Kudos for finding a new use for some of the excess CO2, but it's still only a tiny fraction of the plant's CO2 output.
Given an estimated 13 million tonnes of CO2 emitted annually (based on the 14.9 million tonnes emitted by the 1200 MW Chandrapur plant), then capturing 66 kilotonnes still allows 99.5% of the CO2 to escape.
Did you know that Al Gore is also a Nobel Laureate? Yet his opinion is much less important than that of any practicing climatologist, because he is not an expert in that field - just like the physicist Ivar Giaever. Appeals to authority are meaningless; only considered conclusions from experts who have seen all the data and have the training and experience to interpret it.
How about the MIT paper - written in 2005, so before Al Gore and other's claim that GW is causing them
So? What does that have to do with the causes of increasing hurricane intensity? You still think nobody knew about AGW until Gore's movie? The MIT paper is about global hurricane intensity, not the frequency of hurricanes making landfall in the US, so that NOAA page you cite is irrelevant (current research on AGW suggests hurricane frequency is not affected much, only intensity).
You looked at the graphs, saw the data was different and that didn't concern you?
Unlike you - or the deniers at WUWT et al - I took the time to find out why those corrections were made. I didn't leap straight to assuming they must have been faked.
Anyone making judgements about the accuracy of science based purely on the results is guaranteed to introduce bias. Methodology is king. Changes are expected - corrections are of course required if past inaccuracies are discovered, and are absolutely justified if the methodology is peer-reviewed, regardless of whether you like the results.
The "adjustments" are always in favor of GW.
Prove it. You don't even know what adjustments were done, let alone why, so you're making up your own bogus motives instead. Let me enlightenyou.
Hansen's page... where he admits in 2007 that the 1930s was the hottest decade on record.
You mean the paragraph where he says, "Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934"? Bolding mine, because you're apparently unable to spot the difference between the US and the globe. That paragraph is unchanged in both versions BTW, which you could've verified for yourself.
It wasn't just Greenland, it was global.
And this is where you need to cite a peer-reviewed study to back up your claim (presuming you remember what "global" means).
Now, about concensus[sic]? [WSJ commentary snipped] Yea, not so much.
So you're happy to accept as gospel truth a newspaper commentary citing no peer-reviewed studies, yet you reject the conclusions of seven independent scientific studies listed here. Why, because one fits your pre-existing beliefs and the other doesn't? Certainly doesn't seem to be evidence-based.
I understand I'm asking a lot because a great deal of money has been spent to make you believe, change data, and so on. MMGW is all about making a bunch of money and control.
Oh the irony. Did you miss the part where I cited numerous reports of hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by the fossil fuel industry specifically to sway public opinion and protect their revenue? Where's your own evidence? Missing as usual.
How does paying Al Gore (among others) a bunch of money fix that?
Who's suggesting that? What does that have to do with the science? I haven't proposed any solutions here, because they're irrelevant to the science describing the problem. If you're really curious read my post history, but whatever action or inaction we take, AGW isn't going away - we'll have to deal with it one way or another. The science is very clear on that.
I saw this movie called "outside" once, man that was bright. Not sure my dazzled eyes ever recovered fully. Really needs a warning, like "please put on your special dark glasses now".
Yeah that may indeed be the case - a lot of articles are contradictory, but the more I read the less these TVs look like real QLEDs. But if so, why they would label these TVs as "QLEDs" when they're apparently working on genuine QLED TVs is beyond me.
... and now I'm not so sure. While real QLEDs (as developed by QD Vision, now owned by Samsung) are indeed emissive, there's some doubt as to whether these new TVs actually use them. Some articles are claiming Samsung's new "QLED" TVs don't actually use their real QLED technology, but instead use a refined photo-luminescent quantum-dot system that still needs a backlight.
While Samsung seem to have nailed the picture quality in their new TVs, they surely messed up their messaging. Is it really a genuinely emissive challenger to OLEDs, or did they just confuse any future marketing by mislabeling these? Guess I'll have to wait longer to find out for sure.
Looks like those are ordinary quantum-dot LCD panels like Samsung's TVs from the last two years. That's a different technology to these new QLED panels, which are emissive like OLEDs and don't use LCDs at all.
Ordinary quantum dots, as used by Samsung in their previous TVs, are indeed photo-luminescent, requiring a backlight and an LCD filter.
