Re: last boost. The German transport minister would like to see maglevs back.
Also, this word meaning (I think) “Public Transport Financing Act” - Gemeindeverkehrsfinanzierungsgesetzes
@feorag More or less, Gemeinde means communal (city/town/county) in this case.

@_tillwe_ @feorag Thus ignoring the only sensible reason for going with maglev—sheer speed over long distance routes, competing with jet airliners—and ignoring that local transport needs to be cheap or free to get people out of their cars.

(Also, they don't seem to remember what happened to Transrapid. Oops.)

@cstross @feorag My guess: Friedrich Merz' frame of reference is 1998-2002, the year Merkel replaced him as chairperson of the CDU parliamentary party. Everything after this time is an error, to be ignored or corrected. (Or as one person in another thread on this asked: can I have back Grunge, too?).
@_tillwe_ @feorag There *might* be something I don't know—the new Chinese rare earth magnets this century have revolutionized car drivetrains, so they might no longer need superconductors for schwebebahn (i.e. light rail) applications?—but I doubt it's anything as forward-thinking as that, coming from the CDU.

@cstross @[email protected] @feorag the same clown posse also wants nuclear power back, along with "high efficiency combustion engines" and "green gas" power plants.

All their ideas are from the 80ies at best.

@jollyorc @cstross @_tillwe_ @feorag In my ever so humble opinion, the problem with nuclear power is that we implemented it long before we figured out how to do it safely, cleanly, and with proper disposal/re-use of the waste. Then, because it was online and monetized, we never bothered to figure out those things.
@farbel @jollyorc @cstross @_tillwe_ @feorag Naah, the problem with nuclear power is it’s more expensive than literally any other source of power. It also takes a long time to build a reactor, which is an issue when climate change is a crisis *now*.
@mathew @jollyorc @cstross @_tillwe_ @feorag I don't think our assessments are mutually exclusive. What you say is true because we rushed to use it. Much of that cost is trying to clean up after the lack of proper r&d prior to deployment.

@farbel @mathew @jollyorc @cstross @_tillwe_ @feorag I think your assessments are halves of the same argument.

It takes a long time and a godforsaken amount of money to build nuke power _because_ we haven't figured out how to run this stuff safer and more efficiently, we've been dragging our feet for decades and now it's too late and we're up against the wall.

@Tubemeister @mathew @jollyorc @cstross @_tillwe_ @feorag agree. Mathew is absolutely correct, but if we had not rushed to build nuclear power plants after WWII and had instead invested that money in research, we would probably have clean fusion by now.
@farbel @Tubemeister @mathew @jollyorc @_tillwe_ @feorag Naah, fusion turns out to be *difficult*—high temperature plasmas trapped in magnetic fields are unstable and like to dump their charge into the structure if they possibly can. Actual stable ones require lots of computing power that only became available after the 1980s, and meanwhile large plasma experiments like ITER have costs that scale as roughly the fourth power of their output, so they're monstrously expensive.

@cstross @farbel @Tubemeister @mathew @jollyorc @_tillwe_ @feorag

been "twenty years off" since I was at uni in the early 80s.

@stephenwhq @cstross @farbel @mathew @jollyorc @_tillwe_ @feorag Yeah not holding my breath for that one.

Not sure what would win, stable commercial fusion power or AGI. ;-)

@Tubemeister @stephenwhq @farbel @mathew @jollyorc @_tillwe_ @feorag We've GOT stable commercial fusion power! You can buy it right now, by the kilowatt of solar panels!

@cstross @Tubemeister @farbel @mathew @jollyorc @_tillwe_ @feorag

you can buy a lot of solar panels for what we invest in fusion