You never heard of it? Jesus fucking wept, the actual article you're commenting on talked about it, you dumb fuck. It never ceases to amaze me how people like you proclaim your stupidity and ignorance as a badge of honour.
Que? You need to spell your logic out a little more there, I think. There's not a thing in this article that suggested women in these societies are ever in the top 10% of society.
It's *great* that you've cleared that up for everyone. It so perfectly explains polygyny among the Dinka, for example, what with their practice of non-Islamic religion. They must do it in a really Allah-y way.
Great to see how you carefully read the article, thoroughly reflected on its nuance, and then provided such extensive materials to back up your hypothesis.
Well, some people do think it's OK, but many people don't. Why focus on the ones who do? Focusing on that hypocrisy risks ignoring or minimising or whatabouting the very real problem of Russian meddling. It also doesn't solve the problem of Western meddling. The hypocrisy is not as bad as the meddling.
If one day, superdave80's rejoinder was "look, there's a mistake in the assumption on slide 166 in Appendix G about the scale of O&M costs for the net costs of CT, so the waterfall is out by about 42%, and here's my sources to back up what I'm saying". Instead, there's no thought whatsoever for fact-based analysis.
The fact you see a contradiction between these two comments is a spectacular admission of idiocy. Sigh. I will spell this out for you seeing as you are too dumb to get it all by yourself. The article is about the ability of solar and storage to replace gas peaker plants. The post to which I responded said "but winter daytime weather makes solar useless", ignoring the fact that the article discussed not solar alone but solar and storage. Then you chipped in with your trump card of "but winter daytime weather means you'll be using not generating" and I pointed out that this would be true if we were talking about a domestic system, but isn't true for peaker plant replacement solar-and-storage. That's because: 1. Peaker plants (and thus any replacement solar-and-storage) typically only operate for a few hours in a day (morning or afternoon peak) and a few days in a year, so there is still plenty of generation time. Indeed if you go back to the original report and dig into the modelling assumptions, it's working off a 4 hour minimum per day use case ("the MISO definition of a Use Limited Resource") and "MISO historical peak hours typically correspond with HE15 through HE18 during summer months". Note *summer*, not winter. On slide 172 of the Stratagen report, they even have a handy-dandy graphic that shows quite clearly how peak demand hours mainly come immediately *after* a solar-and-storage system is charged. 2. Peaker plants (and thus any replacement solar-and-storage) are supplementing baseload only (and charging a pretty penny for doing so) 3. Solar-and-storage that replaces peaker is on a big enough scale to warrant maintenance, including keeping solar panels free of snow and ice, unlike a domestic system. So while generation will drop in the winter, it won't go close to zero (and in any event, that's not where peak demand occurs for this model, see #1 above)
It's beyond irritating that people like you expend all your (feeble) intellectual efforts trying to win rhetorically (including such pathetic playground devices as copying my phrasing), rather than actually learning about what is being proposed. And that it's so obviously beyond you to admit that a significant effort has been made to get the details of this rights, and that yes that does actually include accounting for the fact that snow falls in winter and irradiance drops, thank you very much.
The article was about solar and storage replacing gas peaker plants. It is very sad for you that you struggle to keep all of these concepts in mind at once. It renders your comments... more stupid than they already are.
Well sure, fossil fuel electricity (and energy) won't reach zero any time soon. But I'd be much more interested in your professional perspective on how the mix is likely to change over the next thirty years -- what will it look like in 5, 10, 15 years time, etc?
So glad you're really confident about this. I feel very reassured. You wouldn't be able to provide any actual evidence to back up your numerous really quite bold assertions, would you, by any chance?
Your logic is all wrong: there's a net benefit in terms of lower CO2 and other emissions when any fossil fuel plant is replaced by solar & batteries (and indeed wind & batteries). Sure, the benefit is larger when the fossil fuel is coal, but that will happen in time. Peaker plants deliver pricey on-demand power, so of course they are the first to be rendered uneconomic. But as solar/wind/batteries scale, costs will drop further and baseload coal and other sources will also be displaced (and in practice this is also already happening, just the change is slower than with peakers because the price differential isn't as favourable for renewables yet, plus assets have longer shelf lives, plus Trumpy loves his coal, etc)
But I'm skeptical that the current Trump administration would be interested in mandating that new builds reach BREEAM Outstanding, much though I might want it to happen.