However, these new displays use QLEDs (aka QD-LEDs), which are actually electro-luminescent very much like OLEDs - they're stimulated by electrons instead of photons, so they don't need a backlight. It also means they can be directly turned on and off like OLEDs, so they don't need an LCD filter and you also get those wonderful perfect blacks. QLED TVs are a lot like OLEDs, only brighter.
Unsurprisingly there's some confusion about the terminology, even among reporters, and Samsung isn't helping much. But if you look up earlier articles on QLEDs, and look at the comparisons vs OLED that Samsung has been doing, you'll see how much of a jump QLEDs are.
Oh, I looked at your "damning" links - and not one of them cited a relevant or useful study. What I saw instead was a lot of "here's a graph, here's another graph - they're different in a way I don't like - therefore, it must be deliberately faked". No attempt was made to find out why the data was adjusted, no evidence that the adjustments made readings less accurate instead of more, and no challenge to the peer-reviewed methodology of the corrections. Instead they leaped immediately to the conclusion that it was a hoax and a conspiracy - just as you are. No contrary evidence of your own, no studies, no science, just "I don't like the results so that science must have been faked". That's the very soul of denial.
Why just the 1970s? If they go further back, it disproves what they're trying to indoctrinate you with. They'd have you believe that bad storms never happened before. Hogg wash. In fact HOGG Island, NYC.
If you bothered to read the paper you'd see the data they present goes back to 1930, and only the recent increase in intensity starts in the 70s. And maybe you'd care to explain how a single storm from 1893 somehow disproves a peer-reviewed statistical analysis about storms getting stronger a hundred years later?
Likewise, please explain where the original "cold snap" study claims that Greenland before 1300 was "MUCH warmer" than today. Please explain how ice cores from two lakes in Greenland somehow mean that the average temperatures for the entire globe were warmer at that time, when no reconstruction places them anywhere close to modern levels. You think the Medieval Warm and Little Ice Age periods are unknown to climatologists? But you're already convinced it's all a scam, despite the evidence directly contradicting your claims.
As for the fuel companies, do you really think that? You think that they won't adapt?
You really think they'll happily wave goodbye to trillions of dollars without a care in the world? You're quite wrong. They'll adapt if they're forced to, but you can be certain they'll do whatever they can to exploit the reserves they have first - there's plenty of evidence of them spending hundreds of millions to confuse and delay the issue as long as they can - just like the tobacco companies did.
Instead, you're harping on about Al Gore - who's not even a scientist. Nobody cares what he says - we care what the climatologists say. They saw the problem long before Gore made a movie, and why would they care if he made money from it? Is Gore paying climatologists to falsify evidence? The ones doing that are the oil companies. Frankly, your efforts to claim that Gore somehow orchestrated the whole thing to make a buck are laughable in the face of the evidence - all the more so when you're so keen to ignore the FAR bigger amounts being made by those who benefit from ignoring it.
Again, if you want to unconditionally accept the word of a guy in a YouTube video, while ignoring the thousands of peer-reviewed studies cited and summarised in the reports I linked to, there's nothing I can say you'll listen to.
But if you want to know who's lying to who, ask for proof. And proof isn't people saying or writing whatever they feel like on blogs or videos, it's peer-reviewed evidence. The climatologists have produced the evidence cited above, while deniers have only produced rhetoric. Evidence like rising global temperatures and hurricanes getting stronger for the last 40 years, despite what you've been told.
If you just want to follow the money instead, look at the $33 trillion dollars of fossil fuel revenue at stake. Who do you think has the biggest incentive to mislead you - scientists on an $80k salary with their reputations on the line, or oil execs earning hundreds of millions from stock options?
Road damage is a real problem, but it's a fraction of that wild figure. ZeroHedge doesn't cite a good source, but this study finds around $5k to $23k of road damage per well (around 1700 wells were drilled in PA in 2011). This is partially covered by the energy companies, leaving an estimated net total taxpayer cost of $8-39 million, not including aggravation to the local drivers.
So the mountains of scientific evidence and the confirmation by every majorclimateinstitution on the planet, and every major scientific organisation are all meaningless to you - but the science-free claims in a youtube video by a TV personality with no experience or credentials in climatology convinced you completely?
Sorry, I can't help anyone so doggedly determined to ignore all the inconvenient parts of reality.
