Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Hetzner price increase for servers from the Server Auction - Page 4
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Hetzner price increase for servers from the Server Auction

124

Comments

  • @Tejy said:

    @cybertech said:

    @Tejy said:

    @cybertech said:

    @dragonfsky said:
    Fuck the greens,there is no cleaner energy than nuclear.

    what about Chernobyl and Fukushima?

    Why sharing some fake news? There were no deaths related to the Fukushima incident.

    Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001,

    Our World In Data was launched in May 2014.
    https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima#deaths-from-fukushima

    There were no direct deaths related to the Fukushima incident.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/fukushima-tragic-legacy-radioactive-soil

  • @cybertech said:

    @Tejy said:

    @cybertech said:

    @Tejy said:

    @cybertech said:

    @dragonfsky said:
    Fuck the greens,there is no cleaner energy than nuclear.

    what about Chernobyl and Fukushima?

    Why sharing some fake news? There were no deaths related to the Fukushima incident.

    Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001,

    Our World In Data was launched in May 2014.
    https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima#deaths-from-fukushima

    There were no direct deaths related to the Fukushima incident.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/fukushima-tragic-legacy-radioactive-soil

    Why quoting something other than your original source, that confirms my original statement?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties

  • @Tejy said:

    @cybertech said:

    @Tejy said:

    @cybertech said:

    @Tejy said:

    @cybertech said:

    @dragonfsky said:
    Fuck the greens,there is no cleaner energy than nuclear.

    what about Chernobyl and Fukushima?

    Why sharing some fake news? There were no deaths related to the Fukushima incident.

    Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001,

    Our World In Data was launched in May 2014.
    https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima#deaths-from-fukushima

    There were no direct deaths related to the Fukushima incident.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/fukushima-tragic-legacy-radioactive-soil

    Why quoting something other than your original source, that confirms my original statement?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties

    good good u found it

  • @Tejy said:

    @cybertech said:

    @Tejy said:

    @cybertech said:

    @dragonfsky said:
    Fuck the greens,there is no cleaner energy than nuclear.

    what about Chernobyl and Fukushima?

    Why sharing some fake news? There were no deaths related to the Fukushima incident.

    Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001,

    Our World In Data was launched in May 2014.
    https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima#deaths-from-fukushima

    There were no direct deaths related to the Fukushima incident.

    Great, same is true for aids. Why don't we all have aids? Seems fine.

    Thanked by 2cybertech pbx
  • pbxpbx Member

    @user54321 said: Why don't we all have aids? Seems fine.

    the end is night

  • @cybertech said:

    @Tejy said:

    @cybertech said:

    @Tejy said:

    @cybertech said:

    @Tejy said:

    @cybertech said:

    @dragonfsky said:
    Fuck the greens,there is no cleaner energy than nuclear.

    what about Chernobyl and Fukushima?

    Why sharing some fake news? There were no deaths related to the Fukushima incident.

    Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001,

    Our World In Data was launched in May 2014.
    https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima#deaths-from-fukushima

    There were no direct deaths related to the Fukushima incident.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/fukushima-tragic-legacy-radioactive-soil

    Why quoting something other than your original source, that confirms my original statement?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties

    good good u found it

    I don't even need to scroll down or touch my mouse, to confirm my previous statement.
    Don't forget to donate to Wikipedia of course :)

  • @user54321 said:

    @Tejy said:

    @cybertech said:

    @Tejy said:

    @cybertech said:

    @dragonfsky said:
    Fuck the greens,there is no cleaner energy than nuclear.

    what about Chernobyl and Fukushima?

    Why sharing some fake news? There were no deaths related to the Fukushima incident.

    Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001,

    Our World In Data was launched in May 2014.
    https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima#deaths-from-fukushima

    There were no direct deaths related to the Fukushima incident.

    Great, same is true for aids. Why don't we all have aids? Seems fine.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools'_Day
    Come on guy, you can wait a bit before doing this kind of comparison.