You are way too pessimistic. We sometimes go and stay with friends who live in Oving, in Hampshire. Small village in the middle of nowhere. It has a church hall with two chargers (and free to use at that!). Charge-points are going to be much *more* ubiquitous than petrol stations over time, not less. The infrastructure required is an outdoor 240V plugpoint. Thatâ(TM)s it. Sure, it can be a 3kW, 7kW, 22kW, 43kW charger, but it doesnâ(TM)t have to be. The technology can be run out of existing electricity infrastructure, such as street lighting. Ubitricity is doing exactly that.
Is that really how logic goes in your mind? If so, at least the good news is you're so thick there's no chance of any insight into your own capabilities, which might otherwise send you into despair.
*Obviously* implicit in "accused" in my original statement is "credibly". Not proven, but credible.
The post you quoted was not the OP. It was a response to the OP, and the OP's subject line was "He's [Pai is] confusing free speech with Net Neutrality".
The guy who chimed in, in response to you, referred back to that quote and quoted more of what Pai said, to make the point that Pai was an example of regulatory capture.
Anyway, we should leave this. It's a very meta- debate.
97%! FFS. That's 97% having a 10meg line. So 23m Americans don't even have a choice of provider for a less than 10meg line. When you get to actual broadband speeds, like 60meg or so, the numbers are depressing: 100m or more Americans lack choice of provider. It's shamefully poor.
Slashdot Mirror
You never heard of it? Jesus fucking wept, the actual article you're commenting on talked about it, you dumb fuck. It never ceases to amaze me how people like you proclaim your stupidity and ignorance as a badge of honour.
I don't disagree, but that wasn't the AC's hypothesis.
Que? You need to spell your logic out a little more there, I think. There's not a thing in this article that suggested women in these societies are ever in the top 10% of society.
Go on, show some stats for the male:female ratio in South Sudan that prove your point. Bet you can't.
It's *great* that you've cleared that up for everyone. It so perfectly explains polygyny among the Dinka, for example, what with their practice of non-Islamic religion. They must do it in a really Allah-y way.
Great to see how you carefully read the article, thoroughly reflected on its nuance, and then provided such extensive materials to back up your hypothesis.
Well, some people do think it's OK, but many people don't. Why focus on the ones who do? Focusing on that hypocrisy risks ignoring or minimising or whatabouting the very real problem of Russian meddling. It also doesn't solve the problem of Western meddling. The hypocrisy is not as bad as the meddling.
What makes you think others think that it's OK for Western nations to be doing this either?
It's not OK when the US does it, and it's not OK when Russia does it.
You know what I would love?
If one day, superdave80's rejoinder was "look, there's a mistake in the assumption on slide 166 in Appendix G about the scale of O&M costs for the net costs of CT, so the waterfall is out by about 42%, and here's my sources to back up what I'm saying". Instead, there's no thought whatsoever for fact-based analysis.
The fact you see a contradiction between these two comments is a spectacular admission of idiocy. Sigh. I will spell this out for you seeing as you are too dumb to get it all by yourself. The article is about the ability of solar and storage to replace gas peaker plants. The post to which I responded said "but winter daytime weather makes solar useless", ignoring the fact that the article discussed not solar alone but solar and storage. Then you chipped in with your trump card of "but winter daytime weather means you'll be using not generating" and I pointed out that this would be true if we were talking about a domestic system, but isn't true for peaker plant replacement solar-and-storage. That's because:
1. Peaker plants (and thus any replacement solar-and-storage) typically only operate for a few hours in a day (morning or afternoon peak) and a few days in a year, so there is still plenty of generation time. Indeed if you go back to the original report and dig into the modelling assumptions, it's working off a 4 hour minimum per day use case ("the MISO definition of a Use Limited Resource") and "MISO historical peak hours typically correspond with HE15 through HE18 during summer months". Note *summer*, not winter. On slide 172 of the Stratagen report, they even have a handy-dandy graphic that shows quite clearly how peak demand hours mainly come immediately *after* a solar-and-storage system is charged.