- Pennsylvania State University first panel and second panel: "Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community"
- Department of Commerce: "We did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures"
- National Science Foundation: "We found no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence."
What benefit does burning coal provide that *any* other form of power generation does not also provide? I'm most curious to hear your thoughts on this.
It's not like anyone's suggesting we cease all burning of fossil fuels - and not implement a replacement. We all know the benefits of energy, and nobody wants to give those up. We just want to switch to energy sources that don't do such widespread damage to our health and environment. We want to keep the benefits and just reduce the costs, so cost comparisons are appropriate.
P.S. if you don't like the results of the "activist" studies coming out of Harvard and MIT, feel free to cite more reliable studies, if you can find any.
Huge annual costs like these are a constant drag on economic growth. And these costs, as the studies admit, are far from comprehensive - the first link lists numerous additional factors not considered in their analysis, saying "The true ecological and health costs of coal are thus far greater than the numbers suggest". Nor do they consider the human-life costs of the hundreds of thousands of premature deaths caused by particulate air pollution, mining & processing wastes etc.
These ongoing costs can be almost completely avoided by transitioning to clean energy, along with reducing other large burdens on the taxpayer such as fossil-fuel industry subsidies and military interventions (plus of course future climate change adaption costs).
Now factor in the base cost of the road, since these panels don't just generate electricity. Depending on the level of works done, this could be anything from $500k/km to $5M/km (probably on the lower side of that, from the photographs). Accounting for that, payoff time on the additional expense is a little better, maybe 13-14 years.
But the real question is, how much less would they cost if you scaled up manufacturing of the panels, and created specialised equipment to streamline installation? That'd certainly be worth doing if you're considering installing tens of thousands of kilometres. Then the payoff could be a lot quicker - enough to make the idea rather more compelling. There are certainly easier and cheaper options (and we can pursue those first), but that's no reason not to test out this concept ahead of time, to see e.g. what long-term maintenance costs will be like.
Wouldn't it help to know why that agreement was made in the first place, before deciding to tear it down? What was the reason for signing it, what benefits were gained? And once you understand what's at stake, only then choose to stick with it or renegotiate it or whatever.
The issue with Brexit was that a few well-chosen lies (e.g. Brexit bus) can drown out large amounts of boring and tedious truth. This is an increasingly commonplace situation.
Directly or indirectly, the UK people get some benefit in exchange for ceding that influence. This is the basis for every international treaty and agreement ever. This is why those treaties were signed in the first place.
Be easy enough for an overseeing human to blacklist a patron's card for a few hours. For that matter, the dispenser could also count rounds and start asking simple maths questions to judge sobriety (of course there are ways around that, but it'd likely be enough to avoid liability, and there are ways around a human barkeep too, like getting your less-drunk mates to buy for you).
A better measure is levelised lifetime costs, as these include amortised construction capital costs too (otherwise solar looks nearly free):
Geothermal: 45.0 Advanced Gas CC: 57.2 Wind: 64.5 Hydroelectric: 67.8 Solar PV: 84.7 Advanced Gas CC with CCS: 84.8 Biomass: 96.1 Advanced Nuclear: 102.8 Advanced Coal with CCS: 139.5 Wind (Offshore): 158.1 Solar Thermal: 235.9
Total levelised cost values in 2015 dollars per MWh, not including tax credits.
Someone takes a blog article with no cited evidence as gospel truth, then crows about how it validates their personal beliefs. Particularly ironic in this case, as said personal beliefs are about scientists always jumping to biased conclusions. You don't say.
A) when scientists turn out to be wrong, who is it that proves them wrong - is it blog authors or slashdot posters? No, it's other scientists with stronger evidence. B) there may be interesting accumulated evidence in the LENR field, but this guest blog does not cite any, so does not prove or disprove anything. C) Many labs tried to replicate Pons and Fleischmann's work, and couldn't. The public backlash was heightened by them having gone to the press before peer review, but the real fault lay with the media over-blowing the hype prematurely - and people accepting unquestioningly everything the media said. C) If there are, as alleged, some interesting results worthy of further study, then hopefully some labs will follow them up further. LENR falls in the extraordinary-claims basket, so the proper response for most labs is to ignore it until more speculative researchers get around to producing evidence strong enough to merit a closer look. Has that happened yet? TFA thinks so, but does not make a case a reputable lab would find compelling.
