paradox

Iran has just attacked a base in Europe. The paradox of Spain is that it condemns the war, but the US does not need to ask to use its bases

by

In 1953, in the middle of the Cold War and at a time of international isolation, Spain signed with the United States the so-called Madrid Pactsan agreement that opened the door to the installation of North American military bases on Spanish soil in exchange for economic and military aid. That decision, taken in a completely different geopolitical context, ended up becoming one of the longer lasting pillars of the bilateral relationship and a structural element of Western defensive architecture in southern Europe. Rota, Morón and a return. The operation American and Israeli against Iran has returned to place the Rota and Morón bases in the center of the strategic board. Destroyers permanently deployed in Cádiz They sailed to the Mediterranean Eastern, strategic transport planes and tankers took off towards the area and the Aegis system embarked on ships of the Arleigh Burke class It once again acted as an anti-missile shield. Rota is not just another base: it is part of the naval component of the NATO missile shield and, in practice, it has served on several occasions as a direct reinforcement of the defense of Israel in the face of Iranian salvos. Far from being reduced, the American presence has expanded in recent years, with five destroyers already stationed and a sixth on the wayconsolidating the Cádiz base as a structural piece of Washington’s military projection in the Middle East. Europe closes ranks with Washington. France, the United Kingdom and Germany have declared your disposition to take proportionate defensive actions against Iran and have coordinated your posture with the United States. London has explicitly authorized the use of British bases to neutralize missiles at source, while Paris and Berlin have supported the defense of European interests in the region. This position of the so-called E3 represents a political and operational support to the US strategy and confirms that, on a military level, Western Europe has not distanced itself from the offensive. Beyond diplomatic nuances, the message is clear: the main European powers are willing to provide infrastructure and resources if escalation demands it. First attack on Europe. Hours after Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced his decision to authorize the United States to use bases in the United Kingdom to launch attacks on Iranian missile depots, a drone has impacted against the RAF military installations at Akrotiri, on the island of Cyprus. In this way, a more than relevant event occurs on the continent: Iran has attacked a European base. The Spanish paradox. For its part, Spain has condemned publicly the intervention and has appealed for de-escalation and respect for international law. However, the paradox is evident: while the Government criticizes the operation, US ships and media stationed in Rota have participated in the military device. The key is in the current legal framework. The US forces are not in Spain by specific authorization of the Executive in power, but by virtue of that bilateral agreement that regulates their presence and use of facilities. Because the United States does not need ask permission on a case-by-case basis for each ordinary operational movement within the agreed framework. In essence, Spain may express political rejection, but infrastructure is already part of the US strategic architecture in Europe and the Mediterranean, and its activation does not depend on an improvised consultation in the middle of a crisis. What Spain can do legally. The bases of Rota and Morón are governed by the Convention of Defense Cooperation between Spain and the United States, which is periodically renewed and establishes the conditions of use. Spain could in theorydenounce the agreement, not renew it or demand substantial modifications, which would open a complex diplomatic process that would require formal deadlines and prior notifications. It could also try to limit certain activities if it considers that they exceed what was agreed or violate international law. However, the real chances of that scenario materializing are rather few. The bases are part of NATO’s defensive framework, generate employment and investment, and are integrated into broader strategic commitments. Abruptly breaking or restricting the agreement would imply a political, military and diplomatic cost of great magnitude, both in the bilateral relationship with Washington and within the Atlantic Alliance. Between sovereignty and interdependence. If you also want, the current situation reveals the structural tension that exists between formal sovereignty and strategic commitments. Spain retains ultimate legal power over its territory, but has voluntarily linked part of its military infrastructure to a collective defense system. In this way, when a crisis breaks out like Iranthat interdependence becomes visible: the decisions made in Washington, London or Paris are immediately reflected in Spanish ports and runways. The political condemnation can modulate the discourse, but strategic reality shows that Rota and Morón are nodes integrated in a network that transcends the current debate and that places Spain, want it or notwithin the operational perimeter of the US strategy in the Middle East. Image | US Naval Forces Central Command/US Fifth Fleet, Navy In Xataka | The US threatened to take the Rota base to Morocco. Spain has buried it with an unbeatable offer: more territory In Xataka | A disturbing idea for the US is beginning to gain strength: if the war with Iran lasts more than five days it will not win it

