All modern browsers require certificates to be published in the certificate transparency logs in order to be considered valid.
These are monitored, things do get noticed[0], and things like this can and have lead to CAs being distrusted.
It's not foolproof, and it's reactive rather than proactive... but in general, this is unlikely to be happening on major sites or at any significant scale.
I'd wholeheartedly recommend people taking some time and reading through the CA Compliance issues on Bugzilla. The entire CA program there, in my opinion, does a fantastic and largely thankless job of keeping this whole thing on the rails. It's one of the few things I can say I had _more_ trust in the more I looked into it.
China telecom regularly has BGP announcements that conflict with level3's ASNs.
Just as a hint in case you want to dig more into the topic, RIR data is publicly available, so you can verify yourself who the offenders are.
Also check out the Geedge leaked source code, which also implements TLS overrides and inspection on a country scale. A lot of countries are customers of Geedge's tech stack, especially in the Middle East.
Just sayin' it's more common than you're willing to acknowledge.
I've read this before and I don't understand how this doesn't become/is untenable.
Doesn't this mean that solar/wind are insanely lucrative?
Also, this would mean that in order to really bring the price down, gas needs to be taken out as a source. But gas is typically the source that balances the grid because its output can be changed quickly. So price wise, you might get a drop but you would lose your ability to react quickly to fluctuations in demand
> Doesn't this mean that solar/wind are insanely lucrative?
I used to work in wind energy in the Netherlands, it is only profitable there due to government subsidies. It was/is an enormously complicated system to understand on the whole. I was on the environmental impact side (visualizations) during the permitting process. It's high-risk & enormously expensive during the permitting process (i.e. getting permission to build the wind farm), and beyond that I understand it's a bidding process and again, super complicated on the energy trading side once you're operating. My experience was that the wind farm operators seemed to be doing well financially, but insanely lucrative? I'm not sure about that vs. non-renewables. Everyone I worked with (including myself) believed in green energy as a part of a larger mission to make the world a slightly better place. EU directives on renewables is what pushed the mission forward; the dutch on the whole (surprisingly), do not love wind turbines in their back yard.
:-( I'm sitting here looking at huge wind turbines out my front window and I absolutely LOVE them. I get to live in a solarpunk future where I can get where I need to without a car, my kids run out the door and play without getting run over, and I can see clean energy being made for my home (and that of my neighbours).
I'm sure a lot of the cranky old people near me don't like them, but they hate everything and go out of their way to find things to complain about, to be honest.
Frankly I feel the same as you. I saw my first wind turbine in Newcastle Australia and was completely blown away & wanted to work in wind energy. I've been to Denmark and seen the Vestas V-164 offshore turbine at the on-shore test facility. The rotor area on the V-164 seems as big as a football field - it's the largest rotating object I've ever seen and my mind could barely understand the scale of it. For me, wind turbines are beautiful. I was called crazy a lot in the Netherlands ;-)
In terms of public acceptance, you're probably right. The Dutch in my experience love the old windmills, but modern wind turbines are in a different league in terms of harvesting the power of wind efficiently. Blade design is comparable to the aircraft wing design (seriously complex engineering).
In my post above I talked about seeing the Vestas V164 in person, but I've also been on top of the tallest wind turbine in NL (manufactured by Lagerwey). The higher the nacelle and the larger the rotor diameter equal more power generation (the higher you go the more wind you'll find), but public acceptance has a lot to do with things.
I've seen in person how the Dutch can lose their mind over wind projects, I was in Drenthe in 2014 at a public engagement night (where the public sees visualizations of the turbines, and learns how they can benefit and so on...). At Drenethe there were hundreds of locals protesting, cops, drama. Super scary. I was involved on the public acceptance side of things and have come face to face with countless thousands of scared and angry people. I can't imagine what selling a HUGE turbine for their backyard might be like, but going back to your original idea - selling a classic looking windmill would likely be very easy. The tradeoff is that classic windmill would likely generate a negligible amount of energy in comparison. But cool idea anyhow ;-)
I don't think that's true. For one because the size is what makes it efficient/worth it. Second, the old windmills have all been there forever, so no one complains because they don't know any better.
Keep in mind that a typical windmill and a wind turbine are very different in size. Some people are afraid of noise, or shade. Especially if your home will be shaded by the blades, I could see that being an issue as you have flickering light all the time.
