Europe's biggest battery storage system goes online four months early

Tams80

Posts: 175   +132
Imagine all of the lithium mined to go into that one...

I hope they at least have a Nuclear plant nearby (or planned) for some of that steady, clean power, or all this will look like is pandering to the environmentalists...

Well Rolls Royce have just a few days ago decided to really push forward mini nuclear reactors.
 

neeyik

Posts: 2,415   +2,946
Staff member
Well Rolls Royce have just a few days ago decided to really push forward mini nuclear reactors.
EDF has been considering them as replacements for their really old AGRs for a while now. Those ancient plants (Heysham 1 is the same age as me) don’t make them any significant money anymore and they’re well overdue decommissioning. If all parties can agree sensible terms, then we could see a raft of mini-plants dotted about within 5 years.
 

Ultraman1966

Posts: 188   +111
So how many seabirds will perish at the blades of those turbines? Why is it ok to kill wildlife to provide a small amount of energy? Nobody wants to talk about the millions of birds killed every year in the name of the environment.
If you really cared about birds and other wildlife then we better come up with a better solution to wean us off our high carbon economies. Climate change will cause several magnitude order higher number of birds killed or harmed than wind farms.
 

AlaskaGuy

Posts: 742   +612
If you really cared about birds and other wildlife then we better come up with a better solution to wean us off our high carbon economies. Climate change will cause several magnitude order higher number of birds killed or harmed than wind farms.
Link?
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,345   +4,355
It’s hardly the stupidest thing the UK has ever done - the debacle over the replacements for the aging AGR plants easily takes that crown.
My hyperbole wasn't 100% genuine but yeah, I'll give you that.
Besides, with the rapid growth in wind farms, it’s a much needed system to help balance the National Grid - more are planned to help fully stabilise it, while various nuclear projects and other schemes get started/are completed.
Part of my point was that if they went geothermal to begin with, they wouldn't have needed the wind farms in the first place.
As for why the UK hasn’t invested in geothermal, this article by the British Geological Survey provides the reason. Natural gas has been the primary source for generating electricity in the UK because it’s been cheap and very plentiful for decades - not any more, though.
The thing is, geothermal is THE MOST plentiful energy source, it's literally everywhere and it's also the least expensive in the long-term. The only big costs involved are dependent on how far down one must drill to reach rock that will perpetually boil water on contact.

Once it's done though, it's done. It will only ever need the most basic of maintenance. Hell, if done right, it doesn't even need a pump. It can run 100% on steam pressure and gravity.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,345   +4,355
What Avro Arrow said. I'd like to see more geothermal and hydro power plants.

I used to support various green movements long time ago. But once I've heard they are completely ignoring (aka, never mentioning) geothermal, and actively attacking hydroelectric, I couldn't believe it.

Unfortunately, those "greenies" are those who lead in so called "ECO" politics, while true ecologists are being marginalized. Some regions / countries / continents, like Australia, could also produce enormous quantities of energy from strong ocean waves. Which are constantly present at those places. There are underfunded private companies developing such tech, but "greenies" never mention it.

For some reason, they prefer unreliable renewable sources.
It's because unreliable sources have the Achilles' Heel in that they can't be used as the base source for the grid. Those people are liars who benefit monetarily from big oil and big gas.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,345   +4,355
Poignantly it actually is rocket science, well to a point at least.

While Geothermal is an excellent option for certain limited situations it is wildly impractical in most locales as the depths required to be drilled to for an efficient deployment of the technology become untenable from a cost perspective or simply render the environmental costs higher than the benefits. The rocket science part I alluded to comes in the form of early generation microwave drilling tips that will provide a several order of magnitude leap forward in efficient access to effective depths for geo thermal. Drilling through the granite bedrock in the UK is for all intents and purposes impossible with current technology as the costs become effectively exponential past a few hundred feet. The advanced microwave technology can trace its roots back to discoveries made by NASA's JPL about plasma/microwaves during the research regarding the ablative materials to be used in the heat shields of the reentry vehicles as well as the research done on other ablatives to be used in the nose cones of the sprint missiles deployed in the US NIKE Zeus ICBM interception system developed and deployed in the 60's.