  • @Tejy said:

    @cybertech said:

    @Tejy said:

    @cybertech said:

    @Tejy said:

    @cybertech said:

    @Tejy said:

    @cybertech said:

    @dragonfsky said:
    Fuck the greens,there is no cleaner energy than nuclear.

    what about Chernobyl and Fukushima?

    Why sharing some fake news? There were no deaths related to the Fukushima incident.

    Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001,

    Our World In Data was launched in May 2014.
    https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima#deaths-from-fukushima

    There were no direct deaths related to the Fukushima incident.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/fukushima-tragic-legacy-radioactive-soil

    Why quoting something other than your original source, that confirms my original statement?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties

    good good u found it

    I don't even need to scroll down or touch my mouse, to confirm my previous statement.
    Don't forget to donate to Wikipedia of course :)

    okok u win

  • @user54321 said:

    @rcy026 said:

    @Maounique said:
    Going green has actually nothing to do with this. It is the price of OIL and GAS which rose, not the wind or solar. The problem is we did not switch sooner and Russia kept blackmailing Germany and now they will kill us with the weapons made with our money, simply because we were lazy and kept subsidizing fossil fuel.

    Actually, the rise in prices is very much due to the switch to green energy, at least in Scandinavia.
    For the last decade or so the green parties have been given a lot of influence here, not because people vote for them but because of some political games that I do not intend to explain here. Anyway, the result is that nuclear is shutting down and is replaced by wind and solar. The problem is that Scandinavia is cold at night and it's not always windy, so the electricity prices skyrocketed and we have to import "dirty" electricity from Russia. It's very strange, Scandinavia that is cold as hell in winter and hardly sees daylight for 6 months, and solar does not work? Who could have guessed that?
    Sweden is actually starting up old oil and coal based powerplants for the first time in decades, just to be able to keep up with power demands. So instead of going "green", we are now burning oil and coal again like we did 40 years ago.

    The situation is very similar all over Europe, nuclear is out and all of a sudden everybody realizes that wind and solar is not enough and does not generate electricity when needed, so Russia that doesn't give a rats ass about the environment is basically charging whatever they want for their oil and gas, hence the rise in prices.

    Going south in europe it is the other way around. There the nuclear power plants shut down because it is warm and the rivers get to warm or have not enough water to cool them. And because the influence of the brown and black party is big the energy is still not 100% green, now the prices for that brown and black energy skyrockets.
    So no thanks to nuclear, gas and oil, they are to flacky and expensive compared to green energy with energy storage.

    That's interesting, but strangely I have not heard a word about it.
    Can you link some source that shows that nuclear plants are shutting down?

    And nuclear is actually the least "flacky" power source there is, it is instant power whenever you need it. There is no "green" energy that can provide that.

  • user54321user54321 Member
    edited January 2022

    @rcy026 said:

    @user54321 said:

    @rcy026 said:

    @Maounique said:
    Going green has actually nothing to do with this. It is the price of OIL and GAS which rose, not the wind or solar. The problem is we did not switch sooner and Russia kept blackmailing Germany and now they will kill us with the weapons made with our money, simply because we were lazy and kept subsidizing fossil fuel.

    Actually, the rise in prices is very much due to the switch to green energy, at least in Scandinavia.
    For the last decade or so the green parties have been given a lot of influence here, not because people vote for them but because of some political games that I do not intend to explain here. Anyway, the result is that nuclear is shutting down and is replaced by wind and solar. The problem is that Scandinavia is cold at night and it's not always windy, so the electricity prices skyrocketed and we have to import "dirty" electricity from Russia. It's very strange, Scandinavia that is cold as hell in winter and hardly sees daylight for 6 months, and solar does not work? Who could have guessed that?
    Sweden is actually starting up old oil and coal based powerplants for the first time in decades, just to be able to keep up with power demands. So instead of going "green", we are now burning oil and coal again like we did 40 years ago.