Yes, and I think that’s actually intentional, they’re rewarding renewables way over the odds without needing to give politically controversial benefits. The rewards are just an inherent result of the existing system. This is why renewables are growing rapidly in the uk.
Of course we’ll need a way to resolve fluctuations both rapid and slower. Rapid fluctuations are handled by pumped hydro and increasingly by batteries.
The slow fluctuations (day/night all the way to summer/winter and good/bad weather patterns) are much trickier, I think it’s still unclear how well handle them, but it will certainly be partly handled by having an excess of renewables, though we’ll likely need some other solutions too, nuclear is probably one of them.
The irony is that your comment should be entirely inverted. Renewables are not rewarded way over the odds - in fact the ruling party banned onshore wind entirely and i remember them banning at least one offshore wind farm. Luckily it is very cheap to build.
Now Hinkley Point C is another story. It's a hugely expensive boondoggle which is taking decades to construct at enormous cost and the reward at the end is that they are rewarded with a strike price that is 3x that of solar and wind. That is an obsecene subsidy forced on to customers for a power source that cant even do load following and doesnt help with fluctuations in supply and demand.
The slow fluctuations on cold, windless nights or when nuke plants are down for unplanned maintenance are going to be managed with gas.
Maybe one day it'll be gas synthesized with electricity from solar+wind overproduction on a day like today. The roundtrip is expensive, but will still be cheaper than nuclear power on a windy, summer day.
Renewables (and nuclear) have high up front costs and comparitively low marginal cost. Comparing it against something that burns expensive fuel can be misleading (if you want it to be).
One system is taking the money and turning round and handing it to their fuel suppliers, the other is turning round and handing it to the people who loaned them money to build a giant complex structure that would take a decade or more of risk and uncertainty to pay itself back.
Gas bids high because it literally makes no business sense for them to operate for less than the gas input costs. They'd rather sit it out when electricity prices are lower. Renewables will take almost any price once built because wind and sun is free, but won't build in the first place without a path to paying off their investment over a certain timespan.
(This is why more solar has been built in places with good low risk finance than where the sunlight resource is strongest)
CfDs are a competitive bidding process and so give a market price for what developers need their price to be over 15 years or more for it to make a standard return on investment. Developers outside this process need to guess what electricity prices will be, at the times they generate for years to come.
> Doesn't this mean that solar/wind are insanely lucrative?
This is how markets are supposed to work. It provides an economic incentive for production to increase, which is what we want.
Consider what happens if you develop a farming method to produce potatoes for a fraction of the usual cost, but you can only meet 10% of total demand at your local market. What price are you going to sell your potatoes for when you show up to the market? You (like any free market seller) want to maximise your return, so you'll be able to sell for a fraction under the previous market rate, undercutting everyone else. Your farming method would be extremely lucrative.
Sure, but those same free markets will happily see those expensive producers go out of business. In the electricity scenario, that would mean blackouts.
If you triple the price, you don't have a new gas plant appear out of thin air. And the result won't really be lower consumption either, because most people would have fixed rate contracts (not in the UK so don't know specifically, but this is very common elsewhere)
> Sure, but those same free markets will happily see those expensive producers go out of business.
No, because remember you are only able to meet 10% of market demand. The expensive producers will still get 90% of the business, and the market price for their product will remain basically the same. This is what we observe in the electricity markets today: the price to us is the cost of the most expensive product. The cheaper producers who cannot meet the full market demand still get to sell at the cost of the most expensive product.
> The cheaper producers who cannot meet the full market demand still get to sell at the cost of the most expensive product.
Which would mean it's super lucrative and your same laws of economics will tell you that that means they'll be building like crazy.
My while point was that as soon as you get to a day where no gas is needed you've lost the ability to react quickly because no supplier will just leave a gas plant around just for that
Yes, but here’s the thing: you don’t have a monopoly over your potato farming method. Lots of new farms are built, and the more that do, the more the average price of a potato drops. Your expected return starts to drop. Yours - and everyone else’s - profit margins get squeezed.
Investors begin to refuse to build new potato farms because a return on their investment gets worse whenever anyone decides to build a new farm.
