Do they? Here in the UK it's been a huge problem for years now that residential rates have been locked to basically ~25p/kWh, but businesses have been paying 3 or 4 times that, it bankrupted so many places when their monthly bills literally went from like 2k a month to 8k a month. It's the reason why charging a car at home is so much cheaper than at public charging stations, they just cannot get the same rates since they are classed as businesses.
Commercial and industrial rates are lower than residential rates in the US and elsewhere. The bigger users are apparently better at negotiating rates while the residential customers take what they are given.
Which leads to the hilarious edge case of saving money by charging your car at a Tesla Supercharger instead of at home, because they're paying that much less for electricity than you.
In NY at least, Tesla super chargers charge rates above residential rates, so that does not actually happen unless you are grandfathered into unlimited free supercharging.
I left the UK in 2018 so this may be a strange question: I remember news about a massive but very brief energy price hike around when Russia began their "special operation" and everyone said "right, no more Russian gas", so is that hike still present?
I'd search, but the first few results get me geo-blocked because I'm not in the UK.
>>and everyone said "right, no more Russian gas", so is that hike still present?
Absolutely. Shell and BP still make record profits while home price cap has gone down a little bit but generally everyone is still paying through the nose for their electricity.
It's, unfortunately, not illegal unless the military action continues for more than 60 days without Congressional approval. This is due to the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
If they don’t understand math and risk, they should. The US nearly nuked itself multiple times during development and learning. It will happen when everyone else races to build them.
Any nuclear scientist today knows WAY more about the do's and don'ts of creating nukes than we did when muddling through the Manhattan project. Making basic uranium nukes is time consuming, but nothing too special.
The hard part (by far) is making the missiles to launch those nukes and hit the target. That part is so hard that we've continually failed to replace the Minuteman III which was designed before we even landed on the moon.
Iran regime has been a great destabilizer and war monger. So, may be their nuke development just provided an opening for the regime change operation. The Middle East will be much more peaceful once Iran is de-fanged. This even may help Europe because Iran was helping Russia in the war.
no boots on the ground and more moderate goals. The current state of Iraq - severely corrupt moderately religious not threatening anybody kleptocracy would be a success here. Not threatening is the key - Iran has been behind sectarian violence in Iraq, behind Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis, helping Assad, ... one can see that Iran's regime should have already been taken out yesterday just in order to advance peace in the Middle East.
Note - no boots on the ground wouldn't be a big limitation because in case of say ethnic violence, with Azerbaijani and Persian being the largest groups, or even just great social chaos, Turkey and Azerbaijan, are, as far as i understand, ready to bring their armies into the Iran's Azerbaijani populated provinces, which would leave Persians, who are many don't like that "Arab's Islam", in their provinces to their own devices, probably even restoring the monarchy with the Shah's son, which again would be a good outcome here.
They don't have much options. They have only Revolutionary Guard for them. Army hates the Guard. The Guard isn't really a fighting force, it can only launch missiles and beat unarmed protesters. Once it runs out of missiles (with a lot of missiles lost to the bombing), it is done.
I expect a full no-fly zone enforcement, and with that the regime's domestic authority and power will quickly go down the drain.
So we're blaming the US because Iran chose to pursue weapons-grade enrichment. Have you considered that Iran could simply choose not to do that, like every other paranuclear state?
Ultimately the choice of whether or not Iran gets to build a nuclear bomb is not up to them, and they're finding that out now.
What happened between Trump withdrawing from the treaty and Fordo getting bombed? I feel like you're perhaps missing a few critical steps on the Iranian side.
Trump signaled that diplomacy wasn't going to solve the tension, and they weren't getting what they wanted to in exchange for not building weapons. Of course they were going to build them. Why would they not, whether for offense or defense?
That there is a optimal fluidity to a person's self-concept that is worth thinking about, in the unacknowledged gap between the performative extremes of preferred vs genotypic gender.
(DNA isn't as alterable as pics of your private bits, or even your actual private bíts..
Or we would have cured cancer by now. Without either resorting to surgery or diluting the term "biohacking")
reply