https://news.mit.edu/2016/paul-woskov-explores-new-path-through-earth-crust-0412


Presuming you're from Ontario with the reference to a land of many lakes in your profile I would mention that the same factors that allow for the easy development of Hydro power are oppositely correlated to the deployment of Geothermal. The Canadian shield is not easy to punch through but it does an excellent job of creating massive lakes that can be dammed to allow for controlled bleed off of the stored kinetic energy available in the water for electrical generation. Also makes a great base plate for nuclear reactors as the ground has very low porosity limiting the negative effects in the case of a nuclear accident.
I live in Ontario but the land of many lakes is Canada in general. We have over 2,000,000 lakes across the entire country. On a map, our land is polka-dotted with blue. It's true that Canada has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to hydroelectric but that doesn't work everywhere. I don't know if the UK has the aquatic resources needed for effective hydroelectric generation which is why I brought up geo-thermal. I'll be honest, I didn't expect the UK to be on granite bedrock (what with it being an island and all) but that microwave drilling sure does look like a viable option.
Geothermal works a treat in Iceland, Hawaii and effectively anywhere in the Pacific ring of fire where the Earths crust has been so kind as to rend itself open for the task, once you have to dig very far it becomes a very poor option very quickly.
Yup. The heat of the crust is very close to the surface there.
The UK made very fiscally and environmentally sound choices with offshore wind generation as the constant manageable winds of the North sea allow for the largest turbines on the planet to be deployed away from the view of the general public (for the most part) and far enough off shore to mitigate the effect on sea birds.
This is where things start going wrong. You used the word "fiscally". We passed the point where fiscal consideration should be involved in how power is generated decades ago. Fiscal concerns are the whole reason that we got into this mess to begin with. We're long past the point of crisis here and trying to solve a crisis by saving money is like an American who won't go to the doctor because it's too expensive. When faced with possible extinction, what good does being "fiscally responsible" do? Absolutely none.
The engineering teams that consulted on the deployment knew what they were doing regarding cost to benefit analysis and it was never intended to be permanent as nothing is permanent. Every engineer knows that the only constant in the universe is delta (I stole that one from the wife's father who unlike myself is a Naval architect).
That's a good one! I'll have to remember that. :laughing:
Regarding the general downsides or Geothermal I would posit the documentarian pieces done by Matt Ferrell at the Energy technology youtube channel Undecided. He does thorough break downs of the tech, interviews actual researchers in the industry as well as academia while taking no sides hence the channel name "Undecided".
Ummm, no, I don't think that I will and here's why...
- I've never heard of him in my life
- Not all researchers are good-faith actors and I have no idea how he selects them
- Energy technology isn't so complicated that we don't know what the best options are so calling a channel "Undecided" strikes me as something that a grifter would do to muddy the waters in favour of some agenda.

I immediately don't trust a YouTube channel in which the name has nothing to do whatsoever with the topic(s) that they specialise in. That's why I almost never get fooled. When it comes to talking about something in which I'm knowledgeable but not an expert, I don't theorise things myself. I get all my data from respected strongholds of knowledge, usually universities. I don't think that there's a person in the Anglophonic world who hasn't heard of the MIT and it was actually MIT that first got me interested in geothermal power generation:
Tapping into the million-year energy source below our feet
MIT - The future of Geothermal Energy
I mean no offence to you because I believe that you're discussing in good faith but I'll pass on watching that video. There's nothing on YouTube that could convince me to not believe information that comes from real university sources like Lafayette College or the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Especially not an "Energy Technology" channel with perhaps the most asinine name that I've ever heard for a scientific channel "Undecided". That sounds like something that the grifters over at PragerU would choose.

In any case, YouTube is ok for science if you're watching something like PBS Eons or Because, Science. I've even seen respected YouTube channels make glaring errors (not PBS or Because, Science but another one that I can't remember). Whenever I see something on YouTube that says something interesting, I go and vet the information using real sources.

One VERY well-followed channel is "The Infographics Show" and while it's videos seem trustworthy and well-polished, they're actually trash. Here, a pilot who started in the USN and switched to the USAF, completely rips one of their videos to shreds:

Moral of the story, when it comes to science, DO NOT TRUST YOUTUBE. This is because even the most convincing channels are often just made by people who know how to edit video, not people who know the actual source material.
 
