even journalists of le Figaro (right, with far right journalists and guests) had to publicly protest several times against Macron and his police because of stuff linked to democracy.
2. Your initial post where mentioning defining democracy around the term of revolution. This is not the case. Note that most violent revolution were to bring more democracy (even if does not end well all the times) and he seems to use the word in a very broad sense, including winning election. I did say this point is in a way scary, but gave you detailed explanation why in this context it is not that scary at all. You did not answered to any of those points.
3. I you don't read their detailed stuff, how do you know it is "a "nice" and empty ideology" ?
4. Why you call him a demagogue (even without reading any detailed stuff) ? and on what base you you say it will be bad for most people ?
More importantly as we were talking about democracy, how do you see Melenchon managing to reduce democracy, while his political plateform is more democracy, his party and people voting for him want more democracy, while his allies he need does not want less democracy, while there are important safeguard in France, while counter powers does not want less democracy, while army, police, companies and press does not like him and would oppose any move toward more autoritarism ???
5 - Your answer is off-topic... Still answering it :
Protesters did a lot of things, not LFI (except for ONE elected representative saying something one time)...
The discourse of LFI is the recent protest the not centered around the lack of democracy but about retirement, and more broadly about work and money.
No LFI leader compared the French situation with Russia ! But indeed some pointed that democracy moved back a bit... And indeed even journalist from Figaro had to mobilize several times against Macron for stuff link to democracy... And I am sometimes afraid to go protest (and I do respect the law) having been attacked several times by the police... And the recent twist to prevent the parliament to vote a law is lawful but is seen as going against "democracy" by a majority of French people.
6 - Here again a new off topic subject... You are grossly caricaturing his position, but what is the link with democracy in France ??? (note that only USA predicted that Russia will attack)
7- If you are around Lille, let's have a drink if you want :-)
To me " permanent outrage, inflammatory discourse, obstruction of debates, conflictualization of everything, exacerbating existing social tensions" or using "vague" undefined word or using "overused catch phrase" can definitely apply to Macron, Darmanin, Ciotti, Valls, Rousseau, Wauquiez... and many others. All mainstream political party. Most of mainstream politicians doing good in the medias in 2023. And I guess we can also say they are "dishonest megalomaniac", and many have as "serious anger management issues".
All mainstream political parties (except perhaps the Greens) have had serious internal democracy problems (including falsifying votes in PS, UMP, LR).
This is bad. This does not give faith in politicians. But it seems that for you this represent a danger for democracy when it comes to Melanchon, but not when it comes to centrists or politician from the right.
-
2- About the revolution.
You said he is "defining democracy around concepts like "the revolution" ; that is absolutely not the case, especially not in the video you sent.
As I said in a previous comment, I find problematic his defense of Chavez or Castro. And this support is of course a little scary when it comes to democracy into the adversity. But Melenchon program being so different (nothing really radical in his platform - especially compared to Cuba or Venezuelan situation), in a country with much more counter power than Cuba or Venezuela, with a political plateform with a more democracy as center piece, and allies strongly against anything more authoritative in the current state... Well, that is not cool, but I don't see a real risk here
-
3 - New democracy and being vague
Most politician are often "vague". This includes la France Insoumise. Still tehy tend to produce a lot of written stuff explaining their positions for the last presidential election for exemple. Including testing their economical scenario with the Banque de France model, or detail plan about army...
Here is one thing about the new constitution https://lafranceinsoumise.fr/2023/05/02/passer-a-la-6e-repub...
-
4. La France Insoumise
Your view of la France Insoumise can explain why you fear for democracy... But how did you came to this conclusion ??? That is surprising. I would not be able to say this about any political party in France. Do you know their are business owner, startupers, economists, rich people... supporting La France Insoumise ? I really think you don't know them enough. Know your enemy ;)
-
5- Communism
Melenchon is not communist and his polical plateform is not communist, why this quote ?
Note that for doing apple to apple we should also include positive and negative externalities