the great paradox of Spanish energy

by

The Spanish energy market has broken into two halves that seem to have no relationship with each other. On the one hand, the trench of the retail market—direct sales to consumers—has become a scenario of continuous attrition where historical giants are bleeding customers at an unprecedented rate. On the other hand, the boardrooms of these same corporations celebrate the highest profits in their entire history. How is it possible to make more money than ever by losing hundreds of thousands of customers? The answer defines the new paradigm of the sector: large electricity companies are ceasing to be “light sellers” to consolidate themselves as managers of colossal infrastructures. The real business is no longer in fighting the average citizen’s monthly bill, but in controlling the cables, regulated assets and energy demanded by the new technological giants. The bleeding of the 1.3 million contracts. The closing figures for 2025 draw a historic leak. As detailed The IndependentIberdrola and Endesa suffered an “unprecedented fall”, jointly losing almost 1.3 million customers (1,279 million exactly) in the electricity and gas markets. Endesa left 645,000 contracts behind, while Iberdrola lost 634,000. The attitude of companies towards this flight of users is radically different. The president of Iberdrola, Ignacio Sánchez Galán, downplayed to the matter during the presentation of results, calling it “normal rotation” and boasting of the “enormous loyalty” of its hard core of users. On the other side of the coin, Endesa yes it has set off the alarms: has announced an injection of 900 million euros until 2028 with the urgent objective of recovering half a million customers, even relying on strategic alliances such as the recent purchase of Masorange’s energy business. The feast of alternative firms. In the last year, an absolute mobility record was broken, more than 7.25 million changes of marketer. In other words, almost one in four Spaniards decided to change their rate. The big winners of this stampede have been companies like Octopus Energy, the MásMóvil group and, most especially, Repsol. The oil company has already established itself as the fourth electricity operator in the country, exceeding 2.1 million customers and taking market share directly from traditional electricity companies. The model breaks, but the box is full. Any traditional economics textbook would say that losing more than a million customers is a financial catastrophe. However, the balance sheets say the opposite. How to publish Five DaysIberdrola pulverized its brands by earning 6,285 million euros in 2025 (12% more than the previous year), while Endesa reached 2,351 million (18% more). The secret of this paradox explains it perfectly The Mail When analyzing Iberdrola’s accounts: the net benefits that come from the management of distribution networks skyrocketed by a brutal 77%, while the contribution of the energy generation business fell by 27%. In simple words, they earn less by selling electricity to the end customer, but they earn much more by charging the regulated “toll” for using their cables, especially in markets with very attractive legislation such as the United States and the United Kingdom, which already account for 60% of their investments. The future runs through the cables. Electricity companies are going to stop obsessing about installing solar panels at any price to focus on the sockets and transmission highways. Endesa will invest a record figure of 10.6 billion until 2028, allocating more than half (52%) exclusively to electricity networks. Simultaneously, it will put the brakes on renewable energy, cutting its investment by 20% due to the “cannibalization” (plunging prices) that solar energy suffers during peak production hours. Iberdrola follows the same path: 62% of its gigantic investments last year went to the networks. The other great vector: data centers. Endesa already has some 3,000 MW of capacity ready to feed these insatiable technological infrastructures, highlighting its hybrid macroproject in Pego (Portugal). All of this will require a much more robust national backbone; Therefore, Redeia (parent company of Red Eléctrica) will skyrocket your investments 70%, injecting 6,000 million into the high-voltage transmission network to support this technological boom and the electrification of the country. Furthermore, this scenario comes with strong pressure of both companies for extending the useful life of Spanish nuclear plants, such as Almaraz, defending that they can operate safely up to 80 years to guarantee cheap and stable base energy that the system urgently needs. Network saturation and market clearing. The regulatory context explains many of these operational decisions. Spain faces a monumental bureaucratic funnel: 83.4% of electricity distribution nodes They are administratively saturatedwhich keeps 130 GW of renewable energy locked in, even though the grid is physically underutilized. To avoid the collapse of reindustrialization, the CNMC is designing new “flexible access permits” that will change the rules of the game. At the same time, the bottom of the market pyramid is undergoing a silent purge. The Government started a few months ago a historic cleanup of the “ghost marketers.” Of the more than 900 firms registered in Spain, only 416 had real activity. The Ministry for the Ecological Transition has already begun to disable inactive or delinquent companies, transferring their clients to avoid systemic risks and clean up a hypertrophied market. The definitive metamorphosis. The traditional electricity bill is no longer the main battlefield for the great energy totems. While they gladly cede – or out of pure wear and tear – the exhausting hand-to-hand combat of the retail market to independent marketers and oil companies in the midst of a green conversion, Iberdrola and Endesa have ascended to a much safer, more profitable and macroscopic ecosystem. They have understood that the future does not belong to whoever sells electricity to the final consumer, but to whoever owns the highways on which, inevitably, all that energy will have to circulate. Image | freepik and Alex Quezada Xataka | Spain has a giant problem: its electrical network claims to be “full” when in reality it is underused