It's the per-object positional metadata that's the interesting part in Atmos. With up to 128 individually placed sound sources (and a few ambient channels) in the bitstream, sounds can be rendered on-the-fly through whatever speakers are nearest to the source position.
While much has been made about new ceiling channels, those are entirely optional. The whole point of the Atmos stream is that it can be rendered with best-available accuracy on *any* speaker setup, from a 12+6 cinema arrangement to 7.2 home cinemas, 2.1 soundbars, or a pair of headphones. By preserving the structure in the bitstream, it can be downmixed accurately to any number of speakers in any positional arrangement, so long as the renderering decoder knows where each speaker is.
Games (on consoles and PCs) are a perfect match for this, because they already deal with sound-emitting objects with known positions. With API support (which DirectX already provides), those object sounds can be passed with minimal downmixing to an external Atmos decoder that knows exactly which speakers to route them to. And while you're right that (theoretically) the game machine could do the renderering itself direct to the output PCM channels (as it does now), the number of available channels may not match the number of speakers, and it would still need to be told exactly where each channel's speaker is positioned to get the full locational benefits - something that's already done during a good Atmos setup.
GP said 6 metres "eventually", which is quite true - the CO2 we've already released will be warming us for far longer than 100 years.
And the problem (if you actually read the IPCC science you keep claiming to support - try WG2) isn't even the slow rise - though that alone will be ridiculously expensive to counter even in the few areas that are possible, and well beyond the means of all but the richest nations. It's the corresponding increase in extremes - in the 4m storm surges and king tides that will literally swamp our current defences. Events like Sandy and Katrina will become much more common, as the higher baseline combines with more intense weather to make "freak" storms both more frequent and more damaging.
Slashdot Mirror
Kudos for finding a new use for some of the excess CO2, but it's still only a tiny fraction of the plant's CO2 output.
Given an estimated 13 million tonnes of CO2 emitted annually (based on the 14.9 million tonnes emitted by the 1200 MW Chandrapur plant), then capturing 66 kilotonnes still allows 99.5% of the CO2 to escape.
Did you know that Al Gore is also a Nobel Laureate? Yet his opinion is much less important than that of any practicing climatologist, because he is not an expert in that field - just like the physicist Ivar Giaever. Appeals to authority are meaningless; only considered conclusions from experts who have seen all the data and have the training and experience to interpret it.
How about the MIT paper - written in 2005, so before Al Gore and other's claim that GW is causing them
So? What does that have to do with the causes of increasing hurricane intensity? You still think nobody knew about AGW until Gore's movie? The MIT paper is about global hurricane intensity, not the frequency of hurricanes making landfall in the US, so that NOAA page you cite is irrelevant (current research on AGW suggests hurricane frequency is not affected much, only intensity).
You looked at the graphs, saw the data was different and that didn't concern you?
Unlike you - or the deniers at WUWT et al - I took the time to find out why those corrections were made. I didn't leap straight to assuming they must have been faked.
Anyone making judgements about the accuracy of science based purely on the results is guaranteed to introduce bias. Methodology is king. Changes are expected - corrections are of course required if past inaccuracies are discovered, and are absolutely justified if the methodology is peer-reviewed, regardless of whether you like the results.
The "adjustments" are always in favor of GW.
Prove it. You don't even know what adjustments were done, let alone why, so you're making up your own bogus motives instead. Let me enlighten you.
Hansen's page ... where he admits in 2007 that the 1930s was the hottest decade on record.
You mean the paragraph where he says, "Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934"? Bolding mine, because you're apparently unable to spot the difference between the US and the globe. That paragraph is unchanged in both versions BTW, which you could've verified for yourself.
It wasn't just Greenland, it was global.
And this is where you need to cite a peer-reviewed study to back up your claim (presuming you remember what "global" means).
Now, about concensus[sic]? [WSJ commentary snipped] Yea, not so much.
So you're happy to accept as gospel truth a newspaper commentary citing no peer-reviewed studies, yet you reject the conclusions of seven independent scientific studies listed here. Why, because one fits your pre-existing beliefs and the other doesn't? Certainly doesn't seem to be evidence-based.
I understand I'm asking a lot because a great deal of money has been spent to make you believe, change data, and so on. MMGW is all about making a bunch of money and control.
