If you so fixated on buttons, stalks, whatever - you can buy third party solution for few hundred dollars and still come out cheaper than competing EVs.
Having recently driven car with poorly made buttons (Toyota) I was actually happy to be back in my Tesla.
AI alwayd ahd a pretty major apple lean, and from the post's misunderstanding of google drive permissions (global vs file scopes), it's clear that is still true. About not to matter though since they are killing the android app.
Union labor is only going to be better if the work is compensated enough that people stay around. Unions are not magic.
Boeing has not been doing that.
They underestimate the value of retaining people who have actually seen a few full plane lines start.
They are in a situation now where there are not enough senior personal to properly guide new hires as they rotate through every 1-2 years.
You want good people, you have to pay for them.
If you've got a bunch of morons on payroll (because management spent years asleep at the wheel), paying the morons more and retaining their services for many more years so they become experienced morons won't do you a whole lot of good. Management is clearly the root cause of the problem but the solution must include trimming the incompetent workers from the company.
I am not saying that unions are bad or this union striking is bad. What I'm saying is that if you think this union action will turn Boeing around and get them flying right again, you're mistaken. Boeing needs an invasive surgery to cut out the necrotic tissue (both management and workers) if they are to have any hopes of survival as anything more than a zombie kept animated by government necromancy.
Not the parent poster. But the people who built the French nuclear fleet are not the same as the people pushing nuclear power in the media. Just because an energy source is technically positive does not mean that the people supporting it are actually having a useful or positive effect.
France has no credible plan to replace and/or refurbish the reactors built decades ago by a socialist government cross-subsidizing its nuclear weapons program.
Even their "target" for 2035 is 20% less nuclear than today.
They just had to renationalize their nuclear builder due to it failing to build several reactors on time and on budget.
They signed contracts that put the costs on them if they failed so the French taxpayer is picking up the bill for UK nuclear cost overruns, and even then the UK electricity buyer is probably overpaying compared with offshore wind.
”Paris seeks UK loan guarantee after Hinkley Point nuclear plant costs soar”
> To a large extent, French skepticism about renewables over the past 20 years was not unreasonable given that the country did not have carbon-spewing (and otherwise polluting) coal-fired plants to replace - it had and has a low-carbon and cost competitive power sector.
> But the long term trends have been up for the cost of nuclear, and down for the cost of renewables, to such an extent that the situation has now almost fully reversed.
> In the past 7 years, offshore wind has gone from >150 EUR/MWh to <50 EUR/MWh - under competitive tenders that see projects being completed within a couple of years of tariff allocation. Solar tenders are regularly won at lower prices, often below 25 EUR/MWh.
> Even their "target" for 2035 is 20% less nuclear than today.
I highly doubt it, French reactors have an average of 40 years of operation, and it is very credible to think it will be extended to 60 years, and I would aim for 80+.
That said, flamanville will go into operation this year and 6 reactors will be built, where each of these reactors realistically will have the power of 1.5 current reactor.
French nuclear power will generate the vast majority of French energy in the future as well, sorry to see you annoyed by that.
Probably a French mistake was to have invested everything in nuclear, not being able to vary easily with peaks. I expect the nuclear share to drop at 50-60 percent in the future to cover the rest with renewables.
But this possible scenario says little about your defeatism and pessimism toward nuclear power, but rather it's a pragmatic approach to the subject.
Regarding Hinkley Point, always the same thing, how boring. I'd like to point out, that the second reactor at Hinkley Point is begin build at a rate 20-30% faster than the first. I expect further efficiencies with the EPR2s.
I'm quoting the French governments target of 50% nuclear, down from about 70% today.
You yourself say:
> I expect the nuclear share to drop at 50-60 percent in the future to cover the rest with renewables.
So what bit are you actually disputing or disagreeing with?
The 6 reactors you mention are I assume the ones with a vague uncosted plan due for first delivery of electricity in 2035-40 (if they meet their timetable!)
> I'd like to point out, that the second reactor at Hinkley Point is begin build at a rate 20-30% faster than the first.
20-30% faster than a project that is (currently!) 50% over time estimated and the most recent delay was announced only months ago.
So they're slower than their promised delivery times even after building several and they celebrate that as a success in their press releases to distract from all the bad news.
I fail to see how these two things are in conflict. I don't know of any grid operators that are advocating for a baseload generation free grid, of course solar and wind are great too, much cheaper then well everything elss at this point, but storage onky goes so far, a reliable grid needs base gen
Grid operators are moving to "renewables and firming" to replace "baseload and peaking".
Since peaking and firming are basically the same thing, it just comes down to whether renewables are cleaner and cheaper than baseload, which they are.
Nuclear fans talk all the time about baseload and pretend peaking doesn't exist so they can attack renewables.
The article is talking about reliable decarbonization of grids while you're talking about a reliable grid. Two very different things.
Decarbonization is a global problem, not a local one.
Electricity use as a whole is up.
Coal is down, oil is down. Gas is up, it's lower carbon than oil and coal so it contributes to decarbonization. The four main low-carbon sources are wind, solar, hydro and nuclear. They all reliably contribute to the decarbonization efforts as evidenced by the data.
Decarbonisations need to demonstrate it has actual net value.
Currently the largest actual decarbonisation project on the planet is an Oil&Gas boondoogle that stores a great deal less than it promised to and even what it promised was a great deal less carbon put back than the project released.
So far, to date, it's been no more than greenwashing the expansion of gas extraction and hasn't yet been put to anything approaching the scale required in the timeframe demanded.
Or just maybe, 1.5 decades and "decades" are compatible when parsed by a human. Calling a story fake for that is a bit much, people just get details wrong, and that's okay
reply