    The situation is very similar all over Europe, nuclear is out and all of a sudden everybody realizes that wind and solar is not enough and does not generate electricity when needed, so Russia that doesn't give a rats ass about the environment is basically charging whatever they want for their oil and gas, hence the rise in prices.

    Going south in europe it is the other way around. There the nuclear power plants shut down because it is warm and the rivers get to warm or have not enough water to cool them. And because the influence of the brown and black party is big the energy is still not 100% green, now the prices for that brown and black energy skyrockets.
    So no thanks to nuclear, gas and oil, they are to flacky and expensive compared to green energy with energy storage.

    That's interesting, but strangely I have not heard a word about it.
    Can you link some source that shows that nuclear plants are shutting down?

    https://qz.com/1348969/europes-heatwave-is-forcing-nuclear-power-plants-to-shut-down/

    @rcy026 said:

    And nuclear is actually the least "flacky" power source there is, it is instant power whenever you need it. There is no "green" energy that can provide that.

    They are a month per year down for refueling + many many shutdowns because of incidents.
    https://www.powermag.com/frances-nuclear-storm-many-power-plants-down-due-to-quality-concerns/

    Without flexible energy sources like wind, solar and gas (until enough green power is build that gas is not needed anymore) to cope for that flakyness you would have a lot of blackouts in europe over the year and that for long periods because you can't regulate the outputs of nuclear power plants enough to compensate for outages in other nuclear power plants.
    Nuclear power plants are not press a button and instant power whenever you need it. It is more like press a button and wait some weeks until the system reaches critical and did build temperature and pressure.

    Thanked by 2DanSummer TimboJones
  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran
    edited January 2022

    @rcy026 said:

    @Maounique said:
    Going green has actually nothing to do with this. It is the price of OIL and GAS which rose, not the wind or solar. The problem is we did not switch sooner and Russia kept blackmailing Germany and now they will kill us with the weapons made with our money, simply because we were lazy and kept subsidizing fossil fuel.

    Actually, the rise in prices is very much due to the switch to green energy, at least in Scandinavia.
    For the last decade or so the green parties have been given a lot of influence here, not because people vote for them but because of some political games that I do not intend to explain here. Anyway, the result is that nuclear is shutting down and is replaced by wind and solar. The problem is that Scandinavia is cold at night and it's not always windy, so the electricity prices skyrocketed and we have to import "dirty" electricity from Russia. It's very strange, Scandinavia that is cold as hell in winter and hardly sees daylight for 6 months, and solar does not work? Who could have guessed that?
    Sweden is actually starting up old oil and coal based powerplants for the first time in decades, just to be able to keep up with power demands. So instead of going "green", we are now burning oil and coal again like we did 40 years ago.

    The situation is very similar all over Europe, nuclear is out and all of a sudden everybody realizes that wind and solar is not enough and does not generate electricity when needed, so Russia that doesn't give a rats ass about the environment is basically charging whatever they want for their oil and gas, hence the rise in prices.

    Nuclear is expensive, more expensive than oil even at this price. The only choice which is cheaper is coal than renewables at same level of subsidizing, but only a few EU countries still have quality coal to keep it running. The brown coal is much more polluting (I don't talk about CO2 here, but the particles that kill directly-https://www.pnas.org/content/118/5/e2017936118) and is more expensive than renewables.
    As for scandinavia which doesnt have sun... It has a lot of wind almost all the time and a lot of hydro, Norway could power it all only with hydro.
    As long as people prefer to subsidize the russian imports we are all doomed. It will be expensive, will subsidize the war and will be 100 times more expensive due to warming. Maybe Scandinavia will not be so affected by the forest fires or water level rises, because getting warmer there would actually be better for the agriculture, for example, but, overall, the storms and the floods will produce more damage than the "economy" they make by importing gas and oil from Russia (or whatever other source) or by building more nuclear plants even if they would run trouble-free and the storage issue is solved over there.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
    Of course, as technology evolved, the prices for renewables continued to fall. Past studies in the early 2000s still gave to the heavily subsidized fossil generation the lead, but that is no longer the case and nuclear is currently more expensive than any renewable if we take into consideration the real cost not the one advertised. No nuclear plant was ever built according tot he budget, current projects typically run over budget (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21012022/georgia-power-vogtle-nuclear/ https://www.power-technology.com/comment/wind-power-is-becoming-cheaper-as-hinkley-point-c-project-goes-over-budget/)