Last edited:

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,345   +4,355
Clearly you don't understand load balancing.
I advocate power sources that are constant like geothermal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Load balancing isn't required for them because as long as you have the installed capacity for peak times, you're golden.

Here in Canada, provinces like Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia all have more than 90% of their electricity generated by hydro. Ontario has a mix of nuclear and hydro but that's not because they had to (as demonstrated by the other provinces).

Load-balancing is only required when you're using a non-constant source of power like wind or solar. In that case, yes, you're right. My whole point is that the UK should've taken a different path than these huge offshore wind farms because while they do help, they can't be used as a base load source because they only produce electricity when the wind is blowing. France (as usual) made the smarter move by doubling-down on nuclear generation. While I believe that France should employ more hydroelectricity, I can't fault their logic for using nuclear over wind or solar.

Here in Canada, Hydro-Quebec has an installed hydroelectric capacity of over 37GW. Do you really think that they care about load-balancing? Of course not, because they made sure that they had excess capacity. So much so that they actually export electricity to several US states.

So clearly, you're wrong and I DO understand load-balancing. I understand that it's only a factor if you haven't invested in the proper technologies to avoid needing to worry about it in the first place. In this case, that's exactly what has happened.
 

Ultraman1966

Posts: 188   +111
Sure thing.


I must apologise, I am wrong. Cats are the bigger cause of bird deaths. 😂
 

East Obsever

Posts: 9   +8
Storage is great ..... production, in Europe is another story. They need more, a LOT more to completely shut down any need from Russia and be more self sufficient ....
EU buy gas at much cheaper price from Russia than from the America, it's been known as reliable-partner for decades (this is what China and India did now), the gov rake profits from the business, people happy since price is right so business is good, today is totally different reality, they chose to shoot themselves in the foot, perhaps they need someone to remind them again that no energy no country, this is what happen to EU now, sadly to see that mostly get affected are ordinary people / civilian, like us.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,345   +4,355
EU buy gas at much cheaper price from Russia than from the America, it's been known as reliable-partner for decades (this is what China and India did now), the gov rake profits from the business, people happy since price is right so business is good, today is totally different reality, they chose to shoot themselves in the foot, perhaps they need someone to remind them again that no energy no country, this is what happen to EU now, sadly to see that mostly get affected are ordinary people / civilian, like us.
Most EU countries made the dumb choice to depend on Russian gas but they didn't have to. France is essentially immune to this situation because less than 10% of their electricity comes from thermal sources. From what I can see, here's the breakdown of French sources of electricity:
Nuclear: 74.5%
Hydro: 16.3%
Thermal: 9.1%
Other (wind/solar/etc.): 0.1%

So with only 9.1% of their electricity coming from burning stuff, that's not a huge drop in availability, especially when one considers that they probably have more than enough nuclear and hydro capacity to make up for it. France has always been a very smart country, preferring to internalise anything vital and not depend on anyone else. This mindset of independence has always served them well.

France's sovereignty is far more solid than most countries because you can't screw with a country that doesn't need anything from you. Unfortunately for the citizens of countries like the UK and Germany, they're now paying the price for the short-sightedness of their respective governments.

Some people think that the French are arrogant but I think that their attitude is more blunt and straightforward than it is arrogant. I see it more like this:
"We've seen how the rest of the world screws things up through corruption and stupidity. While we accept that this happens, they're not dragging France down with them!"
 

East Obsever

Posts: 9   +8
Most EU countries made the dumb choice to depend on Russian gas but they didn't have to. France is essentially immune to this situation because less than 10% of their electricity comes from thermal sources. From what I can see, here's the breakdown of French sources of electricity:
Nuclear: 74.5%
Hydro: 16.3%
Thermal: 9.1%
Other (wind/solar/etc.): 0.1%

So with only 9.1% of their electricity coming from burning stuff, that's not a huge drop in availability, especially when one considers that they probably have more than enough nuclear and hydro capacity to make up for it. France has always been a very smart country, preferring to internalise anything vital and not depend on anyone else. This mindset of independence has always served them well.

France's sovereignty is far more solid than most countries because you can't screw with a country that doesn't need anything from you. Unfortunately for the citizens of countries like the UK and Germany, they're now paying the price for the short-sightedness of their respective governments.