the great Spanish paradox of forest risk

by

It seems like a contradiction, but that’s how paradoxes work. And this one in particular is so problematic for Spain that in nine out of ten configurations the result is always the same: whatever happens is bad for fires. But why? I mean, how is it possible that whether it rains or not, this country always has a problem with flames? The world on two scales. If it doesn’t rain, if we endure weeks or months of drought, the humidity of the material accumulated in the mountains (grass, bushes, leaf litter) drops. In addition, the soil temperature rises and living vegetation begins to become stressed. Just one spark is missing and boom, we have a fire source that is very difficult to stop. That is, drought worsens the risk today. The rain makes it worse, but it will do so tomorrow. Because if it rains, the vegetation grows (especially what we call fine fuel) and the continuity of the scrub increases. It’s biomass, biomass and more biomass. If it rains there is no risk, if it doesn’t rain: it is material that sooner rather than later will become fodder for the flames. The hell of the summer of 2025, started in spring… Sometimes we don’t focus much on this: wet springs are wonderful, but in our case it is also a potential danger. Not only because of what I explained above, but because (also) no one manages it. And that means that, if the trend continues in the direction it is going, we have to start seeing rainy winters as more than just a way to save the season. We must begin to see them as a clear reminder that we must invest in prevention, plan devices, firewalls, fuel management and all types of extensive farms that help contain the problem. Because climate change is not just “warmer.” A few days ago, AEMET itself reflected on How rainfall records are changing. Changes in the landscape and rural abandonment are a permanent source of problems and the so-called “bullwhip effect” only increases them: growth phases and drying phases that never stop coming and going. So yes, the great Spanish paradox with rains and fires is this: no matter what happens, in the coming years, we will always have problems with fires. Image | Karsten Winegeart In Xataka | In China they are deploying metal firefighters. Maybe they are more useful than robo-waiters

Thousands of CEOs admit that nothing is changing (yet). The productivity paradox of the 80s resurfaces with force

by

AI will make us more productive, the studies said and AI advocates. It is a discourse that is already well known and seemed reasonable: models allow us to automate routine tasks and use that time on other productive things, right? Well, the truth is, (at the moment) no. And what is happening is curiously the same thing that happened 40 years ago. The productivity paradox. In 1987 the economist and Nobel Prize winner Robert Solow realized of a singular paradox in the so-called “information age”. The transistors, microprocessors, and integrated circuits discovered in the 1960s were supposed to revolutionize businesses and dramatically increase productivity. What happened was just the opposite. Productivity growth did not accelerate, but rather slowed down: between 1948 and 1973 it was 2.9%, but since 1973 that growth was only 1.1%. So much chip for nothing? It seemed that way, at least those first few years. History repeats itself: AI is of little use. As they point out in Fortunethat paradox has resurfaced just now that we are suffering exactly the same thing with AI. A new study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) reveals a striking conclusion after surveying no less than 6,000 CEOs, CFOs and other managers from several countries: they see very little impact of AI on their real operations. AI is not changing anything. Although two-thirds of the managers surveyed indicated that they used AI in their processes, this use was very limited: about 1.5 hours per week. 25% of participants indicated that they did not use AI at all at work. Nearly 90% of the companies that participated highlighted that AI has not influenced their hiring or productivity in the last three years. But they are optimistic. The use of AI by these executives appears to be very limited at the moment, but those same companies are still waiting for a substantial impact. In fact, they expect productivity to increase by 1.4% in the next three years. Another paradox: these first years AI was supposed to cut hiring by 0.7%, but respondents revealed a 0.5% increase in those hiring. The data confirm that at the moment, little. The truth is that the vaunted AI revolution has still not become a reality, at least in terms of productivity and economic return. Economist Torsten Slok recently indicated that “AI is everywhere except in macroeconomic data: you don’t see it in employment, productivity or inflation data.” His thesis: the impact of AI is currently almost zero. In fact, except in the case of technology’s “Magnificent Seven,” there are no signs of profit margins or revenue expectations. But these revolutions take time. The revolution that semiconductors brought us took a while to crystallize, but it ended up doing so: in the 1990s and 2000s were produced productivity improvements such as an increase of 1.5% between 1995 and 2005. There are experts who they point because in fact this change in trend has already begun to occur: in the US, GDP in the fourth quarter grew by 3.7% despite the fact that there were job cuts. That points to an increase in productivity. Slok also pointed to this possibility, and theorized that the impact could end up having a “J” shape, first slowing down and then exploding. Let them tell the steam engine. Previous industrial revolutions, such as the one that produced the steam engine or, even more importantly, electricity, took their time. The initial delay disappeared over the course of subsequent decades because these technologies needed time to spread to the rest of the productive sectors. Excessive optimism does not help, of course, and at the moment what is reasonable seems to lie somewhere in between: neither “AI is useless” nor “AI will do everything for us.” Perhaps the only thing AI needs—in addition to improving—is for us to give time to time. It is not in vain that many describe it as “the new electricity.” Image | The Standing Desk In Xataka | Until now “software was eating the world.” Now AI is eating software