  • DanSummerDanSummer Member
    edited January 2022

    @rcy026 said: And nuclear is actually the least "flacky" power source there is, it is instant power whenever you need it. There is no "green" energy that can provide that.

    Sorry, but that's just not true. My country has 15 reactors. We're lucky if we have 9 of those online simultaneously.

  • @user54321 said:

    @rcy026 said:

    @user54321 said:

    @rcy026 said:

    @Maounique said:
    Going green has actually nothing to do with this. It is the price of OIL and GAS which rose, not the wind or solar. The problem is we did not switch sooner and Russia kept blackmailing Germany and now they will kill us with the weapons made with our money, simply because we were lazy and kept subsidizing fossil fuel.

    Actually, the rise in prices is very much due to the switch to green energy, at least in Scandinavia.
    For the last decade or so the green parties have been given a lot of influence here, not because people vote for them but because of some political games that I do not intend to explain here. Anyway, the result is that nuclear is shutting down and is replaced by wind and solar. The problem is that Scandinavia is cold at night and it's not always windy, so the electricity prices skyrocketed and we have to import "dirty" electricity from Russia. It's very strange, Scandinavia that is cold as hell in winter and hardly sees daylight for 6 months, and solar does not work? Who could have guessed that?
    Sweden is actually starting up old oil and coal based powerplants for the first time in decades, just to be able to keep up with power demands. So instead of going "green", we are now burning oil and coal again like we did 40 years ago.

    The situation is very similar all over Europe, nuclear is out and all of a sudden everybody realizes that wind and solar is not enough and does not generate electricity when needed, so Russia that doesn't give a rats ass about the environment is basically charging whatever they want for their oil and gas, hence the rise in prices.

    Going south in europe it is the other way around. There the nuclear power plants shut down because it is warm and the rivers get to warm or have not enough water to cool them. And because the influence of the brown and black party is big the energy is still not 100% green, now the prices for that brown and black energy skyrockets.
    So no thanks to nuclear, gas and oil, they are to flacky and expensive compared to green energy with energy storage.

    That's interesting, but strangely I have not heard a word about it.
    Can you link some source that shows that nuclear plants are shutting down?

    https://qz.com/1348969/europes-heatwave-is-forcing-nuclear-power-plants-to-shut-down/

    It's a paywall so I could not read all of it, but that was from August 2018. I find it very hard to believe that shutting down reactors in 2018 is what is pushing the prices now.

    @rcy026 said:

    And nuclear is actually the least "flacky" power source there is, it is instant power whenever you need it. There is no "green" energy that can provide that.

    They are a month per year down for refueling + many many shutdowns because of incidents.
    https://www.powermag.com/frances-nuclear-storm-many-power-plants-down-due-to-quality-concerns/

    Without flexible energy sources like wind, solar and gas (until enough green power is build that gas is not needed anymore) to cope for that flakyness you would have a lot of blackouts in europe over the year and that for long periods because you can't regulate the outputs of nuclear power plants enough to compensate for outages in other nuclear power plants.

    Flexible energy sources like wind and solar? Are you drunk?
    Tell me, how do you get enough energy from wind and solar if its not windy and its -30 Celsius in december, january, february in northern Scandinavia?
    With nuclear, you would simply keep producing as much as you need. With wind and solar, you freeze to death.

