The auto industry does not have a choice. They need batteries and will not get them from European suppliers, as they cannot deliver the same cost and quality AND they need the growing wealthy population there to keep their bottom line up.

Maybe 5-10 years down the line there will be enough forcing of Chinese battery suppliers to open factories in Europe to reverse this, but it is not going to happen soon. Maybe the tarrifs will speed this up, maybe not.

Do the economics of nuclear make sense though? A quick search showed around $5k/kW capacity. That’s $5 billion per GW. Then there’s permit and build times on top of that.

Surely renewables + distributed storage is going to become key?

Is there already extensive precedence of undersea, long distance power distribution? I could imagine the losses would be outrageous at that distance.

Bluetooth and the 2.4 GHz ISM band is not electricity and is highly resilient to moderate noise over short distances. Problems are usually caused by hardware related issues.

To be fair, this is pretty much the story of any right wing politician too… at least this girl (arguably) didn’t ruin the lives of millions.

Obviously, more plants are needed to combat the destructive USB industry.

The data in this article is based off info from 2022.

The reduction in price appears to have been significantly underestimated in the article linked.

The paper itself, which is linked in the BBC article, is quite a read too Original Article

I’m sorry, are we really going to pretend long haul flights will become hydrogen in the near future? Has any airport begun building, or even thinking of, refueling infrastructure?

I would argue that your perspective is a narrow one and you need to change what info you are consuming. My personal take (if you have any interest):

1. Most of the people on this world are not rich enough to be part of daily traffic jams. They are just trying to survive and enjoy life with what they have.

2. Current resource competition is driven by profit seeking and not bourne out of necessity (i.e. we’re not “competing” in the traditional sense, where countries at war are doing so to feed their people etc… At least, not yet.)

3. There is definitely more space and resources available for more people, if we learn to better distribute what we have - the how of this, while keeping everyone happy, is the billion dollar question.

4. You can choose to live in the jungle by yourself if you want, no one is (hopefully) forcing you to take part in working etc.

5. If you can, you should go travel more. If you can’t, go volunteer some of your time to your community. It tends to clear my “the world is going to shit” thoughts. Sure, there’s problems everywhere, and we should fight for the ones we feel are important, but there is also a lot of great things happening.

I’m sorry, are you saying women’s rights were better in the 1700s or wars didn’t happen? Or that people had less problems? Or that the ruling class shared power?

I don’t mean to offend, but this is an insanely naive view of the world.

A lot less humans existed for a lesser period of time without electricity.

We used to burn oil and other fuels for lamps, raw wood for heat, raw sewerage was everywhere if not released untreated into waterways. All of this was hugely polluting and detrimental to health. Please don’t kid yourself that there were better times in the 1700s.

As clarification I meant: “do people in Australia care about the tiny black and white sticker on the box which says “M - rated for mature audiences” now?”

and not: “why should the global community give a damn about Australia…”.

I remember cinemas were always strict with entry into movies, but game shops never used to ask for ID. Has this changed?

No one cares about game ratings in Australia, do they?

The 5 year price graph is much nicer to view.

I have a life to attend to.

In theory, similar bans should apply to all harmful substances e.g. fizzy drinks, alcohol, fast food etc. This is obviously an extreme take and difficult, if not impossible, to do in practice.

I also drink, have consumed illegal substances and consume fast-food on a rare basis.

My reasoning is that I do not want extensive costs being lumped into the general public to pay for the needed health care, due to the availability of harmful, non-beneficial products in our society. I do not believe extra tax on these products is appropriate or sufficient as these products tend to be used by those with lower education or lower income groups - and it is not fair to further burden these groups in life.

It’s clear you don’t understand grouping from this conversation.

IQOS may not be big in all markets, but their share is not negligible.

The juul lawsuit triggered a lot of regulation changes and created legal precedent.

That is all I have time for.

Would anyone really start vaping just to blow clouds of flavoured smoke?

I’m not being facetious here, genuinely curious.

I mean mothers don’t decide for adults either, hopefully. But I think you missed my point.

We know that: Tobacco and alcohol companies tried (and still do try) very hard to get kids to smoke & drink, because a child who smokes/drinks will likely become a significant customer for life.

Regulators also know this, so they began aiming at removing the marketing which was clearly influential to age groups not legally allowed to consume alcohol/cigarettes. I know for example Australia banned alcohol ads during kids tv shows, tobacco advertising has been banned since the 90’s.

Then along came vaping, which was neither a tobacco or alcohol product and could circumvent the regulations in place.

There is a significant young population size who will take up smoking/vaping for its social appeal - whatever that is. Let’s call them pot #1.

There is also a significant young population who will try smoking/vaping, realise it tastes like ass or is too much effort and decide to not continue with it. Let’s call them pot #2.

Pot #1, which it sounds like would include you for cigarettes, cannot be influenced and these regulations trying to reduce smoking/vaping would annoy them.

Pot #2 however can be influenced as long as those factors are address, e.g. ban the selling of the child friendly flavours, reducing exposure and limiting supply.

By reducing pot #2 for harmful activities like drinking, smoking and vaping, you reduce the burden on your public health system in the long term.

The big vape companies have been bought out by the big tobacco companies now, so they are one in the same.

Naah in all for the ban on fruity flavours. A lot of people, myself include, growing up didn’t smoke because it tasted like trash. Imagine if cigarettes tasted like hot chocolate!

It doesn’t remove all vapers, but it doesn’t increase the numbers either.