If it is more historically correct then why not. I despise what Israel is doing to Palestine like any sane person should, but I see nothing wrong in getting historical names right. I would not be pissed if someone were to change Bizantine Empire with Eastern Roman Empire in a museum exhibition. This is not a win for Israel. Zionist are the one forgetting history by committing genocide.
encelado748
joined 2 weeks ago
Discovery lacked much needed love for the franchise, with lot of nonsensical, lore breaking episodes. The same is true for Picard sadly. But I am finding STSA boasting some of the best episodes for a Star Trek season 1 series so far. Star Trek was always woke, and that is why it was so loved. STSA is no more woke than Voyager was. I see lot of respect from the writers to the previous series. STSA makes me think of TNG much more often than any other nutrek series (except lower deck, but that is nearly fanservice). Being into the future you have a lot of flexibility to do something new, and I like that a lot. Nahla Ake is a different character than Picard or Janeway, and that is fine. A great character nonetheless in my opinion.
With current and near future technology, it is cheaper to have that 20% being nuclear and the rest renewable and battery than to have only renewable and batteries. Not only cheaper, but also more environmentally friendly. Using fossil fuel is not really an alternative.
Nuclear can do grid load following (not peak due to thermal inertia but you will have batteries for that): nuclear power plant in France are required to be able to cycle to 30% power when needed.
If the target is to get to 80% renewable + batteries and 20% nuclear, then why do you think nuclear investments is removing money from renewable? Those are complementary technologies and we need both. By sabotaging nuclear we are just making it more expensive forcing polluting fossil fuels as the only alternative. Fighting nuclear is just delaying decarbonization.
Nuclear is the only technology that enabled a decarbonized electric grid in countries without natural low carbon source of energy such as hydroelectric.
The fact that solar is cheaper is inconsequential if you produce electricity when it is not needed and you do not when it is needed.
Nuclear costs more to produce, but lower the prices due to how the electricity market works.
False.
Renewable is better for fossil fuels company, as of now solar and wind require high subsidies for fossil fuel power plant to operate. You cannot go 100% renewable as the sun does not produce at night and sometimes there is no wind. You can go 100% nuclear instead, as nuclear works all the time and can be adjusted with demand.
This is changing rapidly, as battery technology improves and cost goes down, but we are not still there yet. Nuclear cost goes down as you build more nuclear. China is on the forefront of renewable energy but also builds the most nuclear power plant in the world for very cheap.
France will need to keep the know-how and improve the technology if they want to keep up with aging power plants.
To abandon nuclear in favor of renewable means building more batteries then we can produce in a cost effective way. France nuclear stabilize the European grid. Without it energy would cost much more.
Not a mystery that country with low energy price in Europe have nuclear and country with high energy price lack nuclear.
Even if they do not care, should historians care with giving correct information to museums visitors?