Some people think that the French are arrogant but I think that their attitude is more blunt and straightforward than it is arrogant. I see it more like this:
"We've seen how the rest of the world screws things up through corruption and stupidity. While we accept that this happens, they're not dragging France down with them!"
Germany and UK indeed screwed themselves, which I think they will not see the light at the end of tunnel so soon except maybe they go full-retard against USA, but God please saved France! It is too rich in cultures and foods! lots of great and beautiful countrysides. France is worth saving, maybe along side Austria and Switzerland, the rest of Western-EU, not so much.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,345   +4,355
Germany and UK indeed screwed themselves, which I think they will not see the light at the end of tunnel so soon except maybe they go full-retard against USA, but God please saved France! It is too rich in cultures and foods! lots of great and beautiful countrysides. France is worth saving, maybe along side Austria and Switzerland, the rest of Western-EU, not so much.
It's because their governments are more conservative than countries like France, Switzerland and the Nordic countries. Left-wing governments are willing to invest the money and time needed to adopt clean energy. The Nordic countries are the most left-wing which is why they have such low crime rates and are overall the most prosperous countries in the world. In those countries, everyone has a great life, not just the uber-rich.

With right-wing governments, anything that isn't profitable but increases the quality of life for the average citizen, they never seem to have enough money for that. It is they who cut finding to health care and education, increase funding to the military, cut taxes for the rich (which hurts the country financially), try to privatise public utilities and de-regulate everything. Instead of investing in clean energy, they just go for whatever is cheapest at the time. In this case, it was Russian gas. Everything is about money for them and so they're never able to see the big picture.

Societal norms in Western Europe being what they are, parties that are considered right-wing in Europe would be called "Leftist Communists" in the USA. Ironically, this means that the USA is allied with "Leftist Communists" because compared to the USA, that's what every country in NATO looks like.

When looking at the very right-wing USA however, the symptoms of the right-wing strategy are evident and everywhere. These symptoms include its ever-widening divide between the rich and poor (which is also race-based), its crumbling infrastructure (which is why Biden had to do something), its unclean tap water, its skyrocketing crime rate (with more mass-shootings per year than ANY other country), its broken healthcare system and its ineffective education system. Meanwhile, the USA is the richest country on Earth (by GDP) but its wealth is so concentrated in such a small number of people that parts of it resemble the third world.

It doesn't take a genius to be able to tell which path is the better one when they're both compared objectively.
 

Hodor

Posts: 418   +300
Left-wing governments are willing to invest the money and time needed to adopt clean energy. The Nordic countries are the most left-wing which is why they have such low crime rates and are overall the most prosperous countries in the world. In those countries, everyone has a great life, not just the uber-rich.

I must disagree with this. It was true till maybe about 2005. But after that extreme left became so extreme, that people who were consider leftists started to be sorted under "right" because they weren't left enough.

The immigration that Sweden (and many Nordic countries) received from Kosovo / Albania in the early 2000's almost instantly increased the crime rates. Especially rapes of young girls / children. The media was ordered to ignore those cases and never publicly mention them. So that it wouldn't interfere with immigration.

But then a few more immigration waves happened, especially the one in 2015, which increased the level of crime beyond average Swedish imagination. First time in Swedish history they got the "NO-GO" zones, where ordinary people, or even police, could not enter. Street crime skyrocketed. One period of time, from 2015 to 2018, Sweden was 3rd country in the world by the number of rapes. Yeah, #3 in the world. Especially child rapes.

They also had over 100 big explosions per year, similar to those in Belfast in 1970'es. You know, a van full of explosive explode in the middle of the street, at 2:00 AM. This became normal in otherwise peaceful Sweden. Except global media would "forget" to mention those things. Or raids by special police forces, which were often attacked by the armed rebels.

But rapes were omnipresent. Most of the victims were Swedish schoolgirls. And their government supported it. Not only they didn't stop it, but they ordered police not to do anything if the perpetrators were immigrants from Middle East or Africa. Mainstream media was of course banned from talking about any of it. Pretending nothing is happening.

Chief of police of Malmo (Swedish southernmost city, where the majority of immigrants lived, and most of crimes happened) was so frustrated by the behavior of their government, that he resigned. He said what's the purpose of his job if he's not allowed to catch the perps.

