At $4M per km, a 4,300 km HVDC cable would cost a staggering $17.2 billion to import 1.75 GW of energy. Interestingly, building a Shin-Kori equivalent nuclear plant [1],[2] on a nearby island [3] would be significantly cheaper. If they can afford such a cable, it raises the question of whether it's even the best solution in the first place. [4]
It is very useful to me, even though I know some webdev. For projects where you need to expose majorly python functionality on the web, and don't want to add whole other dimension and toolkits to your python code, this is brilliant.
This is very dangerous point of view, which will lead to a lot of suffering.
Humanity managed to lift vast majority of itself from abject poverty, grow enough food for everyone, prevent children mortality - unimaginable 100 years ago.
And this is called modernity, which if reversed will bring back hunger and misery.
Depends on FAA involvement in each launch. In case of an airline FAA controls each flight for hours. In case of a rocket launch, most trouble comes from "don't go in that area" type of commitment, plus investigations of something went wrong.
Given that each airline can keep hundreds of machines in the air at any one time, and rocket launches happen weekly at best, paying 10% of the overall fee does not look fair.
Would be happy to know what aviation specialists think.
The point is general for all living things, though:
> air pollution, climate change, deforestation, food, biodiversity loss, ocean plastics, and overfishing. On most of these fronts, things are worse today than they were in the distant past. But on all of them, progress has been made recently, and we’re on a better trajectory than most people assume—even though that rarely makes the end-of-the-world headlines dominating the news.
Hydro is very terrain-dependent, solar and wind can't do baseload, so for baseload nuclear is still best applicable in most parts of the world. Nuclear saves a lot of lives by displacing other, way more dangerous baseload operations. [0]
Russian nuclear capabilities now allow complete destruction of any attacking state, even _after_ taking nuclear hit. One just can't invade Russia without complete and utter loss.
This was not yet the case during Cuban missile crisis BTW.
In 1962 rockets were vulnerable and could be preemptively destroyed as they were above ground. Therefore MAD was affected by very close rocket location.
These days Russia has rockets in Siberia silos, in submarines all over the world, and in trains moving around ready to fire. No meaningful change to MAD doctrine can be brought from Europe.
And still disrupted (dead) lives per energy generated nuclear is one of the safest options. There was hydroelectric fail with 160000 lives lost, and it is not even mentioned when discussing dangers of energy generation.
Interestingly Venezuela is listed as democratic country in this article. I suspect there are a lot of Venezuela people who would disagree with such statement.
[1] https://zed.dev/