    Nuclear power plants are not press a button and instant power whenever you need it. It is more like press a button and wait some weeks until the system reaches critical and did build temperature and pressure.

    Really? So things like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island actually took weeks before something happened?
    Come on, you cant just throw out something totally random just because you think it sounds good and expect us to just buy it. Some of us actually knows how it works.

    A BWR reactor takes about 6 hours after you pull the first rods to reach critical, if you do it carefully. After that, give it 12 hours to build heat, continue pulling rods and take it to 50-70%. Done by the book and with all checks and safety, you will reach 60% easily within 48 hours after first "push of a button".
    After that, you can increase output at about 3-5% per hour up to 100%. Not because the reactor cant adjust faster than that, but because protocol dictates it.

    A PWR reactor will take a bit longer since you need to heat up the coolant to start the process, you need to reach 500-600F before you start pulling rods and the reactor wakes up. From a cold standstill I would say you are up and running at full steam (sorry about the pun) within 4-5 days.

    Both of these scenarios are from cold standstill. If the reactors have recently been running you can probably restart it in a few hours.
    And, this is only if you have to start it from cold, and that almost never happens. Most reactors are always up and running so it's simply a matter of adjusting the output, and this is truly just the push of a button. Ok, maybe not just one button, but a few buttons. Anyhow, it is very close to instant.

    Shutting down a reactor using SCRAM protocol is measured in single seconds, most reactors go from 100% output to zero in less than a few seconds. Actually, the process is measured in microseconds, but I rounded it up to normal seconds just to be sure.
    Most shutdowns are of course done in a more controlled fashion over days or weeks, mainly to give the powergrid a chance to redistribute and get its power from somewhere else.

  • @Maounique said:

    As for scandinavia which doesnt have sun... It has a lot of wind almost all the time and a lot of hydro, Norway could power it all only with hydro.

    The problem is that the same green idiots that are shutting down nuclear are shutting down hydro as well, as they think that hydroplants destroy our nature.
    And no, we do not have a lot of wind all the time.

  • @DanSummer said:

    @rcy026 said: And nuclear is actually the least "flacky" power source there is, it is instant power whenever you need it. There is no "green" energy that can provide that.

    Sorry, but that's just not true. My country has 15 reactors. We're lucky if we have 9 of those online simultaneously.

    And what are the reasons for them not being online? Are they broken, or is it just political?
    I don't know where you are from, but if a country had that many reactors down due to failures the IAEA would be all over it.

  • NeoonNeoon Community Contributor, Veteran

    @Tejy said:

    @cybertech said:

    @Tejy said:

    @cybertech said:

    @dragonfsky said:
    Fuck the greens,there is no cleaner energy than nuclear.

    what about Chernobyl and Fukushima?

    Why sharing some fake news? There were no deaths related to the Fukushima incident.

    Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001,

    Our World In Data was launched in May 2014.
    https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima#deaths-from-fukushima

    There were no direct deaths related to the Fukushima incident.

    Imagine the goverment would have told them, the nuclear power plant blow up, please go towards it so we can say you died related to the fukushima incident.

    And please make sure you look into the reactor core.

    Thanked by 2Maounique cybertech
  • @rcy026 you ask me if I'm drunk after> @rcy026 said:

    @user54321 said:

    @rcy026 said:

    @user54321 said:

    @rcy026 said:

    @Maounique said:
    Going green has actually nothing to do with this. It is the price of OIL and GAS which rose, not the wind or solar. The problem is we did not switch sooner and Russia kept blackmailing Germany and now they will kill us with the weapons made with our money, simply because we were lazy and kept subsidizing fossil fuel.