Currently, Swedish extreme-left government doesn't have enough money to fix the problems in the aging infrastructure (electricity, water) in many neighborhoods, because they've spent all the money (from extremely high taxes) on building apartment buildings for immigrants. So they could give them new fully-equipped apartments, and free education, and welfare, at the expense of Swedish working people.

Sweden isn't what it used to be a few decades ago.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,345   +4,355
I must disagree with this. It was true till maybe about 2005. But after that extreme left became so extreme, that people who were consider leftists started to be sorted under "right" because they weren't left enough.
People like that aren't really on the left though. They're what I like to call "Mirror Fascists" because they want to control how people think, just like fascists do. The media has focused on those lunatics and ignores the sane and sensible progressives (like me) for the same reasons that they focus on the lunatics in the "MAGA" crowd and ignore the sane and sensible conservatives (like you). Those reasons of course, are ratings and profits.

Most progressives stand in direct opposition to the people you're describing just like most conservatives stand in direct opposition of the "MAGA" crowd. The thing is, the media wants to stoke a culture war because they want sensible people to react irrationally when it's actually economics that unites us. The media doesn't want progressive economics because it means less profit for them and in that way, they're adversaries of us both. Remember that everyone you see on TV in the media is a millionaire and what they want has absolutely nothing to do with what normal people like you and I want.

When they control the narrative, they can (and do) shape it in any way that benefits them.
The immigration that Sweden (and many Nordic countries) received from Kosovo / Albania in the early 2000's almost instantly increased the crime rates. Especially rapes of young girls / children. The media was ordered to ignore those cases and never publicly mention them. So that it wouldn't interfere with immigration.
I know that it happened, but I was unaware that the government said to keep it quiet. I can't imagine what their motivation was. It was only Sweden though, not the other Nordic countries. You can find the relevant information on page 38 of this report.

If Sweden did that, I sure as hell am not on their side about it. Part of being a progressive is being willing and able to criticise the actions others no matter where on the political spectrum they are or claim to be. That is completely indefensible. Probably not what you expected to hear from someone on the left, eh?
But then a few more immigration waves happened, especially the one in 2015, which increased the level of crime beyond average Swedish imagination. First time in Swedish history they got the "NO-GO" zones, where ordinary people, or even police, could not enter. Street crime skyrocketed. One period of time, from 2015 to 2018, Sweden was 3rd country in the world by the number of rapes. Yeah, #3 in the world. Especially child rapes.
Yes, for some reason, Sweden has double the rape rate of the USA per 100,000 citizens. Sweden appears to be an outlier in just that one category however because the USA has a rape rate that is 80% higher than Finland, 42% higher than Norway and 400% that of Denmark. So in 75% of comparisons, the USA is worse in rape than the Nordic countries.

Rape is a terrible thing but murder is even worse. If you look at the murder statistics, the USA looks like a dystopian nightmare. The USA's murder rate per 100,000 is just insane:

For every one murder that Finland has per 100,000 people, the USA has 2.
For every one murder that Denmark has per 100,000 people, the USA has 5.
For every one murder that Sweden has per 100,000 people, the USA has 5.62.
For every one murder that Norway has per 100,000 people, the USA has 8.33.
They also had over 100 big explosions per year, similar to those in Belfast in 1970'es. You know, a van full of explosive explode in the middle of the street, at 2:00 AM. This became normal in otherwise peaceful Sweden. Except global media would "forget" to mention those things. Or raids by special police forces, which were often attacked by the armed rebels.
That was almost ten years ago. I'm talking about now. Besides, if you want to compare the criminal histories of Sweden and the USA, I'm afraid that it would be comically not in the USA's favour. I agree that Sweden is worse than the USA (much worse actually) in one statistic but overall, it's much better than the USA. Picking out one thing wrong with a country and trying to say that makes it worse than the USA when it beats the USA in pretty much everything else is a weak argument that won't sway anyone with a brain.
But rapes were omnipresent. Most of the victims were Swedish schoolgirls. And their government supported it. Not only they didn't stop it, but they ordered police not to do anything if the perpetrators were immigrants from Middle East or Africa. Mainstream media was of course banned from talking about any of it. Pretending nothing is happening.
Yes, I agree with you. For some reason, in Sweden, rapes are double that of the USA. Again, that's literally the ONLY crime in which Sweden doesn't trail the USA by a considerable margin.
Chief of police of Malmo (Swedish southernmost city, where the majority of immigrants lived, and most of crimes happened) was so frustrated by the behavior of their government, that he resigned. He said what's the purpose of his job if he's not allowed to catch the perps.
I would definitely agree with him. Again however, I can find no source to support this claim. If you could provide a link or his name, I would really appreciate it. If this happened, I want to read about it.
Currently, Swedish extreme-left government doesn't have enough money to fix the problems in the aging infrastructure (electricity, water) in many neighborhoods, because they've spent all the money (from extremely high taxes) on building apartment buildings for immigrants. So they could give them new fully-equipped apartments, and free education, and welfare, at the expense of Swedish working people.
I see nothing anywhere that supports this statement. In fact, I see the exact opposite. Please supply me with your source of this information. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying that I can't find it anywhere and everything I'm looking at opposes that claim.
Sweden isn't what it used to be a few decades ago.
The same could be said about the USA. A few decades ago, I thought that the USA was a fantastic place. Not so much now. In any case, Norway, Finland and Denmark are sitting rather pretty. In fact, Finland is eradicating homelessness.

