Gasoline became 20-25% more expensive in Germany with the recent events. Electricity became more expensive as well due the higher Gas cost. Fourtunaly I have a cheap Electricity supplier and PV on my roof.
sht is gonna get real when poor people can't afford bread.
...anyway...back to 500+ buck chips.
The recent events were a fatal hit, but the food supply has long been in trouble like 2 years ago(? I am not sure).
I sold the futures of oils in anticipation of no war and intend to switch to food investments. As a result, I sold oil, but did not have enough time to buy food... But I don't think it's too late.
@elliotc said:
It may be more important to care about the food price.
That's the thing. Energy price dictates prices for everything. Once it goes up significantly, everything else will.
The change of weather create more storm; Storm impact on insurance and agricultural harvests; Agricultural countries decide to promote green energy; Energy price increase. They are influenced by each other.
@elliotc said:
Agricultural countries decide to promote green energy; Energy price increase.
???
Could you clarify please - how is this happening in your opinion: green energy promotion -> energy price increases?
Most recent data suggests that green energy is the cheapest newest energy source - whereas continued usage of existing nuclear is deemed to be the cheapest one overall - so unless by 'green energy promotion' you also implicitly assume that it's happening along with shutting down existing n. power plants (which is what the "geniuses" in power where I live are doing, or rather, seem to have already done -_-'), I can't understand the implication here...?
@elliotc said:
Agricultural countries decide to promote green energy; Energy price increase.
???
Could you clarify please - how is this happening in your opinion: green energy promotion -> energy price increases?
Most recent data suggests that green energy is the cheapest newest energy source - whereas continued usage of existing nuclear is deemed to be the cheapest one overall - so unless by 'green energy promotion' you also implicitly assume that it's happening along with shutting down existing n. power plants (which is what the "geniuses" in power where I live are doing, or rather, seem to have already done -_-'), I can't understand the implication here...?
A new approach represents new ultra-long term investment, some one need to pay the cost
Weather affects sunshine hours, and water levels, the power supply are unstable
Green energy production location are usually far from home, which means more transfer lose
Technology and factories in the hands of a few countries, your costs are not my costs
If green energy is cheaper, then no one needs to promote it, businessmen are grabbing this piece of cake. Personally, I think nuclear energy is the best way to go unless your country frequent earthquakes or wars. However, green worrier doesnt agree with me through.
Thank you for answering! (Although the crux of green being expensive still remains a mystery to me )
@elliotc said:
1. A new approach represents new ultra-long term investment, some one need to pay the cost
Just because it's new (BTW, is it? E.g. hydro seems much older than thermal, not to mention nuclear...), doesn't mean it's more expensive - see the data I linked to above - according to various reports, green energy is the cheapest new energy source available nowadays
Weather affects sunshine hours, and water levels, the power supply are unstable
Sorry, what does this have to do with energy costs?
But to answer your points, I can't argue about sunshine, but it's not like solar is the only cheap green energy (have you read my link? onshore wind is basically the same - and yes, I know it's intermittent, but the two are highly complimentary ); also, since you mentioned them, unfortunately for water levels, nuclear (which you mentioned as your favorite option) also requires a steady water supply - good luck with that with the ongoing climate crisis debacle...
Green energy production location are usually far from home, which means more transfer lose
I don't really get this, isn't this true for most power plants? At least where I live, the distribution of thermal, nuclear and green seems to be evened out, so in case I misunderstood, could you please clarify again..
Technology and factories in the hands of a few countries, your costs are not my costs
I believe this is true for most technologies in general, most countries simply do not manufacture their own CPUs, power plants or what not, so I can't see how this is an argument in favor of green being expensive vs. conventional being cheaper...?
If green energy is cheaper, then no one needs to promote it
Yes, that's why there is a lot of investment going on nowadays...
Personally, I think nuclear energy is the best way to go unless your country frequent earthquakes or wars.
