• 0 Posts
  • 140 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: July 30th, 2025

help-circle



  • Renewables + energy storage tech are good enough substitutes

    Solar and wind are already significantly cheaper just in cash terms than any other form of energy generation. Hydroelectric, geothermal, and tidal are more expensive than gas but offer none of the carbon drawbacks once construction is complete. Nuclear is significantly more expensive, has significant drawbacks in terms of waste management and the carbon cost of construction is very high but is “always on”.

    Basically, there is neither an environmental case for fossil fuels and there’s no longer an economic one either, and the gap is widening each year as battery and generation technology advances.



  • According to this study: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ssqu.13436

    Population size is of second tier importance behind economic factors, and the effect isn’t linear, but an “inverted u” where tiny nations suffer, mid-size to larger nations do better but very large countries fall off due to lack of resources to continually scale investment into ever larger talent pools.

    The winter Olympics throws the economic needs of elite sport into sharp focus because unlike athletics, most winter sports require more money for equipment, facilities, training etc to develop high end athletes, poorer countries punch above their weight in things like long-distance running where it’s relatively cheap to train an athlete compared to alpine skiing or ice hockey. Hence why the winter Olympics is dominated by wealthy countries almost all of which are either in Europe, North America or China/Korea/Japan.

    The only outliers to that are Brazil who had a downhill skier who competed his whole career for Norway before retiring and deciding to compete again under a different flag and Kazakhstan who (no disrespect to his performance) won because the favourites all unexpectedly messed up.




  • Maybe I should rephrase, Norway’s sports development system works on a broad spectrum approach based on sports that have universal availability and appeal within the country. All the sports you mentioned, and cross-country skiing, biathlon, ski jump etc don’t require dedicated specialist facilities like ice hockey does for example.

    That philosophy also happens to align very nicely with a natural affinity for, and infrastructure to develop top end talent in for those winter sports I mentioned.










  • Since the above comment was deleted, here’s what I was replying to for anyone wondering:

    That all sure sounds awfully successful and self-sufficient and “we’re a strong independent nation, we don’t need no big dumb international union”, golly. And yet, here we are talking about the UK asking very nicely for things they had before and rejected.

    No, it says that the success/failure of the UK financial services sector is irrelevant to any discussion about the EU and the pros/cons of membership for the UK.

    If you look at the wider economic cost/benefit analysis it’s clear as day as to the advantages we had of remaining part of the EU and that could be somewhat clawed back by rejoining the customs union.

    For example:

    https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis/#assumptions

    The post-Brexit trading relationship between the UK and EU […] will reduce long-run productivity by 4 per cent relative to remaining in the EU.

    Both exports and imports will be around 15 per cent lower in the long run than if the UK had remained in the EU.

    New trade deals with non-EU countries will not have a material impact, and any effect will be gradual

    Or:

    https://www.nber.org/papers/w34459

    estimates suggest that by 2025, Brexit had reduced UK GDP by 6% to 8%

    We estimate that investment was reduced by between 12% and 18%, employment by 3% to 4% and productivity by 3% to 4%

    these forecasts were accurate over a 5-year horizon, but they underestimated the impact over a decade