I think there are some startups working on cargo train "tankers" in the US too.
An idea I had after seeing the tanker concept was to have the battery carrier also serve as a generator via wind power. If its a huge ship I suppose you could just stick a turbine on it and go where the wind is blowing. I think a more fun concept is generating power off of a smaller scale cat- or trimaran generating both propulsion and power by sailing conventionally.
The way that worked is that part of the CHIPs act after Intel reached a milestone the USG handed them a bag of cash.
Intel failed at finishing a bunch of milestones so there was a large pot of money Intel did not get. Trump gave them that pot of money in return for 10% stock.
You can make up your own mind about whether investing money into a company that couldn't achieve milestones is a good idea.
I mean the Jones act was pretty practical for it's time. When you could obtain a ship via a cheap lease from the US Navy then the lack of capital spend building the ship is fine to spend employing US sailors.
However, now that the navy is out of the business of buying overpriced ships to rent out (with the idea that they'd be repurposed if a war broke out) now the Jones act isn't very effective.
However, unlike the Jones Act there's no criteria that Intel be able to supply chips. At least with the Jones Act we're going to have US citizens practiced sailing ships. With the stock purchase Intel doesn't need to have capacity to build chips for missiles/drones/etc; especially with the government treating them as non-voting shares!
If the USG wanted a hedge they should've just forked some money over for an option to buy X chips for $Y. Or some more complex option about fab time / output. You hedge production concerns with futures not equity!
It's also not great to hedge by using a vendor that wasn't able to meet previous goals you gave them. Counterparty risk is a real thing.
Yeah hence the “I don’t know that I would” it was more an attempt to see it from their point of view and assume a rationale, there may not have been one or not a sensible one we can infer with what is publicly known, as an outsider I can’t say the US is a rational actor at this point.
It would be interesting to see how this looks on a map.
Electricity exports (/prices) is a MASSIVE controversy in Norwegian politics, so it would be pretty funny if Norwegian power is replacing the curtailed wind power.
I've only heard about this, but do I understand correctly that:
- Norwegian hydro-electricity is normally quite cheap
- 'They' built a cable from Norway to the rest of Europe to couple the markets
- Since the markets are coupled, mainland Europe buys the hydro-electricity from Norway, driving up prices in Norway.
- People are pissed, understandably I guess.
Correct. One additional problem beyond the price hike was also the fact that the price came to be wildly unstable. One day it was bascially free and the next day it was approaching 1 euro per kwh, where as before, the price usually came to about 1 NOK (10-12 eurocent) per kwh after taxes and such, and hadn't moved significantly from that in over 10 years.
See Fig 2 here[1] for just how spiky the market became after the price hike.
Also bear in mind that Norway does most of its residential heating with resitive heating, precisely because electricity has historically been so cheap. Heat pumps are getting more popular, and burning firewood got very popular during the price hike, but basically no-one heats with gas, as there's no infrastructure to support it.
That is correct. The historical price for consumers is by my guesstimate $0.03-0.05 USD, now it’s at least double. Grid fees come on top of that.
The anger is completely out of proportion, IMO, as the net effect is probably very positive. 1. Hydro is typically state owned and taxed at a very high rate 2. 50% of the price difference between markets is pocketed by the public grid operator (reducing grid fees) 3. We also import power when needed and typically at a net profit.
I think for a lot of people, their deeded land is in eventually in terms of lat/long, and if the water swallows their land or their land falls in the sea, they're pretty much SOL. Depending on the rules of their locality, they may keep ownership of the land that's now underwater: it may effectively cease if underwater land is not subject to private ownership, or it may continue but not be of value because you may not be able to exclude other people from the land (or the waters above it) or develop it.
For some though, the deed may be defined in terms of the coastline, and then they're going to have an interesting legal battle. But this isn't without precedent; coastlines and waterways change and things defined against them adapt.
That portion of the Northeast quarter of Section X, Township Y North, Range Z East, W.M., in Blank County, Washington, described as follows:
The Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section. Except for some bits that aren't relevant.
That's not in terms of lat/long per se, but the section and townships are effectively equivalent to lat/long. If the shoreline moves, my property doesn't. Technically everything is relative to this stone ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willamette_Stone
40% of the world’s population lives within 100 kilometers of the coast[1]. If one person makes a bad purchase of land, the problem is theirs. If 3 billion people make bad purchases of land, that's a problem for everyone in the world.
Probably we can't blame most of those people for much beyond being born where they were.
>>Society at large should not have to keep bailing out people who make poor decisions like this.
I get your point, and I agree to a certain extent, but do you apply this same approach to other bad decisions such as EG overeating causing obesity, drug taking etc?
I'm honestly not sure which point you're making in this thread. Are you saying that government should somehow make people whole for the loss of their coastal property? Or are you making the point that the government has no business interfering with the property rights of others? There seems to be a tension here, because I don't see how you could do the latter without also doing the latter — i.e., making coastal property owners whole requires taking someone else's property (either money or real property) and giving it to them. Or maybe you'd propose that we resettle them onto federal lands? (Even in that case, taxpayers bear a significant opportunity cost.)
My original point was that it is easy for people to advocate for the government to take people's property away, when they have no property of their own or no skin in the game.
My other point was just a wider one on moral hazard, and if it applies to coastal property (in that people bear their own costs) should it apply to EG obesity (where people should bear the cost of healthcare issues). If not, why is property a separate case?
https://power-x.jp/en/newsroom/Introducing-the-world%E2%80%9...
I think there are some startups working on cargo train "tankers" in the US too.
An idea I had after seeing the tanker concept was to have the battery carrier also serve as a generator via wind power. If its a huge ship I suppose you could just stick a turbine on it and go where the wind is blowing. I think a more fun concept is generating power off of a smaller scale cat- or trimaran generating both propulsion and power by sailing conventionally.