Sack the slashdot staff who approved this as new.
Or the manager who though using an AI to approve stories was a good idea.

It's simply drivel.

This is a symptom that the infrastructure is extremely vulnerable.
Undersea power and communications links are vulnerable.and relatively cheap to disrupt.
So is global shipping by submarines, however there is more of a case of mutually assured destruction in the case of shipping fleets so this is less likely..
Europe relies on undersea cables, Russia does not.
Europe relies on a global world order, Russia does not.

This is a lesson in security and system design.

Anyone feel like investing in an undersea power link from Africa to Europe?

Disks are binary devices, they have two states, new and full. So go big.
So buy at least 4x15TB disks, amd processor, ilo motherboard and Linux + raid5 over the top. I’ve run a setup similar to this for 8 years with nfs and bacula for backups or simple tar and scp.
The alternative same hardware and truenas.
You gain ads, but miss out on flexibility.

Actually the ramp rate of newer reactors is excellent.
The EPR can increase power at 5% per minute. In 10 minutes from 50% to full power.
Similar rates are achieved by the AP1000 and the APR1400 from Korea. This is faster than the rates achieved by gas combined cycle turbines.
The reality is that if you accept that you have need nuclear, you should maximise the use of these resources and accept that the power generated from intermittent sources is inherently less valuable, and only useful for “controlled” or dispatch-able loads.
Currently electricity markets don’t penalise intermittent power sources and they should because a grid designed around intermittent sources needs storage and fossil backup which is expensive and not CO2 free.

Actually this is a really dumb comment.
Theres a reactor being cooled by the waters of the Persian gulf. This water is significantly hotter than the Mediterranean is projected to become in the next 80 years.
Solar only collects power during the day. To turn intermittent power into reliable power you need storage plus fossil backup. It’s lower carbon, not zero carbon. Nuclear actually does decarbonise economies
Check out https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnowtricity.com and watch as the sun goes down. Germany fail, Nuclear France wins hands down.

Hydrogen as aviation fuel is a joke. People who suggest it as a fuel just aren't considering how difficult and unsafe if would be.
It's dangerously flammable, it burns from 5% to 90% mixture, petrol only burns at a small range of air/fuel mixtures.
It needs cryogenic storage, what happens to the fuel left in the tank when it's parked?
It needs to be stored in the plane body, currently aircraft store fuel in the wings for safety.

Just think of the logistics, shipping cryogenic around the country, getting it to remote locations, third world countries etc.

Stop believing in magic, it won't happen, we need a liquid at room temperature fuel.

Denying the existence of baseload because you like intermittent sources is like denying the existence of gravity because you have your heart set on flying. But ignoring reality will end badly.
The population wants power when they need it and unreliable grids will remove Governments.
Business needs 24*7 power because industrial processes rely on equipment that is damaged by power outages.
Germany choices for power generation have wreaked havoc on its economy and it is now deindustrialising and in recession with 90% of its 2023 CO2 reductions coming from industrial cutbacks and closures.
Meanwhile France has 1/10 of the CO2 emissions of Germany because they use nuclear, their economy isn’t in recession and the have energy security and independence.

Heed the allegory of the three little pigs, wind and solar are the houses of straw and sticks and nuclear is the house of bricks. Yes nuclear is harder to build however it delivers power when you want it.

For reliable power you need from intermittents you need
Collection storage and generation.
Collection is wind and solar, but they only collect power when conditions are right.
Storage is batteries and pumped hydro.
Generation is fossil gas. You need enough to support 100% of the grid load in case random events align. So you need capacity payments to ensure this generation is always there, and it’s belches CO2.And yes there will be energy droughts and the market is complex enough to root easily.

Or you have nuclear power, which is CO2 free generation. 24x7 with the highest capacity factor of any generation. This is why Diablo canyon is still around.

Launch from Australia instead of the US. Less air traffic, more room, no fees.
Really space launches can launch from anywhere, tax them and they’ll move.

The first comment should be “who is the manufacturer”
The second should be, other vendors “start your engines”
A fix should be provided shortly.

Actually based on the statistics emerging from Norway there are more faults logged for ICE vehicles than EVs in cold weather.
Those fossil cars don't work when the weather a bit too cold.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Felectrek.co%2F2024%2F01%2F17%2Felectric-vehicles-fail-lower-rate-than-gas-cars-extreme-cold%2F

Or the agrivating factor of ICE vehicles parking in charging spots, or the tuned diesels which spew soot into the atmosphere.
Or those who question whether CO2 creates global warming and think it's their right to pollute.

Yes there are wankers in all segments of society.

EVs are different, I didn't realise until my wife bought one. I sort of like ICE vehicles and while I knew that we need zero CO2 solutions was making mental excuses to keep using my fuel gusslers.
After 12 months of ownership, EVs are just better, I don't need to go anywhere to refuel and I don't need to drop cars into dealers for servicing. This now bugs me with my other vehicles.
I regularly drive ~800km to visit family and this works, however I avoid peak times due to charging queues. Charging times are about equal to refuelling times and even then I don't need to stay with the vehicles while it fills. While on a trip with 2 cars recently a fill plus lunch was faster in the EV than the dinosaur as charge occurred in parallel with the meal while the dinosaur requires babysitting while filling so it was a serial process.
Most people charge at home 99% of the time, and many owners have home solar, so the business case for lots of chargers doesn't exist because most people won't use them most of the time. So the whole concept of a high cost "Service Station" for EVs is wrong.
Charging infrastructure can be distributed, lightweight and unmanned.
Dropping fast chargers near powerlines should be cheap and lots of them can be made available. Placing 2 charging places near each power pole would be cost effective and low impact and effectively resolve capacity issues.

Japan has been opening new coal power plants and burning fossil fuel while it's Nuclear fleet has been offline.
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant has a nameplate capacity of almost 8GW and will generate zero CO2 emissions.
While the Fukushima nuclear accident was a wake up call for Japan to ensure that safety measures against earthquakes are more effective, the reality is that there have been zero deaths due to radiation due to the disaster.
Nuclear is one of the safest and cleanest forms of power generation on the planet.