If I may ask, why? It's not the cheapest, as per the data quoted on Wikipedia - why do you like it so much nonetheless?
(For the record, as already mentioned, I am not against using existing nuclear pp, but am not exactly convinced that it'd be a good idea to construct any more of them, mostly due to their low cost effectiveness, long term water stability and safety [terrorism/war/earthquakes kinda things] being my secondary/tertiary concerns )
ipv6 is good and cheap in the long term, why not every provider move to v6? They are good and cheap, but they are the future not the current.
Demand and supply, There are countries in the world that have coups because the weather is too cold and the heating is too expensive. Heating is expensive becasuse factories can pay more money for power, so is supplied to factories first
Green power requires far more land than normal, and this predestines the location of power generation to be further away from the city, also impact on agricultural land.
This is not very obvious？ thermal power equipment can generally produce by most country, but green are only on some hands. You can check how profitable those monopoly product such as cpu.
Moreover, many countries have their own coal mines. This is not only cost-free, but also increases employment.
For developing countries, this is a forced payment.
For the developed countries, it can be infrastructure projects for creating jobs, digesting hot money, reduce dependence on foreign countries for imports, exporting products to earn money ... etc cheap is one of the possibilities, but definitely not the main reason.
My preference for nuclear is probably due to the fact that my very close cousin is a nuclear engineer. This is not perfectly rational.
@elliotc said:
1. ipv6 is good and cheap in the long term, why not every provider move to v6? They are good and cheap, but they are the future not the current.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? I was arguing that the assumption of energy prices rising due to green energy adoption doesn't seem to be true, not that everyone should immediately use it, and only it (which is what you seem to be implying here)... But, since we seem to have agreed by now that, similarly to IPv6, green energy is cheaper than the alternative, let's leave it at that
Demand and supply, There are countries in the world that have coups because the weather is too cold and the heating is too expensive. Heating is expensive becasuse factories can pay more money for power, so is supplied to factories first
So if I understand correctly, this is about some green energy sources being unstable? For things like wind and solar, undeniably so, not so much for hydro (unless there is a drought) or geothermal; however, to reiterate, my point was only about green energy being cheaper - stability is another issue, and I never said it's a silver bullet! (Just like IPv6 brought up by you above - it's also cheaper, but has its own set of downsides )
Green power requires far more land than normal, and this predestines the location of power generation to be further away from the city, also impact on agricultural land.
Probably, but this won't be true if there is no agricultural land to be found to begin with, e.g. on a desert And I guess with rooftop solar, the source is even closer to the place where the energy is consumed..
This is not very obvious？ thermal power equipment can generally produce by most country, but green are only on some hands.
No, it isn't, that's why I asked! I would probably be more inclined to agree that it is possible for "most countries with a strong industry" (!="developed countries"); I am still not convinced that most countries could produce their own equipment, but since neither of us seems to have data on hand supporting either view, let's agree to disagree on this one
Moreover, many countries have their own coal mines. This is not only cost-free, but also increases employment.
Hmmm.. I'm afraid that, just because you have some coal deposits, doesn't necessarily mean it's economically viable for a country to mine it. Broadly speaking, there are two types of mines, sub-surface and surface. The latter is so cheap, that it oftentimes makes sense to import that kind of coal, even if you have your own sub-surface domestic source available.. unless you want to waste tax money on subsidies for those unprofitable mines (but you don't need a mine for this kind of employment increase, everything will do, as long as you pour money into it ). And speaking of cost-free, so are water, wind and sun...
For developing countries, this is a forced payment.
For the developed countries, it can be infrastructure projects for creating jobs, digesting hot money, reduce dependence on foreign countries for imports, exporting products to earn money ... etc
Probably all of these are true for the latter, but what do you mean by the former? Why do you think that it e.g. doesn't create any jobs in developing countries? China, for example, is a developing country, and at the same time, a major solar panel exporter AFAIK. And even if you don't export panels in a similar manner, every time a power plant is constructed, it's a infrastructure project creating jobs, even if the technology is imported, regardless whether the country is developing or developed. Finally, most countries are reliant on foreign energy one way or another, so the part on reduction of foreign imports should be true for them both kinds of countries as well.
cheap is one of the possibilities, but definitely not the main reason.