Oh the irony. Did you miss the part where I cited numerous reports of hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by the fossil fuel industry specifically to sway public opinion and protect their revenue? Where's your own evidence? Missing as usual.
How does paying Al Gore (among others) a bunch of money fix that?
Who's suggesting that? What does that have to do with the science? I haven't proposed any solutions here, because they're irrelevant to the science describing the problem. If you're really curious read my post history, but whatever action or inaction we take, AGW isn't going away - we'll have to deal with it one way or another. The science is very clear on that.
I saw this movie called "outside" once, man that was bright. Not sure my dazzled eyes ever recovered fully. Really needs a warning, like "please put on your special dark glasses now".
Yeah that may indeed be the case - a lot of articles are contradictory, but the more I read the less these TVs look like real QLEDs. But if so, why they would label these TVs as "QLEDs" when they're apparently working on genuine QLED TVs is beyond me.
... and now I'm not so sure. While real QLEDs (as developed by QD Vision, now owned by Samsung) are indeed emissive, there's some doubt as to whether these new TVs actually use them. Some articles are claiming Samsung's new "QLED" TVs don't actually use their real QLED technology, but instead use a refined photo-luminescent quantum-dot system that still needs a backlight.
While Samsung seem to have nailed the picture quality in their new TVs, they surely messed up their messaging. Is it really a genuinely emissive challenger to OLEDs, or did they just confuse any future marketing by mislabeling these? Guess I'll have to wait longer to find out for sure.
Looks like those are ordinary quantum-dot LCD panels like Samsung's TVs from the last two years. That's a different technology to these new QLED panels, which are emissive like OLEDs and don't use LCDs at all.
Ordinary quantum dots, as used by Samsung in their previous TVs, are indeed photo-luminescent, requiring a backlight and an LCD filter.
However, these new displays use QLEDs (aka QD-LEDs), which are actually electro-luminescent very much like OLEDs - they're stimulated by electrons instead of photons, so they don't need a backlight. It also means they can be directly turned on and off like OLEDs, so they don't need an LCD filter and you also get those wonderful perfect blacks. QLED TVs are a lot like OLEDs, only brighter.
Unsurprisingly there's some confusion about the terminology, even among reporters, and Samsung isn't helping much. But if you look up earlier articles on QLEDs, and look at the comparisons vs OLED that Samsung has been doing, you'll see how much of a jump QLEDs are.
Oh, I looked at your "damning" links - and not one of them cited a relevant or useful study. What I saw instead was a lot of "here's a graph, here's another graph - they're different in a way I don't like - therefore, it must be deliberately faked". No attempt was made to find out why the data was adjusted, no evidence that the adjustments made readings less accurate instead of more, and no challenge to the peer-reviewed methodology of the corrections. Instead they leaped immediately to the conclusion that it was a hoax and a conspiracy - just as you are. No contrary evidence of your own, no studies, no science, just "I don't like the results so that science must have been faked". That's the very soul of denial.
Why just the 1970s? If they go further back, it disproves what they're trying to indoctrinate you with. They'd have you believe that bad storms never happened before. Hogg wash. In fact HOGG Island, NYC.
If you bothered to read the paper you'd see the data they present goes back to 1930, and only the recent increase in intensity starts in the 70s. And maybe you'd care to explain how a single storm from 1893 somehow disproves a peer-reviewed statistical analysis about storms getting stronger a hundred years later?
Likewise, please explain where the original "cold snap" study claims that Greenland before 1300 was "MUCH warmer" than today. Please explain how ice cores from two lakes in Greenland somehow mean that the average temperatures for the entire globe were warmer at that time, when no reconstruction places them anywhere close to modern levels. You think the Medieval Warm and Little Ice Age periods are unknown to climatologists? But you're already convinced it's all a scam, despite the evidence directly contradicting your claims.
As for the fuel companies, do you really think that? You think that they won't adapt?
You really think they'll happily wave goodbye to trillions of dollars without a care in the world? You're quite wrong. They'll adapt if they're forced to, but you can be certain they'll do whatever they can to exploit the reserves they have first - there's plenty of evidence of them spending hundreds of millions to confuse and delay the issue as long as they can - just like the tobacco companies did.