Threads has surpassed X in daily users on mobile. The paradox is that this has not changed.

by

Threads and X play, in essence, the same game. Short messages, public conversations and the ambition to become the place where the things that matter are discussed. On mobile, Threads is already moving very close to X in daily active users on a global scale, to the point that, on specific days, it was ahead. But when you look beyond the numbers, the feeling is different. The conversation that jumps to the media and public debate continues to be born, almost always, in the same place. The most cited photograph comes from Similarweb data and focuses exclusively on mobile use. That’s where Threads has closed the gap significantly. According to this analysis firm, both platforms converge in very close figures of daily active users on a global scale, around 130 million. In the week with data until September 20, 2025, Threads was ahead of X on three of the days analyzed. Even so, the series as a whole does not allow us to speak of consolidated leadership, but rather of a very tight and localized equality in time. Daily active users on iOS and Android. Threads approaches X on mobile phones globally | Source: Similarweb What does this data measure and what is left out. When talking about daily active mobile users, it is advisable to sharpen the focus. Similarweb accounts daily use on iOS and Android, counting each person only once a day, even if they open the app multiple times. Additionally, any user who performs a minimal action, such as opening the app or logging in, is considered “active.” This metric reflects access habits, but does not distinguish between reading, interacting or publishing, nor does it measure what type of accounts concentrate the activity or what content is amplified outside the platform. Daily web traffic on a global scale. X maintains a very large advantage over Threads in browser visits | Source: Similarweb That balance that appears in mobile use is broken as soon as the focus is expanded. When looking at web trafficthe distance between both platforms is once again very marked. Similarweb data shows that It is not a minor detail, because web access is usually more present in professional contexts, newsrooms and news monitoring. Changing metrics also changes the story the data tells. Information consumption follows another map. When the question is not how many people enter each day, but rather where users get information, the scenario changes. The conclusions of the Digital News Report 2025 of the Reuters Institute point out that The difference is not so much size but function within the media ecosystem. Part of that difference has to do with the type of use. A academic study published in 2024 describes X as a “passive sensor” especially useful for detecting opinion leaders, by combining public visibility, active community and clear temporal traceability of messages. This architecture makes it easier for statements, reactions or controversies to be followed in real time and reused in other contexts. For media and analysts, X not only works as a social network, but also as a tool for observing public conversation. A growth pushed from within the ecosystem. The progress of Threads is largely explained by its integration with Instagram and, in general, with the Meta ecosystem. Direct access from an already massive application reduces barriers to entry and makes it easier for many users to try out the platform without additional effort. That push helps explain why mobile usage numbers have grown rapidly. However, this dynamic does not guarantee that users adopt Threads as a central space for public or informative debate, nor that they transfer there the practices that they currently maintain in X. Not even the recurring controversies surrounding Elon Musk have been sufficient to displace X from its role as an informational reference point. Threads advances in usage and visibility, but the center of gravity of the conversation remains where it was. For that to change, it will not be enough to add users or rely on the Meta ecosystem. It would require a deeper transformation of professional, media and political habits that, for now, is not appreciated. Images | Mohamed Nohassi | Kelly Sikkema In Xataka | Neither board games nor karaoke: ‘Word on Beat’ is the new king of the living room and proof that we prefer rhythmic chaos

Europe has finally approved how to help Ukraine. The great paradox is that the most unexpected vote has been imposed: that of Russia