Perhaps Sorry for repeating myself yet again, I simply do not agree with this implication: " green energy promotion -> energy price increases", because green energy is cheap - never said it being cheap was the main reason it was being adopted
My preference for nuclear is probably due to the fact that my very close cousin is a nuclear engineer. This is not perfectly rational.
Cool dude, don't worry! I can't say this is true for all people, but at the very least, I am not perfectly rational either, since I definitely got my own biases as well
Sorry for derailing the discussion guys, I promise this will be my last OT post in this thread!
(but would nonetheless be grateful if you could post your final answer as well, @elliotc m_ _m)
@chimichurri said: green energy promotion -> energy price increases"
This is actually one of my interpretations of current energy prices, and looking up a bit, you might see that my purpose is to illustrate the interplay between supply of food and energy.
@chimichurri said: not that everyone should immediately use it, and only it
This is what people ask for and what they do....
I did not deny the future of green energy, the promotion of people has been from environmentalists -> insurance companies -> agricultural countries, the most important thing is agricultural countries. Under the environment of big money printing, the government's large infrastructure investment has become feasible. The cost of energy transition is huge, but once it is successful, electricity prices will be very cheap. But for now, it is hard to say that the rise in energy prices is not related.
Germany has a pioneering advantage in green energy, they think it can drive exports, innovation, employment, etc. As early as 10 years ago, their government started to abolish nuclear power, and the result is that the price of electricity continues to rise duing these years. Most of it come from EGG. And having to import large amounts of energy has caused Germany suffering in many way.
In the other hand, Texas is a leader in the promotion of new energy sources, and closure of more than half of all coal plants over the past decade. This March's blizzard and severe freeze left green energy users without electricity to heat and light their homes.
@chimichurri said: even closer to the place where the energy is consumed..
Don't underestimate the importance of power transmission. Some countries(the name is censored because some people might get angry) have a large amount of electricity generation, but the transmission technology is a crap, so they often have power outages.
China is currently planning a kind of infrastructure to transmit electricity from the west to the eastern centralized power consumption areas because of the geographical differences in power generation and consumption.This will be a project that will cross the country.
Know a bit of solar(sunshine and wind), but I know nothing about hydro so no comments.
Actually, in my prediction, (green) energy is a weapon. This was shown earlier on other raw materials.
The countries that export energy 100% fucked in the long term.
If the price of energy is high, countries that import a lot of energy will be miserable
For green energy countries, no matter how high or low the price is, it will not affect their own country and can control the price according to the situation. Soon countries will set a standards for products' non-green tax to protect their markets.
Hydro destroys eco-systems (rising the level of underground waters, and altering river eco-systems).
Solar requires huge areas covered in those plates, along with a ton of batteries to store it during the night.
Wind also requires huge areas covered with wind turbines.
Battery production is highly toxic and they can't be 100% recycled.
Nuclear is the least dirty energy we are capable of producing today. "Green" is nice talk, virtue-signalling and all, but it isn't really green - as far as I know.
Electric vehicles:
as long as we produce electricity and batteries using non-eco methods, electric vehicles aren't really eco. Surely, electric cars will not pollute cities as directly as internal combustion engines pollute, but overall pollution is not really reduced.
In fact, I'd say that the most eco-friendly car is VW Golf 2 diesel - since those are built to last for decades, with very good fuel efficiency. Making a car (melting metal and machining it) creates a lot of pollution and uses a lot of energy. It's better to make cars that last a lot longer and are easily and cheaply serviceable.