    Actually, the rise in prices is very much due to the switch to green energy, at least in Scandinavia.
    For the last decade or so the green parties have been given a lot of influence here, not because people vote for them but because of some political games that I do not intend to explain here. Anyway, the result is that nuclear is shutting down and is replaced by wind and solar. The problem is that Scandinavia is cold at night and it's not always windy, so the electricity prices skyrocketed and we have to import "dirty" electricity from Russia. It's very strange, Scandinavia that is cold as hell in winter and hardly sees daylight for 6 months, and solar does not work? Who could have guessed that?
    Sweden is actually starting up old oil and coal based powerplants for the first time in decades, just to be able to keep up with power demands. So instead of going "green", we are now burning oil and coal again like we did 40 years ago.

    The situation is very similar all over Europe, nuclear is out and all of a sudden everybody realizes that wind and solar is not enough and does not generate electricity when needed, so Russia that doesn't give a rats ass about the environment is basically charging whatever they want for their oil and gas, hence the rise in prices.

    Going south in europe it is the other way around. There the nuclear power plants shut down because it is warm and the rivers get to warm or have not enough water to cool them. And because the influence of the brown and black party is big the energy is still not 100% green, now the prices for that brown and black energy skyrockets.
    So no thanks to nuclear, gas and oil, they are to flacky and expensive compared to green energy with energy storage.

    That's interesting, but strangely I have not heard a word about it.
    Can you link some source that shows that nuclear plants are shutting down?

    https://qz.com/1348969/europes-heatwave-is-forcing-nuclear-power-plants-to-shut-down/

    It's a paywall so I could not read all of it, but that was from August 2018. I find it very hard to believe that shutting down reactors in 2018 is what is pushing the prices now.

    It is not behind a paywall from my country, so find a proxy.

    @rcy026 said:

    And nuclear is actually the least "flacky" power source there is, it is instant power whenever you need it. There is no "green" energy that can provide that.

    They are a month per year down for refueling + many many shutdowns because of incidents.
    https://www.powermag.com/frances-nuclear-storm-many-power-plants-down-due-to-quality-concerns/

    Without flexible energy sources like wind, solar and gas (until enough green power is build that gas is not needed anymore) to cope for that flakyness you would have a lot of blackouts in europe over the year and that for long periods because you can't regulate the outputs of nuclear power plants enough to compensate for outages in other nuclear power plants.

    Flexible energy sources like wind and solar? Are you drunk?
    Tell me, how do you get enough energy from wind and solar if its not windy and its -30 Celsius in december, january, february in northern Scandinavia?
    With nuclear, you would simply keep producing as much as you need. With wind and solar, you freeze to death.

    Did you ask if I'm drunk because you are?
    You can simply turn off solar panels and wind turbines in seconds until you reached desired power level, have fun doing that with a nuclear power.
    Anyway think what you like, you got proved wrong with sources and start to repeat simply what you wrote before. You can play that game with yourself proving you wrong ones is enough time wasted.

  • @rcy026 said:
    Shutting down a reactor using SCRAM protocol is measured in single seconds, most reactors go from 100% output to zero in less than a few seconds. Actually, the process is measured in microseconds, but I rounded it up to normal seconds just to be sure.
    Most shutdowns are of course done in a more controlled fashion over days or weeks, mainly to give the powergrid a chance to redistribute and get its power from somewhere else.

    Not quite. You go down to 6.5% of power output before SCRAM and not zero, since you have to wait for the fission products to decay. After one hour you still have around 1-2% remaining.
    If you are SCRAMing from full power you still have many MW to cool for over a week, otherwise the core will meltdown purely due to this - which is what happened in both Three Miles Island and Fukushima.

  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran
    edited January 2022

    @rcy026 said: And what are the reasons for them not being online? Are they broken, or is it just political?

    There are 2 ways to look at this, both not good for your dirty energy agenda:
    1. Reactors are extremely safe, there are a lot of fail-safe systems. Yes, BUT this means every little problem will shut them down just to make sure AND the process will take many weeks to cool down, solve the problem and restart in an orderly fashion;
    2. We do everything to keep them online a la chernobyl or three miles, even if that means running test on live reactors or cutting corners and costs to compete with renewables.

  • Don't spam please.