But the people need potatoes and more potato farms! The government issues an incentive scheme to guarantee a minimum price for each potato sold. Potential farm owners bid against each other for the lowest price, but it means they can build a farm and expect to break even.
> Investors begin to refuse to build new potato farms because a return on their investment gets worse whenever anyone decides to build a new farm.
If they all refuse, then they're leaving money on the table. One investor could invest in 10% production only, and that would be very lucrative. It would be exactly my low cost to produce potato scenario.
In practice, they don't all refuse, or all invest. The market finds a balance. In time, producers switch to the new method, because anybody who doesn't leaves an opportunity for someone else to take their business and make more money.
This takes time, though. If we want things to go quicker, then we need to guarantee return on investment for longer, which is exactly what the government does by guaranteeing prices to renewable energy producers.
Not only is it insanely lucrative, but the government enters into "contract for difference" contracts that guarantees a price per MWh that are generally above market rates, taking out most of the financial risk.
> It's like if the grocery store let you give them milk for a credit at full price.
I know of quite a few places where through net metering you don't get full price, you get the wholesale rate for your production which is significantly less.
Not to be rude, but that's definitionally NOT net metering. Net metering is where you only get changed for your net consumption. If they're looking at your gross consumption and gross production separately, it just can't be net metering. You might still decide to sell solar to the grid for the wholesale price and get a reduction in your bill, but it's not net metering.
Sure, I'm mentioning this because the number of places where you feed in at the retail rate is shrinking. It's great to get renewables on people's homes but as you get more of it, it becomes very expensive as fewer people pay for the base load
The cost of the grid has already been paid for. Upgrades to the grid has a higher per-capita cost, if there's fewer people paying for those upgrades today.
But they're not worse off, because the upgrades are better. For them to be worse off, the upgrades they pay for has to be worse than what they got today.
You should really talk to some California utilities and their wildfire exposure.
And anywhere else, anything you put up you need to maintain. And aren't most grids built with loans anyway? That interest would be born by fewer people.
Not sure if you own a house, if you do, here's a thought experiment.
It's all paid for, right? Doesn't cost a thing to own a home?
Just saying, the vast majority of services people are moving from would be US based given it is where all of big tech comes from. So comparing it to the US is relevant?
If you're trying to say the eu isn't a saint either, sure.
>If you're trying to say the eu isn't a saint either, sure.
I'm not trying to say anything about anyone else besides the EU. Therefore I'm certainly not trying to compare EU to anyone else.
I am an European pointing out issues with the local system, issues that many commenters here clearly aren't aware of given how many replies seem to think that they'll be just fine as long as they don't host in Hungary.
It would be helpful for the current generation of smaller electic vehicles that are fine for daily use but would need to stop every 100 miles on a longer trip in winter.
I have driven a leaf since 2016 and I can tell you that no one will do this with 100 miles between stops. Because the stops aren't at exact intervals, you might be stopping every 80 to 90 miles since you don't want to risk not getting to the next.
At that rate, you're adding time really quickly as charging might take 8 minutes but getting to and from the charger easily adds another 4 to 8 minutes. At that point you're talking about adding about 10 to 16% to your total time taken
The listed range of the car that I'm thinking of [0] is 186 miles, I was using 100 miles as the useful range in winter as there are reports that it drops by a lot in the cold, this vehicle gets the largest subsidy in the UK right now. I had been considering this as my next car even before the subsidy was announced but slightly more range would be nice.
I don’t know exactly, and I’m not an EV driver, but considering how many cars I see at supercharger stations, it seems to have a use case.
I’m guessing it’s an American thing too though, we can drive many more hours and no one is driving straight 4, let alone 5 hours going 75+ mph in an EV because no one is going to run their battery down to zero. On top of that Americans really don’t like taking long breaks on road trips because that only extends the trip that in a fuel vehicle can, well, could commonly be 6-20 hours driving in the past.
All the winning we are doing over here is quickly changing the mobility of American though. But that’s a whole different and interesting topic because it has major implications for America’s survival as a single entity that people overlook. America has held together to a large extent precisely because Americans could afford being mobile during the American century, i.e., the glue that kept the country together and made it feel like it belonged to us, an actual nation. That glue is breaking down for many reasons, one being expensive, impractical mobility.
Some Tesla owners still have free supercharging so they'll be there because it's free "fuel".