by

Europe has finally closed an agreement to guarantee financing for Ukraine for the next two years through a loan of 90,000 million of euros backed by the common budget of the Union, a decision taken after more than 16 hours of negotiations in Brussels and under explicit pressure to avoid a financial collapse of kyiv at the beginning of 2026. In the background, a crystal clear idea: Russia has imposed its “vote”. The lifeguard and a pulse. The pact comes at a particularly delicate moment, with the United States and Russia advancing conversations parallels about a possible end to the war and with Trump publicly urging Ukraine to accept a quick agreement. For European leaders, the loan is not just an economic instrument, but a way to reaffirm that the EU wants and needs to have its own voice in any outcome of the most serious conflict experienced on the continent in the last eight decades. The political message is clear: Europe cannot stand by while others decide the future of Ukraine and, by extension, its own security. The failure of the ideal plan. For months, Brussels’ preferred option was to use the fences of 210,000 million euros in Russian sovereign assets frozen in Europe as collateral for a large “reparations” loan for Ukraine, a formula that made it possible to finance the war effort and the functioning of the Ukrainian state without directly resorting to European taxpayers’ money. The idea was powerful, both economically as symbolically: that Russia would pay, at least indirectly, for the destruction caused by its invasion. However, the plan fell apart at the last moment, a victim of the legal, financial and political risks involved in touching that capital, above all and as we told yesterdayfor a handful of countries. Russia, in fact, has already initiated legal action denouncing an illegal confiscation, and fear of economic or judicial reprisals grew as the decisive summit approached. Bucha and the passing of the war A pragmatic agreement. Faced with the impossibility of closing ranks around the use of frozen assets, France and Italy led a more pragmatic alternative: use the common EU budget to issue debt on the markets and channel the funds to Ukraine. The result is a two year loan which guarantees immediate liquidity to kyiv, although it is more expensive and less scalable than the original option. To achieve consensus, a complex political architecture was also accepted: Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic will not assume obligations direct financial measures, a key condition to avoid an internal blockage. Still, the agreement was presented as a minimal but necessary victory. Ukraine gets the money it needs to survive and Europe avoids a picture of total paralysis at a critical moment. The resilience narrative. From kyiv, Zelenskiy celebrated the agreement as a real reinforcement of Ukrainian resilience, underscoring both the arrival of funds and the fact that Russian assets remain tied up. For the Ukrainian president, the combination it is essential: short-term financial security and sustained strategic pressure on Moscow. Zelenskiy had defended the use of frozen assets until the last moment, appealing to moral, legal and historical justice criteria, but he accepted the compromise. like a lesser evil facing the existential risk of running out of resources. The EU, for its part, insists that Ukraine will only have to repay the loan when Russia pays reparationsa formula that keeps the narrative of Russian responsibility alive without yet crossing the line of direct confiscation. Belgium and type C accounts. It we explained yesterday. In the background of the agreement there was a key actor: Belgium. Most of the Russian money frozen in Europe is there, guarded through critical financial infrastructure like Euroclear and linked to mechanisms such as called type C accountsdesigned precisely to immobilize assets without transferring ownership. Brussels demanded “unlimited” guarantees against possible Russian demands and retaliation, a level of protection that the rest of the partners were not willing to assume. The final result, although presented as a European commitment, essentially coincides with what was best for Moscow: that its sovereign capital not be confiscated or used as direct collateral. Russia loses access to the money, but retains the fundamental principle that these funds remain formally its own, avoiding a far-reaching legal precedent. If you also want, indirectly, Europe has chosen the safest path for itself and, at the same time, the least disruptive for the Kremlin. Europe and its limitations. So things are, the agreement leaves an ambivalent feeling. On the one hand, it shows that the EU is capable of mobilizing massive resources to support Ukraine and prevent its financial collapse in the middle of the war. On the other hand, it exposes again structural limitations of the European project when it comes to quick and risky decisions in foreign policy and security. The plan based on Russian assets promised to be more forceful and transformative, and the loan backed by the common budget is more conservativeslower and more politically comfortable. In a context in which Washington presses for an agreement and Russia hopes to buy time, Europe has chosen legal stability and internal cohesion over a direct financial confrontation with Moscow. Ukraine thus receives the oxygen it needs. The strategic pulse, however, is far from resolved. Image | RawPixel In Xataka | Ukraine’s biggest problem is not Russia. There are three European countries trapped in a perverse mechanism: type C accounts In Xataka | A Soviet missile is destroying Ukraine’s helicopters. The paradox is that it is not from Russia: it comes from the West

