Andreas

That's just not possible, technically. Anything beyond 50% is getting you into trouble from a grid-management perspective. All the best Andreas

Sorry, I can't see that statement so clearly anywhere in the article. Unless you interpret Piebalgs in that way, but he could also be talking about forward-looking analysis, i.e. reducing the increase in gas dependence that would otherwise take place. I would point out that he also says nuclear will reduce dependence on oil - which tells me all I need to know about the statement. It is political, not analytical. Piebalgs is a smart guy, he understands the issue - this comment is for public consumption. So let me rephrase my original statement - nobody who participates in a serious discussion thinks that nuclear will replace gas. Happy now? All the best Andreas

There should be an interview on Finnish public radio with me in the near future, on the question of nuclear, EU energy policy, etc. (no, I am not kidding). Let me know if you listen to it, I'd like to get some feedback - I tried hard to give the journalist some very nice soundbites. This article is quite interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/business/19wind.html?em&ex=1216699200&en=4a3afc175ae1dbbb&ei=5087%0A All the best Andreas

You have friends? All the best Andreas

Boeing did give an AF official a job, while the same official was working on the acquisition. Both the official and the responsible person at Boeing had to serve time I believe. On top of that, the contract was very favourable to Boeing, and less so to the US taxpayer. McCain pushed very hard for it to be ditched. This led to the re-bid, in which NG won. All the best Andreas

Squads within 30m or so will attack enemy vehicles on their own using close assault (shown as a grenade flying against the vehicle), with no orders given. If they are in cover (house), they are more likely to attack. All the best Andreas

Great work by the iBiblio folks: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-MTO-NWA/index.html Colour maps, the works. All the best Andreas

Awesome! All the best Andreas

Me, I just like a pile-on, but I am grateful for the intellectually acceptable reasoning you provided. How is Kyiv these days? All the best Andreas

New Zealand is special because hydro and wind are the perfect combination. You can easily use hydro to smooth out your wind variations, and you can use surplus wind to run pumped storage in reverse. It does not get any better than that in terms of economics. While electricity can be used to heat and cook, switching to it has very serious economic and environmental impacts. On both of these counts, under the current conditions electricity is much less attractive in Europe than gas. While there is a link at system-level, it is tenous, so tenous not to matter in policy-making. Nobody in Europe is thinking that nuclear will replace gas. Currently proposed new nuclear built (with the probable exception of Finland) will replace either: a) retiring nuclear plant (France, UK, Bulgaria) retiring coal plant (UK) c) service additional demand (France, Italy, this is also driving the discussion in Ireland) And will also be used to drive down the carbon content of the electricity systems. But regardless of how much new nuclear is being proposed (and it is not a lot), new gas plant is still being built at a rapid clip. What has prompted the resurgence in nuclear is not Russia cutting off gas to Ukraine for one day two and half years ago, it is the realisation that Kyoto targets and post-Kyoto ambitions are going to be impossible to realise without nuclear. All the best Andreas

For those who are interested, the Spanish grid operator has wind data, current and historical, easily accessible. Spain is the second-biggest wind operating country in Europe, maybe the world (never quite sure where the US is on any given day). https://demanda.ree.es/eolica.html You need minimal Spanish. Just pick a date on the calendar, click "consultar oltra fecha", and you see what the key issue with wind is. All the best Andreas

I don't have by-company oil market data. These days the supermajors are really struggling, national oil companies have become far more important. Wikipedia has recent sales figures, but I have no idea how accurate those are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajor All the best Andreas

Norway is most comparable to your situation, is my guess. For another small island nation without a hydro endowment, try Ireland. Geography matters, is the conclusion to draw from it. All the best Andreas

I suggest you study the characteristics of your own electricity supply industry and compare them with others, if you do not want to take my word for it. Sarcasm born out of ignorance is never a pretty sight. Yes, but there is a cost to it. It maybe worth paying it, it may not.

The seven sisters no longer exist, since a lot of them have merged with each other. Two of the seven were not US companies, Royal Dutch Shell, and BP and its predecessors. Today there are the big six, half of them again not US. Royal Dutch Shell is a joint British/Netherlands company, which used to have HQs in both Den Haag and London. BP/Amoco is a British-American company, with HQ in Britain. Total is, like, totally French. Exxon/Mobile is US. Chevron is US. ConocoPhilips is US. If you want to make it seven, throw in Statoil/Hydro, state-owned Norwegian company, biggest offshore operator in the world, with revenues of about 105 bn USD. All the best Andreas

Nice. All the best Andreas

You still have to allow inspection, also of registered sites. As I see it there are no exemptions from the control regime. All the best Andreas

Well, there you go then. I think the Iranians know better than to get lumped in with the Dear Leader, the Light guiding the Happy People of North Korea. All the best Andreas

Adam Article III(1) is the key to the verification system, but this is based on rules not in the treaty, but instead developed by the IAEA. Basically if you sign you have to allow to verify. I read the safeguards for material leaving the facility simply that so that it is subject to another inspection regime (presumably a tougher one), not that it is without the jurisdiction of the treaty. You can only leave the treaty if you can cite and demonstrate "extraordinary events". For NK that might not have been an issue, since the ruling nutbar there seems not to mind international sanctions, but Iran is a different kettle of fish, they can not afford to be an outcast, and leaving may cost them support they still have. So it is a diplomatic problem for them, because of their heavy dependence on external trade. They are neither big enough (India), nor small enough (NK), nor allied enough to the US (Pakistan), to just leave or ignore the treaty. Article IV only concerns peaceful use. Article II rules out developing military use material for non-nuclear nations. That is the basis on which the Iranians are being told to knock it off. The full text is here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty All the best Andreas

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4031603.stm All the best Andreas

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/gao-report-issued/ All the best Andreas

Oldie but goodie! And it's pretty accurate in my experience. All the best Andreas

Hi Kerry No I haven't. The fundamental point remains though, wind is not a panacea, it has its own issues. The most important one of them at the moment is that if you order a turbine today, you'll get it in 2010. These are not insurmountable, but they need to be addressed. All the best Andreas

I am an analyst. My job is not to provide anyone with solutions, only to figure out what the consequences of them are. Having said that, I guess the investment could be justifiable, not just in terms of global warming, but also in terms of air quality benefits, and indeed the need to preserve oil long-term for higher value-added applications than transport. All the best Andreas