There's not a chance in hell that the USA is comparable to these Nordic countries, not even Sweden. The USA has just gotten that bad. I couldn't imagine living in a country in which I was afraid to get sick because it could mean financial ruin, nor would I want to.
 

Hodor

Posts: 418   +300

Yeah, that's true. But until then Sweden was considered one of the best and safest countries in the world. Until it happened out of the blue. Not just rapes or pedophilia. All categories: street attacks, beatings, robberies, abductions, extortion, torture, yough gangs, drug dealing, gang wars, terrorist attacks.

Yeah, I'm sure USA has worse stats in most of those categories, but to Sweden it was a jump from utopia to Mad Max land in a blink of an eye. There was no time to adapt.

Yes, I agree with you. For some reason, in Sweden, rapes are double that of the USA. Again, that's literally the ONLY crime in which Sweden doesn't trail the USA by a considerable margin.
It's not a mystery why. They've brought people known to be either ISIL members (evacuated from Syria after Assad kicked their arse), or coming from countries where women have to be wrapped like salami, to one of the most liberal countries. And told their local population, including women, to be nice to them. To the immigrants it looked like they were brought to brothel. Beautiful women behaving and being dressed totally different than in countries they were born. So, they thought: "Thank you god for sending me my 72 or 720 virgins". And yeah, at the age of 12, which was a frequent age of the victims, they were still virgins.

I would definitely agree with him. Again however, I can find no source to support this claim. If you could provide a link or his name, I would really appreciate it. If this happened, I want to read about it.
Yeah, I can't find it anymore either. In fact, most of the news regarding riots and politics related to immigration is getting harder and harder to find. Google doesn't seem to like those search results. And I didn't save the link to that. But I've got other links:

[100 bombings in 2019]

[Increase in crimes, only those that police actually accepted, most of them they ignore]


Then you have people like the Nigerian-born Swedish rap artist Jesse Ekene Nweke Conable, who calls his fans to “shoot” white people. To attack them in any way possible. “Take them as slaves and treat them even worse.” But in modern Sweden this is not hate speech. However, if the roles were reversed, someone would end up in jail for racism.

My links not working anymore, Google not being cooperative at all. We really need more search engines, because now just one corporation can censor most of the searches. Here, this is the only thing I could find now, but in 2019 I could find a lot more info:



[Crimes going 300% up from 2014 to 2018]

And you can see how the mainstream media is hiding the info, considering we know when someone shoots a petty criminal in USA, but we never heard when Sweden became 3rd in the world by rapes, or that they had more explosions in cities than Belfast in 1970'es during IRA terrorism.

We don't know about some of the most horrible cases, for example:
- A girl gets raped in park by Afghans, then they spray her crotch with flammable liquid and set her to fire, because they were afraid of leaving forensic evidence. Ruining her life forever. Is that news to hide, or to spread, so others would be warned? To hide of course, if you ask global media.

- A 12-year old girl gets raped by a migrant living in her street. She gives police the address. They don't arrest him. They don't even talk to him. A journalist calls the police, ask them WTF, why didn't you at least talk to him in the last 30 days? They respond they don't have enough policemen. What do you mean not enough policemen, this victim is 12-years old. They respond: Yes, we know, but we have too many cases of much younger victims.