Instead, you're harping on about Al Gore - who's not even a scientist. Nobody cares what he says - we care what the climatologists say. They saw the problem long before Gore made a movie, and why would they care if he made money from it? Is Gore paying climatologists to falsify evidence? The ones doing that are the oil companies. Frankly, your efforts to claim that Gore somehow orchestrated the whole thing to make a buck are laughable in the face of the evidence - all the more so when you're so keen to ignore the FAR bigger amounts being made by those who benefit from ignoring it.
Again, if you want to unconditionally accept the word of a guy in a YouTube video, while ignoring the thousands of peer-reviewed studies cited and summarised in the reports I linked to, there's nothing I can say you'll listen to.
But if you want to know who's lying to who, ask for proof. And proof isn't people saying or writing whatever they feel like on blogs or videos, it's peer-reviewed evidence. The climatologists have produced the evidence cited above, while deniers have only produced rhetoric. Evidence like rising global temperatures and hurricanes getting stronger for the last 40 years, despite what you've been told.
If you just want to follow the money instead, look at the $33 trillion dollars of fossil fuel revenue at stake. Who do you think has the biggest incentive to mislead you - scientists on an $80k salary with their reputations on the line, or oil execs earning hundreds of millions from stock options?
Road damage is a real problem, but it's a fraction of that wild figure. ZeroHedge doesn't cite a good source, but this study finds around $5k to $23k of road damage per well (around 1700 wells were drilled in PA in 2011). This is partially covered by the energy companies, leaving an estimated net total taxpayer cost of $8-39 million, not including aggravation to the local drivers.
So the mountains of scientific evidence and the confirmation by every major climate institution on the planet, and every major scientific organisation are all meaningless to you - but the science-free claims in a youtube video by a TV personality with no experience or credentials in climatology convinced you completely?
Sorry, I can't help anyone so doggedly determined to ignore all the inconvenient parts of reality.
Since you refuse to look at the evidence for yourself, the eight major investigations that cleared CRU of any scientific misconduct include:
- House of Commons Science and Technology Committee: "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact"
- Independent Climate Change Review: "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."
- International Science Assessment Panel: "We found absolutely no evidence of impropriety whatsoever"
- Pennsylvania State University first panel and second panel: "Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community"
- United States Environmental Protection Agency: CRU critics came to "faulty scientific conclusions" and "resorted to hyperbole."
- Department of Commerce: "We did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures"
- National Science Foundation: "We found no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence."
What benefit does burning coal provide that *any* other form of power generation does not also provide? I'm most curious to hear your thoughts on this.
It's not like anyone's suggesting we cease all burning of fossil fuels - and not implement a replacement. We all know the benefits of energy, and nobody wants to give those up. We just want to switch to energy sources that don't do such widespread damage to our health and environment. We want to keep the benefits and just reduce the costs, so cost comparisons are appropriate.
P.S. if you don't like the results of the "activist" studies coming out of Harvard and MIT, feel free to cite more reliable studies, if you can find any.
Health costs of coal: $300-500 billion annually, in the US alone.
Health costs of gasoline/diesel: $40-200 billion annually for the US.
Huge annual costs like these are a constant drag on economic growth. And these costs, as the studies admit, are far from comprehensive - the first link lists numerous additional factors not considered in their analysis, saying "The true ecological and health costs of coal are thus far greater than the numbers suggest". Nor do they consider the human-life costs of the hundreds of thousands of premature deaths caused by particulate air pollution, mining & processing wastes etc.
These ongoing costs can be almost completely avoided by transitioning to clean energy, along with reducing other large burdens on the taxpayer such as fossil-fuel industry subsidies and military interventions (plus of course future climate change adaption costs).
Now factor in the base cost of the road, since these panels don't just generate electricity. Depending on the level of works done, this could be anything from $500k/km to $5M/km (probably on the lower side of that, from the photographs). Accounting for that, payoff time on the additional expense is a little better, maybe 13-14 years.
But the real question is, how much less would they cost if you scaled up manufacturing of the panels, and created specialised equipment to streamline installation? That'd certainly be worth doing if you're considering installing tens of thousands of kilometres. Then the payoff could be a lot quicker - enough to make the idea rather more compelling. There are certainly easier and cheaper options (and we can pursue those first), but that's no reason not to test out this concept ahead of time, to see e.g. what long-term maintenance costs will be like.