Relja of House Novović, the First of His Name, King of the Plains, the Breaker of Chains, WirMach Wolves pack member BikeGremlin's web-hosting reviews
I just want to say, my loyalty to AMD has been much like my loyalty to lowend providers. The reason I am so loyal is that without them, I would not have been able to access what most people would pay more for. Coming from an island where we are not as privileged as others in terms of salary, I don't know how I forgot about this. My old PCs were forced to use AMD cups since then and guess what, now even if I have the money for Intel, I go with AMD - the price and performance is perfect.
RCLOUDSYSTEMS - EmailBackup and EmailSync are powerful email management and migration utilities for an unbeatable price!
Comments
hmm...my 3700X at home is still good for now, but that might make sense as an upgrade at some point
In Germany 5950X dropped from 699€ to 599€ (https://geizhals.de/amd-ryzen-9-5950x-100-100000059wof-a2392527.html)
server-factory.com
Has the cost of electricity in DE changed much due to current events?
Here in USA, gasoline is more expensive than before. I don't know yet about electricity.
Gasoline became 20-25% more expensive in Germany with the recent events. Electricity became more expensive as well due the higher Gas cost. Fourtunaly I have a cheap Electricity supplier and PV on my roof.
server-factory.com
Gas price went up by about 10% so far in Canada.
I've been told to expect further increases, along with price increases for everything else. Covid has already had a significant impact.
♻ Amitz day is October 21.
♻ Join Nigh sect by adopting my avatar. Let us spread the joys of the end.
Wheat prices are the one to watch atm
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/wheat
sht is gonna get real when poor people can't afford bread.
...anyway...back to 500+ buck chips.
Fuck me. Gas price went up from 154 to 184. Took only 2 or 3 days to go up this high.
Worse, it's gonna keep going up.
♻ Amitz day is October 21.
♻ Join Nigh sect by adopting my avatar. Let us spread the joys of the end.
It may be more important to care about the food price.
Action and Reaction in history
The recent events were a fatal hit, but the food supply has long been in trouble like 2 years ago(? I am not sure).
I sold the futures of oils in anticipation of no war and intend to switch to food investments. As a result, I sold oil, but did not have enough time to buy food... But I don't think it's too late.
Action and Reaction in history
That's the thing. Energy price dictates prices for everything. Once it goes up significantly, everything else will.
♻ Amitz day is October 21.
♻ Join Nigh sect by adopting my avatar. Let us spread the joys of the end.
Its just getting started it seems. Waiting for Intel to lower pricing also. Meanwhile Russian Datacenters are in trouble.
Web Hosting - VPS Cloud - EU Dedicated Offers Managed Hosting Made Easy Dedicated Servers, Private Cloud, Colocation, VPS, Shared & Reseller Hosting
The change of weather create more storm; Storm impact on insurance and agricultural harvests; Agricultural countries decide to promote green energy; Energy price increase. They are influenced by each other.
Action and Reaction in history
???
Could you clarify please - how is this happening in your opinion: green energy promotion -> energy price increases?
Most recent data suggests that green energy is the cheapest newest energy source - whereas continued usage of existing nuclear is deemed to be the cheapest one overall - so unless by 'green energy promotion' you also implicitly assume that it's happening along with shutting down existing n. power plants (which is what the "geniuses" in power where I live are doing, or rather, seem to have already done -_-'), I can't understand the implication here...?
Contribute your idling VPS/dedi (link), Android (link) or iOS (link) devices to medical research
If green energy is cheaper, then no one needs to promote it, businessmen are grabbing this piece of cake. Personally, I think nuclear energy is the best way to go unless your country frequent earthquakes or wars. However, green worrier doesnt agree with me through.
Action and Reaction in history
Thank you for answering! (Although the crux of green being expensive still remains a mystery to me
)
Just because it's new (BTW, is it?
E.g. hydro seems much older than thermal, not to mention nuclear...), doesn't mean it's more expensive - see the data I linked to above - according to various reports, green energy is the cheapest new energy source available nowadays 
Sorry, what does this have to do with energy costs?