And so on.

But guess what? After the recent immigration laws that allowed a lot more immigrants from India, Indonesia and Pakistan to enter, one other great and liberal country jumped to 2nd place by rape (I think in 2019). Which country was that? Australia.

It was way ahead of most African countries by number of rapes per 100,000. Of course, one can argue that because police doesn't really work in most of African countries, 99% of rapes aren't even reported. We can agree on that. But still, Australia was (and maybe still is) worse than all other developed and semi-developed countries in the world that keep proper stats. So, the pattern is pretty easy to see. Cause and effect.
 
Last edited:

wizardB

Posts: 256   +128
People like that aren't really on the left though. They're what I like to call "Mirror Fascists" because they want to control how people think, just like fascists do. The media has focused on those lunatics and ignores the sane and sensible progressives (like me) for the same reasons that they focus on the lunatics in the "MAGA" crowd and ignore the sane and sensible conservatives (like you). Those reasons of course, are ratings and profits.

Most progressives stand in direct opposition to the people you're describing just like most conservatives stand in direct opposition of the "MAGA" crowd. The thing is, the media wants to stoke a culture war because they want sensible people to react irrationally when it's actually economics that unites us. The media doesn't want progressive economics because it means less profit for them and in that way, they're adversaries of us both. Remember that everyone you see on TV in the media is a millionaire and what they want has absolutely nothing to do with what normal people like you and I want.

When they control the narrative, they can (and do) shape it in any way that benefits them.

I know that it happened, but I was unaware that the government said to keep it quiet. I can't imagine what their motivation was. It was only Sweden though, not the other Nordic countries. You can find the relevant information on page 38 of this report.

If Sweden did that, I sure as hell am not on their side about it. Part of being a progressive is being willing and able to criticise the actions others no matter where on the political spectrum they are or claim to be. That is completely indefensible. Probably not what you expected to hear from someone on the left, eh?

Yes, for some reason, Sweden has double the rape rate of the USA per 100,000 citizens. Sweden appears to be an outlier in just that one category however because the USA has a rape rate that is 80% higher than Finland, 42% higher than Norway and 400% that of Denmark. So in 75% of comparisons, the USA is worse in rape than the Nordic countries.

Rape is a terrible thing but murder is even worse. If you look at the murder statistics, the USA looks like a dystopian nightmare. The USA's murder rate per 100,000 is just insane:

For every one murder that Finland has per 100,000 people, the USA has 2.
For every one murder that Denmark has per 100,000 people, the USA has 5.
For every one murder that Sweden has per 100,000 people, the USA has 5.62.
For every one murder that Norway has per 100,000 people, the USA has 8.33.

That was almost ten years ago. I'm talking about now. Besides, if you want to compare the criminal histories of Sweden and the USA, I'm afraid that it would be comically not in the USA's favour. I agree that Sweden is worse than the USA (much worse actually) in one statistic but overall, it's much better than the USA. Picking out one thing wrong with a country and trying to say that makes it worse than the USA when it beats the USA in pretty much everything else is a weak argument that won't sway anyone with a brain.

Yes, I agree with you. For some reason, in Sweden, rapes are double that of the USA. Again, that's literally the ONLY crime in which Sweden doesn't trail the USA by a considerable margin.

I would definitely agree with him. Again however, I can find no source to support this claim. If you could provide a link or his name, I would really appreciate it. If this happened, I want to read about it.

I see nothing anywhere that supports this statement. In fact, I see the exact opposite. Please supply me with your source of this information. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying that I can't find it anywhere and everything I'm looking at opposes that claim.

The same could be said about the USA. A few decades ago, I thought that the USA was a fantastic place. Not so much now. In any case, Norway, Finland and Denmark are sitting rather pretty. In fact, Finland is eradicating homelessness.

There's not a chance in hell that the USA is comparable to these Nordic countries, not even Sweden. The USA has just gotten that bad. I couldn't imagine living in a country in which I was afraid to get sick because it could mean financial ruin, nor would I want to.
Remember the political spectrum is a circle, not a line and way around the back of that circle the far-left meets with the fascists.