For your road trip example let's say we take a 1000 mile trip. With an EV that can be done in 6 legs (sandbagging it), maybe even 5 or 4 now. So that's 5 stops, over 16 or so hours of driving. If you average charge takes 30 minutes (sandbagging it) instead of 10, that adds 1 hour and 40 minutes or about 15% of total time. And this is pretty much worst case.
I would think that's perfectly acceptable, but that's just an opinion. It'll give you time to go to the bathroom, stretch your legs, have a bite etcetera. If you're going to be peeing in a bottle and eating while driving, yes you can do it in less time.
I would strongly suggest, the next time you do one of those trips. Time how long you actually spend at a stop, it might not be far off the 15 minute mark on average
Man, people have wildly different lifestyles than what you presume, also some of us live in colder climates where official battery numbers become a joke. Those numbers would be unacceptable for me and my family for example, annoying and disrupting every single weekend. Suffice to say we own 2 ICE cars and no electric car is coming anytime soon, the overall costs and inconvenience are simply too high.
> Man, people have wildly different lifestyles than what you presume
Likewise? If you're in the cold part of the US I can totally see your comment. But just saying, there's not that many people living there. Density wise thats really sparse. Most people live in much better climates, Europe has 1.5x the number of people of all the US and no climate that is remotely the same.
If it doesn't work for you because you're in a remote area that does get really cold, I can totally see that. But I do think that makes you the exception, not the rule. For the US, California has been setting the rules for cars for years, because that's where a lot of the customers are whether you like it or not
You don’t get 4-5 hours. During winter you get 2 if you’re lucky. 1.75 hours more likely. This is on my Ford F-150 lightning going 80 mph the entire time.
If you care about driving far, you don't drive 80 in an EV, it's that simple. It might actually be the same with an ICE, slowing down a bit might save fuel so you end up with one fewer stop so in all it might be faster. Air resistance goes up exponentially with speed IIRC.
I get it. There are worst case scenarios but you buy a car for the rule, not the exception.
I owned a 2013 leaf with a range of 65 miles or so, without fast charging port because it was air cooled. So this wasn't a proper first/only car. But it worked like a charm for my daily commute...
Did I drive 80 with it? No, 65 which was the speed limit anyway.
Did I do road trips with it? No, we used the other EV for that
It's just like software guys. There's no solutions, only tradeoffs
No, the solution is never not driving fast. There are solutions. The solution is fast charging and larger batteries like this article talks about. We’re already there, just unfortunately not in the US yet.
Just got home from visiting family a couple of hours away in the highlands here. Battery is now at 40%, it'll take almost 2 days of charging at home to get it back to 100%. Hopefully I don't have another significant open highway drive to make in the next day or so.
Also our electricity rates fluctuate based on the underlying wholesale rate. It's going to be clear and sunny tomorrow at midday. Sure would be nice to be able to set my car to charge at midday when the price is single digits cents per kw, or maybe even negative. Instead I'll just have to drip it in with the higher rates at midnight-6am and know tomorrows cheap rates will average out to a much lower cost.
TLDR: definitely useful even for people who charge at home.
You talk about rates, but if you care about that, this is a no brainer. You can go to that super charger and charge in 10 minutes. You'll just pay triple your home rate though? So if you care about cost, you would never charge anywhere else.
Also, you say you need 2 days of charging to recoup 40 to 50% of battery (assuming you don't typically charge to 100 which you shouldn't). This implies you charge from a normal outlet. That's fine and I've been doing that for years, but if charge time was an issue you could have a level 2 charger at home and cut that time in 4 or something with not that big of an expense.
super charger rate is typically 6x for me. What's the cost multiple difference when my rate is negative (i.e., I'm being paid to help load shed from the grid)?
Anyway this wasn't meant to be a debate about rates. Just that "nobody that charges at home would want this" was an overly reductive claim.
Your defense secretary the other day said, responding to a news article he didn't like: "the sooner Ellison buys it the better" [1].
I don't think this kind of media control happens anywhere in Europe, but prove me wrong.
Unless you're talking about former Soviet countries, that is part of Europe but culturally actually very different and much more aligned with Russia than all of western Europe
If any of those 3 is true, the bar should be higher than what someone just did in their free time? I would surely expect more.
reply