); also, since you mentioned them, unfortunately for water levels, nuclear (which you mentioned as your favorite option) also requires a steady water supply - good luck with that with the ongoing climate crisis debacle... 
But to answer your points, I can't argue about sunshine, but it's not like solar is the only cheap green energy (have you read my link? onshore wind is basically the same - and yes, I know it's intermittent, but the two are highly complimentary
I don't really get this, isn't this true for most power plants? At least where I live, the distribution of thermal, nuclear and green seems to be evened out, so in case I misunderstood, could you please clarify again..
I believe this is true for most technologies in general, most countries simply do not manufacture their own CPUs, power plants or what not, so I can't see how this is an argument in favor of green being expensive vs. conventional being cheaper...?
Yes, that's why there is a lot of investment going on nowadays...
If I may ask, why? It's not the cheapest, as per the data quoted on Wikipedia - why do you like it so much nonetheless?
(For the record, as already mentioned, I am not against using existing nuclear pp, but am not exactly convinced that it'd be a good idea to construct any more of them, mostly due to their low cost effectiveness, long term water stability and safety [terrorism/war/earthquakes kinda things] being my secondary/tertiary concerns )
Contribute your idling VPS/dedi (link), Android (link) or iOS (link) devices to medical research
Moreover, many countries have their own coal mines. This is not only cost-free, but also increases employment.
For developing countries, this is a forced payment.
For the developed countries, it can be infrastructure projects for creating jobs, digesting hot money, reduce dependence on foreign countries for imports, exporting products to earn money ... etc cheap is one of the possibilities, but definitely not the main reason.
My preference for nuclear is probably due to the fact that my very close cousin is a nuclear engineer. This is not perfectly rational.
Action and Reaction in history
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? I was arguing that the assumption of energy prices rising due to green energy adoption doesn't seem to be true, not that everyone should immediately use it, and only it (which is what you seem to be implying here)... But, since we seem to have agreed by now that, similarly to IPv6, green energy is cheaper than the alternative, let's leave it at that
So if I understand correctly, this is about some green energy sources being unstable? For things like wind and solar, undeniably so, not so much for hydro (unless there is a drought) or geothermal; however, to reiterate, my point was only about green energy being cheaper - stability is another issue, and I never said it's a silver bullet! (Just like IPv6 brought up by you above - it's also cheaper, but has its own set of downsides
)
Probably, but this won't be true if there is no agricultural land to be found to begin with, e.g. on a desert
And I guess with rooftop solar, the source is even closer to the place where the energy is consumed.. 
No, it isn't, that's why I asked!
I would probably be more inclined to agree that it is possible for "most countries with a strong industry" (!="developed countries"); I am still not convinced that most countries could produce their own equipment, but since neither of us seems to have data on hand supporting either view, let's agree to disagree on this one 
Hmmm.. I'm afraid that, just because you have some coal deposits, doesn't necessarily mean it's economically viable for a country to mine it. Broadly speaking, there are two types of mines, sub-surface and surface. The latter is so cheap, that it oftentimes makes sense to import that kind of coal, even if you have your own sub-surface domestic source available.. unless you want to waste tax money on subsidies for those unprofitable mines (but you don't need a mine for this kind of employment increase, everything will do, as long as you pour money into it
). And speaking of cost-free, so are water, wind and sun... 
Probably all of these are true for the latter, but what do you mean by the former? Why do you think that it e.g. doesn't create any jobs in developing countries? China, for example, is a developing country, and at the same time, a major solar panel exporter AFAIK. And even if you don't export panels in a similar manner, every time a power plant is constructed, it's a infrastructure project creating jobs, even if the technology is imported, regardless whether the country is developing or developed. Finally, most countries are reliant on foreign energy one way or another, so the part on reduction of foreign imports should be true for them both kinds of countries as well.