the paradox that has trapped 69% of young people

by

We usually imagine the loneliness as total isolation: an empty room and a phone that doesn’t ring. Seeing a person who is surrounded by people and with an active social life seems like they cannot feel loneliness, but the reality is very different in Spain, where studies suggest that we have never been so connected and at the same time so alone. And young people are the ones who bear the brunt. The problem in Spain. A recent study published in PLOS One has just named a phenomenon that defines generation Z already the millennials younger: social ambivalence. And it is not that the youngest in our society lack friends or plans to make on a daily basis, but it shows that the amount of social interactions does not guarantee optimal emotional well-being. Having dozens of ‘likes’ for a publication on Instagram does not mean being accompanied. Something that the data of the report made by SoledadES in Spain has confirmed, since its conclusions indicate that we are experiencing a silent epidemic where 69% of young people admit to having felt alone. And all this regardless of the number of followers on social networks or friends they have by their side on a daily basis. Change of concept. For decades, sociology assumed that loneliness was simply the lack of social contact seen in people who did not go out and interact with anyone. In this way, the equation seemed quite simple: the more friends you have, the less loneliness you have. But this is no longer the case as it has been seen in adults ranging from 18 to 29 years old. Here it has been seen that people who have a high social connection are accompanied by a simultaneous feeling of loneliness. The most affected. The studytitled “Lonely and Connected in Emerging Adulthood”points out that this social ambivalence It occurs especially in moments of life transition. Young adults go through a period of instability, such as changing residence to go to study, entering the labor market or ending their studies. This only breaks support networks, for example losing contact with the friends they make at university or the need to have to meet new people at work. That is why the conclusion is quite clear: having a full social agenda does not protect against feelings of isolation if the interactions lack depth or if the young person feels that they do not fit into the environment that has changed. Radiography in Spain. He “Study on youth and unwanted loneliness in Spain”promoted by the State Observatory of Unwanted Loneliness (SoledadES) of the ONCE Foundation, gives us information that sets off our alarms. In this case they point out that 25.5% of young Spaniards between 16 and 29 years old claims to feel alone at present. But if you broaden the focus, almost 7 in 10 young people feel alone now or have felt that way at some point recently. Its duration. In this report, the quantity may not be the most important, but rather the duration, since this feeling is becoming chronic in the young people of our country. According to the data, three out of every four young people who suffer from this loneliness have been in this situation for more than a year. But almost half still feel like this for more than three years. Something that completely passes the critical phase of adolescence. Because. Among the reasons that try to justify this feeling, the one that gains the most weight is instability. This is something that can be seen in those changes of environment due to studies or work that force us to make new relationships, breaking the original ties where there was greater trust. In Spain, this is aggravated by socioeconomic factors. The difficulty of emancipation, job insecurity and uncertainty about the future make it difficult to create quality ties, which are what truly combat loneliness, unlike the mere “quantity” of social interactions. And here it stands out that it is not important to have a large number of friends, but that even if they are few, they are of quality. And this is the quality that is sometimes missing to be able to be 100% transparent with other people that does not make us feel so alone for not being able to express our concerns and keep them to ourselves. Images | Mert Uner Şahin Sezer Dinçer In Xataka | Loneliness is now a public health issue. We have more and more evidence that animals help us appease it

the luminous paradox of a vertical panel on the balcony

by

Last month, Alejandro Diego Rosell – energy consultant, professor and analyst with more than a decade in the photovoltaic sector – discovered something that does not fit with what we all believe about solar energy: his balcony produced the highest generation day of the year and also a day of absolute zero. Same month, same installation, but opposite results. The paradox is not a flaw: it is exactly how a solar balcony works in a real city. And what his case reveals dismantles many of the myths of urban self-consumption. The solar balcony phenomenon. The explanation begins with a phrase that Diego repeats in the interview he gave us in Xataka: “The real performance depends more on the angle, shadow and geometry of the building than on the calendar month.” Its panels are installed almost vertically, an unusual orientation on roofs but very common in Spanish apartments. And this completely alters the classic pattern of solar production. Record day: 2.35 kWh on a cold, clear day in November. Zero day: November 15, with 0% apparent production. And why? It is precisely because of the combination of verticality and battery. Your installation now works with plug-and-play batteryand that introduces a little-known phenomenon: “The battery needs a minimum current to start charging. If the output is too low, it does not accept it and does not send anything to the microinverter either.” In other words, some energy is generated, but it is so little that the battery does not activate and the system does not account for it. That minimum production is left out of the records, which causes some days to appear as “zero” even though they really are not. Position matters. Alejandro Diego’s experience uncovers several lessons that almost no one knows before installing one of these kits. On the one hand, a vertical panel performs better in winter. “In winter the sun is so low that it looks at you from the other side of the street,” says the energy analyst. And it makes physical sense because the sun, being low, affects almost perfectly on a vertical panel and the cold makes for better performance. In fact, this idea is not anecdotal, verticality is beginning to be adopted even in professional installations, as is the case of the company Over Easy Solar in the Valencian Community. On the other hand, shadows are the great invisible enemy. “Shadows travel,” insists the energy consultant. A railing that barely touches the glass panel in June can ruin 20% of the day in January. A neighbor’s awning can cut entire hours of production. And tall buildings create cast shadows that move like clockwork. The batteries and the fine print. Here we come to the kit question: “It’s not plug and play.” The Master in Renewable Energies (MERME) professor details that Plug-and-play domestic batteries help—they shift consumption, allow prolonged injection, improve peak utilization—but they also bring surprises: very low production simply does not enter the system, there are efficiency losses in the charge-discharge cycle, and they weigh more than people imagine. In a market where Ikea, EcoFlow, Zendure or even electric ones are launching batteries “for everyone”, this clarification matters. Urban photovoltaics are unpredictable. If there is one thing that Diego is clear about after almost a year measuring every watt that enters his balcony, it is that photovoltaics in the city do not follow the rules that one imagines from the outside. In its installation, the data changes abruptly depending on the angle of the sun, the presence of shadows or even the type of cloud cover. And there is no need to go into theories: you see it in your daily life. In December, For examplehas reached more than 2 kWh in a single day. It seems counterintuitive—especially considering that December is one of the months with the fewest hours of daylight—but the explanation is simple: the low sun hits a vertical panel almost head-on and the cold improves the electrical performance of the module and the microinverter. However, in April – with longer days and clear skies – there were days that did not even reach 1.5 kWh. “The angle of the sun changes everything,” he explains. In spring the sun begins to rise, hits the panel from above and the verticality penalizes more than intuition suggests. The clouds also influence. This opens another chapter: even small passing clouds can reduce production in a matter of seconds, because they block direct light—the one that really triggers the generation—and leave only the diffuse light, much less usable in such an angle-dependent installation. When the sky is completely covered, the situation is even clearer: production usually sinks to 5–10% of the daily potential, figures that the consultant has seen repeated over and over again. These same extreme oscillations are common in the thousands of solar balconies installed in Germany: very good days, very bad days and a performance that depends more on urban physics – shadows, orientation, tall buildings that cut off the sun at different times – than on the calendar or the general weather. The conclusion, in Diego’s own words, is that a solar balcony is educational, useful and surprisingly efficient for its size, but not magical. It produces, yes, but it produces according to the physical reality of the building, not according to the mental idea that many have before installing one. The real barriers to installing one. In Spain there is a particular ecosystem: plug-in kits are limited by law to 800W, neighborhood communities may require permission if they are on a façade or railing and the regulations require electrical protections and, sometimes, a bidirectional meter. Alejandro Diego had no problems with his community—”from the street you can hardly see it”—but he admits that in other buildings it can be a bottleneck. On the other hand, in countries like Germany, the regulation explicitly protects the right to install them. The result has been more than 1.5 million of kits operating and half a million installed in just one … Read more