  • @user54321 said:

    Did you ask if I'm drunk because you are?
    You can simply turn off solar panels and wind turbines in seconds until you reached desired power level, have fun doing that with a nuclear power.

    Turning them off has never been the problem, getting them to generate power is.
    Solar does not generate anything when there is no sun, and wind does not generate anything when there is no wind. This is basic facts and it's quite fascinating that so many people simply ignore it. Me asking if you are drunk was simply me trying to point out that you are totally ignoring this.

  • And just to make it perfectly clear, I am not against solar or wind, not at all. But it is not a replacement for nuclear, and will most likely never be.

    If you do not believe me, here is a picture of the roof of my house. I've been running solar for 20+ years, so trying to lecture me of it's perks is very redundant.

  • Vova1234Vova1234 Member, Patron Provider
    edited January 2022

    Dear

    We wrote you an email on 21 January 2022 about a price change for your servers from the Server Auction. There was a mistake with the database readout, which mistakenly included servers in Finland. But these servers in Finland will not be affected by the increased energy prices.

    The price will not change for these servers you are using:

    ...FI servers...

    The good news is that the monthly price for these servers will remain the same! We sincerely apologize for the mistake and the confusion and inconvenience it cause.

    Kind regards

    Hetzner Online

    Thanked by 3Falzo xyz Hetzner_OL
  • Hetzner_OLHetzner_OL Member, Top Host

    Hi everyone, sorry that I wasn't here to respond to questions last week. I am going to try to work through your comments and questions bit by bit.

    @tommmy said:
    Can someone refresh my memory? I haven't been cancelling any Hetzner server for a while. IIRC we have to cancel before certain date to avoid any further charge.

    If I set the date to Jan 31, will I be charged?

    I believe our 30 day to the end of the month policy applies here. If you cancel now, you should be fine. Keep in mind that only some servers from the Server Auction were affected. If you didn't get an email, your prices aren't going to increase. And yesterday we also sent out another email to affected customers with an additional offer. --Katie

  • Hetzner_OLHetzner_OL Member, Top Host

    @Vova1234 said: Today they raised the price of the old SB, and tomorrow they will raise the price of AX, EX, PX, SX and so on.

    We do not have any current plans to increase the prices for our new/regular dedicated root servers or cloud servers. --Katie

  • Hetzner_OLHetzner_OL Member, Top Host

    @momkin said: No , its also on Finland location !

    There was some miscommunication about this. Some customers in Finland mistakenly receive the email about the price increase. The prices in Finland for the Auction servers will NOT increase. (We sent another email to customers recently to correct this.) --Katie

  • Hetzner_OLHetzner_OL Member, Top Host

    @Falzo said: I have some addon IPs with that too - migrating means ordering new ones and pay larger setup fees?

    It may be possible to transfer your IPs to a new server. Please see https://docs.hetzner.com/robot/dedicated-server/general-information/root-server-upgrade/#4-upgrade-without-parallel-operation-with-all-ips-transferred-from-the-existing-server and write a support request via Robot to ask our support team if this is possible before you start the process. --Katie

  • Hetzner_OLHetzner_OL Member, Top Host

    @Smith42 said: Are they going to do this with the non-auction servers too in a few months from now? @Hetzner_OL

    We don't have any current plans to do this. --Katie

  • Hetzner_OLHetzner_OL Member, Top Host

    A few last comments:

    • The prices adjustments for the Server Auctions change from model to model. Many of these servers' prices were at operating costs before the electricity prices in Germany increased over recent months. The price adjustments may also be affected by the type of hardware on each specific server.
    • We are aware that there was room for improvement with how these price changes were communicated. And for that, we apologize. We sent out another email yesterday to affected customers with more information and with an offer that give them an alternative option that we hope will lessen the blow. --Katie
  • What's the last day to make decision to cancel the SB server? With your cancellation policy I think we only have less than 10 days to make decisions to cancel timely.

Sign In or Register to comment.