Perhaps
Sorry for repeating myself yet again, I simply do not agree with this implication: " green energy promotion -> energy price increases", because green energy is cheap - never said it being cheap was the main reason it was being adopted 
Cool dude, don't worry! I can't say this is true for all people, but at the very least, I am not perfectly rational either, since I definitely got my own biases as well
Sorry for derailing the discussion guys, I promise this will be my last OT post in this thread!
(but would nonetheless be grateful if you could post your final answer as well, @elliotc m_ _m)
Contribute your idling VPS/dedi (link), Android (link) or iOS (link) devices to medical research
This is actually one of my interpretations of current energy prices, and looking up a bit, you might see that my purpose is to illustrate the interplay between supply of food and energy.
This is what people ask for and what they do....
I did not deny the future of green energy, the promotion of people has been from environmentalists -> insurance companies -> agricultural countries, the most important thing is agricultural countries. Under the environment of big money printing, the government's large infrastructure investment has become feasible. The cost of energy transition is huge, but once it is successful, electricity prices will be very cheap. But for now, it is hard to say that the rise in energy prices is not related.
Germany has a pioneering advantage in green energy, they think it can drive exports, innovation, employment, etc. As early as 10 years ago, their government started to abolish nuclear power, and the result is that the price of electricity continues to rise duing these years. Most of it come from EGG. And having to import large amounts of energy has caused Germany suffering in many way.
In the other hand, Texas is a leader in the promotion of new energy sources, and closure of more than half of all coal plants over the past decade. This March's blizzard and severe freeze left green energy users without electricity to heat and light their homes.
Don't underestimate the importance of power transmission. Some countries(the name is censored because some people might get angry) have a large amount of electricity generation, but the transmission technology is a crap, so they often have power outages.
China is currently planning a kind of infrastructure to transmit electricity from the west to the eastern centralized power consumption areas because of the geographical differences in power generation and consumption.This will be a project that will cross the country.
Know a bit of solar(sunshine and wind), but I know nothing about hydro so no comments.
Actually, in my prediction, (green) energy is a weapon. This was shown earlier on other raw materials.
The countries that export energy 100% fucked in the long term.
If the price of energy is high, countries that import a lot of energy will be miserable
For green energy countries, no matter how high or low the price is, it will not affect their own country and can control the price according to the situation. Soon countries will set a standards for products' non-green tax to protect their markets.
Action and Reaction in history
Hydro destroys eco-systems (rising the level of underground waters, and altering river eco-systems).
Solar requires huge areas covered in those plates, along with a ton of batteries to store it during the night.
Wind also requires huge areas covered with wind turbines.
Battery production is highly toxic and they can't be 100% recycled.
Nuclear is the least dirty energy we are capable of producing today. "Green" is nice talk, virtue-signalling and all, but it isn't really green - as far as I know.
Electric vehicles:
as long as we produce electricity and batteries using non-eco methods, electric vehicles aren't really eco. Surely, electric cars will not pollute cities as directly as internal combustion engines pollute, but overall pollution is not really reduced.
In fact, I'd say that the most eco-friendly car is VW Golf 2 diesel - since those are built to last for decades, with very good fuel efficiency. Making a car (melting metal and machining it) creates a lot of pollution and uses a lot of energy. It's better to make cars that last a lot longer and are easily and cheaply serviceable.
Relja of House Novović, the First of His Name, King of the Plains, the Breaker of Chains, WirMach Wolves pack member
BikeGremlin's web-hosting reviews
I just want to say, my loyalty to AMD has been much like my loyalty to lowend providers. The reason I am so loyal is that without them, I would not have been able to access what most people would pay more for. Coming from an island where we are not as privileged as others in terms of salary, I don't know how I forgot about this. My old PCs were forced to use AMD cups since then and guess what, now even if I have the money for Intel, I go with AMD - the price and performance is perfect.
RCLOUDSYSTEMS - EmailBackup and EmailSync are powerful email management and migration utilities for an unbeatable price!