a paradox that baffles scientists

by

It is one of the cruelest paradoxes of modern neurology: women are diagnosed with the Alzheimer’s disease almost twice as many times as men. And the question in this case was obligatory: why? The first theories They pointed to brain agingpointing out that women’s brains deteriorate faster. But now, everything has changed radically. A published study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) Not only does it disprove this hypothesis, but it reveals just the opposite: the brains of healthy men seem to age and shrink faster. But even so, the expected effect is not what we see in the prevalence of the disease. Until now, studies on sex differences in brain aging have produced conflicting results. While some suggested a greater loss of gray matter in men, others pointed to a more pronounced deterioration. The method. To clarify this picture, an international team of scientists has carried out one of the largest analyzes to date. To do this, they analyzed 12,638 longitudinal brain MRIs of 4,726 cognitively healthy participants (2,181 men and 2,545 women). The participants, in this case, aged between 17 and 95, underwent at least two brain scans at an average interval of 3.3 years. This allowed the researchers to observe not a still photo, but actual structural changes in the brain over time, controlling for factors such as head size. Further deterioration. The results, after adjustments, were surprisingly clear: Men experienced greater volume and thickness reduction in more brain regions than women. Men showed a more pronounced decrease in cortical thickness in regions such as the cuneus, lingual gyrus, and parahippocampal. They also showed a greater reduction in surface area in the fusiform and postcentral cortex. For example, the postcentral cortex, responsible for processing sensations such as touch and pain, decreased at an annual rate of 0.20% in men compared to 0.12% in women. Furthermore, in older adults it was seen that men also showed greater contraction in key subcortical structures such as the caudate, putamen and nucleus accumbens. In contrast, women only showed greater surface area reduction in the superior temporal sulcus and greater ventricular expansion in old age. The conclusion. The study’s main conclusion is as compelling as it is puzzling: sex differences in age-related brain decline are “unlikely” to explain why women have a higher prevalence of Alzheimer’s diagnoses. Amy Brodtmann, a researcher at Monash University, agrees, adding that if these changes were responsible for Alzheimer’s, we would expect to see greater deterioration in women in areas crucial for memory, such as the hippocampus, something the study did not find in its main analyses. This forces the scientific community to look for other explanations. The results suggest that the higher prevalence of Alzheimer’s in women is likely due to factors other than brain atrophy due to age. There are nuances. The authors of the study themselves recognize that the disease is a complex phenomenon. One of the limitations of the study is that the sample of participants had higher educational levels than the general population, a known protective factor against Alzheimer’s, which may not be fully representative. Furthermore, the study introduces a fascinating nuance. When the researchers adjusted the data not for chronological age, but for remaining life expectancy, several of the differences disappeared. In this scenario, women even showed a greater decline in hippocampal volume. This could indicate that terminal, near-death brain changes play an important role, but more research is needed to confirm this. Images | Natasha Connell In Xataka | You don’t need more hours in the day. All you need is to understand how the brain works to work better with less.