Wouldn't it help to know why that agreement was made in the first place, before deciding to tear it down? What was the reason for signing it, what benefits were gained? And once you understand what's at stake, only then choose to stick with it or renegotiate it or whatever.
The issue with Brexit was that a few well-chosen lies (e.g. Brexit bus) can drown out large amounts of boring and tedious truth. This is an increasingly commonplace situation.
Directly or indirectly, the UK people get some benefit in exchange for ceding that influence. This is the basis for every international treaty and agreement ever. This is why those treaties were signed in the first place.
Is this not obvious?
Be easy enough for an overseeing human to blacklist a patron's card for a few hours. For that matter, the dispenser could also count rounds and start asking simple maths questions to judge sobriety (of course there are ways around that, but it'd likely be enough to avoid liability, and there are ways around a human barkeep too, like getting your less-drunk mates to buy for you).
A better measure is levelised lifetime costs, as these include amortised construction capital costs too (otherwise solar looks nearly free):
Geothermal: 45.0
Advanced Gas CC: 57.2
Wind: 64.5
Hydroelectric: 67.8
Solar PV: 84.7
Advanced Gas CC with CCS: 84.8
Biomass: 96.1
Advanced Nuclear: 102.8
Advanced Coal with CCS: 139.5
Wind (Offshore): 158.1
Solar Thermal: 235.9
Total levelised cost values in 2015 dollars per MWh, not including tax credits.
Someone takes a blog article with no cited evidence as gospel truth, then crows about how it validates their personal beliefs. Particularly ironic in this case, as said personal beliefs are about scientists always jumping to biased conclusions. You don't say.
A) when scientists turn out to be wrong, who is it that proves them wrong - is it blog authors or slashdot posters? No, it's other scientists with stronger evidence.
B) there may be interesting accumulated evidence in the LENR field, but this guest blog does not cite any, so does not prove or disprove anything.
C) Many labs tried to replicate Pons and Fleischmann's work, and couldn't. The public backlash was heightened by them having gone to the press before peer review, but the real fault lay with the media over-blowing the hype prematurely - and people accepting unquestioningly everything the media said.
C) If there are, as alleged, some interesting results worthy of further study, then hopefully some labs will follow them up further. LENR falls in the extraordinary-claims basket, so the proper response for most labs is to ignore it until more speculative researchers get around to producing evidence strong enough to merit a closer look. Has that happened yet? TFA thinks so, but does not make a case a reputable lab would find compelling.
Black IPAs are delicious, and apparently popular even with peppermint.
Did you know it's now possible to buy cheap vodka and OP rum, take it home, and drink as much as you like?
And this isn't a vending machine on the street. There'd be a human required in the bar, if only to refuse service to minors.
It's the per-object positional metadata that's the interesting part in Atmos. With up to 128 individually placed sound sources (and a few ambient channels) in the bitstream, sounds can be rendered on-the-fly through whatever speakers are nearest to the source position.
While much has been made about new ceiling channels, those are entirely optional. The whole point of the Atmos stream is that it can be rendered with best-available accuracy on *any* speaker setup, from a 12+6 cinema arrangement to 7.2 home cinemas, 2.1 soundbars, or a pair of headphones. By preserving the structure in the bitstream, it can be downmixed accurately to any number of speakers in any positional arrangement, so long as the renderering decoder knows where each speaker is.
Games (on consoles and PCs) are a perfect match for this, because they already deal with sound-emitting objects with known positions. With API support (which DirectX already provides), those object sounds can be passed with minimal downmixing to an external Atmos decoder that knows exactly which speakers to route them to. And while you're right that (theoretically) the game machine could do the renderering itself direct to the output PCM channels (as it does now), the number of available channels may not match the number of speakers, and it would still need to be told exactly where each channel's speaker is positioned to get the full locational benefits - something that's already done during a good Atmos setup.
GP said 6 metres "eventually", which is quite true - the CO2 we've already released will be warming us for far longer than 100 years.
And the problem (if you actually read the IPCC science you keep claiming to support - try WG2) isn't even the slow rise - though that alone will be ridiculously expensive to counter even in the few areas that are possible, and well beyond the means of all but the richest nations. It's the corresponding increase in extremes - in the 4m storm surges and king tides that will literally swamp our current defences. Events like Sandy and Katrina will become much more common, as the higher baseline combines with more intense weather to make "freak" storms both more frequent and more damaging.