2. Peaker plants (and thus any replacement solar-and-storage) are supplementing baseload only (and charging a pretty penny for doing so)
3. Solar-and-storage that replaces peaker is on a big enough scale to warrant maintenance, including keeping solar panels free of snow and ice, unlike a domestic system. So while generation will drop in the winter, it won't go close to zero (and in any event, that's not where peak demand occurs for this model, see #1 above)
http://energytransition.umn.ed...
It's beyond irritating that people like you expend all your (feeble) intellectual efforts trying to win rhetorically (including such pathetic playground devices as copying my phrasing), rather than actually learning about what is being proposed. And that it's so obviously beyond you to admit that a significant effort has been made to get the details of this rights, and that yes that does actually include accounting for the fact that snow falls in winter and irradiance drops, thank you very much.
And by solar and storage, I don't mean domestic solar and storage, I mean grid scale.
The article was about solar and storage replacing gas peaker plants. It is very sad for you that you struggle to keep all of these concepts in mind at once. It renders your comments ... more stupid than they already are.
This applies to a family with a home storage and solar solution, not so much to peaker plants.
Well sure, fossil fuel electricity (and energy) won't reach zero any time soon. But I'd be much more interested in your professional perspective on how the mix is likely to change over the next thirty years -- what will it look like in 5, 10, 15 years time, etc?
So glad you're really confident about this. I feel very reassured. You wouldn't be able to provide any actual evidence to back up your numerous really quite bold assertions, would you, by any chance?
Just to be clear: you made this comment on an article about solar AND STORAGE.
Your logic is all wrong: there's a net benefit in terms of lower CO2 and other emissions when any fossil fuel plant is replaced by solar & batteries (and indeed wind & batteries). Sure, the benefit is larger when the fossil fuel is coal, but that will happen in time. Peaker plants deliver pricey on-demand power, so of course they are the first to be rendered uneconomic. But as solar/wind/batteries scale, costs will drop further and baseload coal and other sources will also be displaced (and in practice this is also already happening, just the change is slower than with peakers because the price differential isn't as favourable for renewables yet, plus assets have longer shelf lives, plus Trumpy loves his coal, etc)
The standards are already out there, like BREEAM: https://www.breeam.com/
But I'm skeptical that the current Trump administration would be interested in mandating that new builds reach BREEAM Outstanding, much though I might want it to happen.
You are way too pessimistic. We sometimes go and stay with friends who live in Oving, in Hampshire. Small village in the middle of nowhere. It has a church hall with two chargers (and free to use at that!). Charge-points are going to be much *more* ubiquitous than petrol stations over time, not less. The infrastructure required is an outdoor 240V plugpoint. Thatâ(TM)s it. Sure, it can be a 3kW, 7kW, 22kW, 43kW charger, but it doesnâ(TM)t have to be. The technology can be run out of existing electricity infrastructure, such as street lighting. Ubitricity is doing exactly that.
Your joke would be even more hilarious than it already is, if the spelling approximated to English.
Is that really how logic goes in your mind? If so, at least the good news is you're so thick there's no chance of any insight into your own capabilities, which might otherwise send you into despair.
*Obviously* implicit in "accused" in my original statement is "credibly". Not proven, but credible.
Nope, he's really not. Trump is a self-confessed sexual predator and has been accused of child abuse.
The post you quoted was not the OP. It was a response to the OP, and the OP's subject line was "He's [Pai is] confusing free speech with Net Neutrality".
The guy who chimed in, in response to you, referred back to that quote and quoted more of what Pai said, to make the point that Pai was an example of regulatory capture.
Anyway, we should leave this. It's a very meta- debate.
97%! FFS. That's 97% having a 10meg line. So 23m Americans don't even have a choice of provider for a less than 10meg line. When you get to actual broadband speeds, like 60meg or so, the numbers are depressing: 100m or more Americans lack choice of provider. It's shamefully poor.
Why bother trying to sound knowledgeable and authoritative when you don't know the difference between tenet and tenant?