The industrial paradox that has put worldwide trade to the limit

by

In Europe, steel costs less than a bottle of water. In the United States, it costs almost double if it comes from abroad. And in China, it produces so much that the world no longer knows what to do with it. According to estimates by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), The excess world capacity will reach 721 million tons within two years. And no one is willing to stop. Steel that is left over. The steel industry lives a perfect storm: global overproduction, state subsidies, fall in internal demand in China and protectionist policies. In a report for the New York Times They have explained it through the Tata Steel plant in Ijmuiden (Netherlands), one of the most advanced in Europe. It manufactures steel on commission for high precision applications. Even so, the company announced 1,600 layoffs this spring, while 18,000 jobs were cut throughout the European Union and nine million tons of capacity were closed in 2024. The background reason, As explained by the same mediumis the avalanche of cheap steel from China, which manufactures more than the rest of the combined world. This overproduction, fueled by government support and lower environmental standards, has flooded global markets, forcing traditionally non -exporting countries such as South Korea and Japan to seek buyers desperately. A scale problem. Steel is much more than an industrial product. As He remembered for the New York environment Atlantic Council researcher Elisabeth Braw, steel is one of the few goods that every country wishes to have “in any circumstance.” Its use ranges from food cans and forks to war tanks and combat planes. However, there is another aspect to take into account: steel pollutes. As We have already explained in Xatakaeach ton produced emits two tons of CO₂, which is equivalent to 7% of global emissions. This makes steel an obstacle to achieving climatic objectives. The paradox is clear: the world needs less steel, but nobody wants to be the first to close ovens. The industry is too big to abandon it, but too inefficient to sustain it as it is. This generates a vicious circle between price drop, minimum margins, lack of investment in clean technologies and greater pollution. The King of Steel. China is not only the largest world producer of steel, but also exerts a disproportionate influence on the global market. It produces more than the rest of the combined planet, largely thanks to a more lax state and environmental regulations system than in the West. According to data from the National Statistics Office cited by BloombergChinese production registered in June the greatest fall in ten months, due to adjustments in the capacity and government pressure to contain internal competition. Even so, more than 60 % of Chinese gatherings are already profitable, a notable leap compared to 30 % of just a year ago, driven by the rebound in demand in sectors such as automotive, machinery and, above all, exports. These exports have continued to grow despite international tariffs and commercial tensions, flooding markets in Europe, Asia and Africa with steel at dumping prices. This dynamic has reduced the margins of Western steel and left them without sufficient resources to invest in low carbon technologies, a problem that the OECD considers a critical obstacle to achieve the climatic objectives. With an still weak internal consumption for the real estate crisis, Beijing seems to bet more and more to export its excess steel as an economic influence tool, which multiplies clashes with the United States and Europe. Another power wants to face. The United States also wants to regain control of its industry. In January 2025, then President Joe Biden blocked the purchase of Us Steel by the Japanese Nippon Steel, claiming national security motifs. The decision, backed even by Donald Trump and by the unions in the sector, generated diplomatic discomfort in Tokyo and tensed the relationship with one of its main strategic allies. Six months later, that same logic translates into terrain conversions. In an article for The Washington Post They have detailed as in Weircon (Western Virginia), a city forged by the steel, the company Form Energy has occupied part of the vacuum left by the closure of the local steelter, hiring more than 400 workers – many of them extrabajadores of the steel – to manufacture energy storage batteries. Although initially driven by federal subsidies, the initiative has even survived the cuts of the Trump administration, and represents an attempt to reindustrialize without fully renouncing the steel legacy. The message is clear: the United States does not want to let your steel, your industrial narrative, fall into foreign hands. And Europe is trapped. In all this triangle, Europe loses ground, trapped Between the Chinese dumping and Tariff hostility of his Atlantic ally. And now, in addition, committed to buying massive amounts of fossil fuels to avoid major sanctions. Being more concrete, Europe has some of the most advanced gaits in the world, such as the Tata Steel plant in Ijmuiden, the Netherlands, which manufactures specialized steel for batteries and high -end cars. However, he is facing a perfect storm: high energy costs, strict environmental standards, unfair competition and political pressure. Despite attempts to modernize – like Tata’s plan to go to hydrogen – the necessary investment is counted in billions. In addition, American tariffs have hindered European exports, just when block countries need income to finance ecological transition. As for the United Kingdom, the government has had to intervene high ovens and subsidize plants to avoid massive closures. And in Germany, European industrial bastion, the approaches face the largest decline in decades, with a 11.6 % drop in production during the first half of 2025, According to The New York Times. Where does steel go? The steel faces a crossroads: between the industrialization of the twentieth century and the ecological demands of the 21st century. The only sustainable output seems to be green steel. Companies such as Swedish SSAB have already begun to produce it through … Read more

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.