The world you're describing is diametrically opposed to any kind of observable reality. In real world, when you generate a solution for the problem that needs lack of this solution to persist, the problem either goes away entirely, or becomes small enough to be irrelevant.
Example: vaccination and mumps, measles and rubella. Just because some people don't vaccinate, and in some regions vaccines aren't used doesn't mean that problem of complications associated with mumps, measles and rubella infections haven't been solved.
Wait, you think that the acid from acid rain is still causing severe harm in regions where NOx and SO2 emissions have been taken care of?
Our biosphere has very powerful circulation of elements. The damage is taken care of in a matter of years by the normal activity of the nature itself if the cause is halted.
Even heavy metals get flushed out of the system eventually, through that tends to take longer. But luckily in most cases, heavy metal poisoning is extremely localized problem, to the point where contaminated area can simply be abandoned for a few decades with minimal economic impact. The only one that really can't be addressed this way is mercury, most specifically mercury in the oceans. And that is because mercury keeps getting emitted in developing countries that just don't care about emissions.
As someone who has family working in building various burners, I've no idea when you did what you claim to do, or if you ever did that. I do know for a fact that in US today, as well as EU the norms are overwhelmingly strictly enforced, and typically followed because there are economic incentives to hit certain targets on emissions in most developed countries over long period of time. Benefits that in some cases are so great that when fuel is below certain thresholds forcing the plant to emit more than is sufficient for certain economic incentive threshold to be hit, plant owner will literally execute a controlled shut down of the plant so they can maintain the sufficient buffer to be able to emit.
And since everything is logged on control systems of the plant, you didn't need people climbing smoke stacks in decades beyond replacing the sensors. You just make the query from each sensor. Falsifying this data is not just very hard to do, but would put actors who would agree to such an act in prison in most developing countries today.
So in your view, literally none of the problems humans had in primeval times have been solved, because there can be mistakes which lead to improper handling of the solution, which result in disastrous consequences?
You're not wrong on the matter of principle, but devil is, as usual, in the details. And in the details, it's specifically intermittent renewables (in case of Denmark, mostly offshore wind with some onshore wind). Those just don't work in modern grid without spinning and cold reserve that can back them up when they go offline because there's no wind or too fast wind.
Their problem was that in their favouring wind power over their existing burners (of various fuels), they created a situation where much of time, there was so much wind power that none of the burners could sell their electricity at all. So many companies that could be competitive if they were allowed to sell electricity went bankrupt. Which resulted in the fact that there wasn't enough spinning reserve to backup all that wind power.
Luckily Denmark already had high capacity interconnects to Norway and Sweden, both of which have excess hydro in their mountainous regions. Hydro makes for really good spinning reserve. Just let the water storage fill up by closing the flow valves when you don't need power, and open them and let them spin the turbines when you need power. But Denmark like much of Central European plain is pretty flat. No real hydro potential. Unlike the mountainous Norway and northern Sweden, where there's too much hydro capacity.
But that means Denmark became wholly dependent on foreign state for its energy security. And like anyone who concedes their energy security to foreign entity inevitably learns, that deal is truly a deal with the devil, even if devil looks like a nice friendly neighbour and terms and price look acceptable at the start.
That is a story of improper disposal of coal ash. How is it in any way relevant to my statement of:
>Both heavy metal emissions and SO2/NOx (substances that cause acid rain) problems have been solved in coal burning in larger plants quite a while ago. The problem that we cannot solve is CO2 emissions per power generated. It's too high.
Fracking doesn't exist on any meaningful scale outside North America. Renewables don't exist on a meaningful scale outside developed world.
Most of the world is not in these two categories, and cannot afford their power costs to go up further, nor do they have bureaucratic ability to enforce any meaningful environmental regulations.
Which is why you may potentially be correct for developing world, the rest of the world will keep up with consuming coal at ever increasing rates. It's just too cheap to extract, too easy to move around and store and too convenient and simple to burn in a controlled fashion.
I didn't say we know the effect to be harmless. I said that as far as we know right now, they're harmless. Which if you understand the scientific method, is literally the best that can be said about anything. We can never prove something to the fullest extent, we can merely state that as far as the best effort attempts to find out found out, it appears to be harmless. The original study that found the microplastics in human bodies stated that they were observed to be chemically inert and mechanically too small to interact with cellular structures, though which they appear to pass uninhibited.
The AC stalker edgy boy here is trying to continue with the PR narrative that much of journalist class grabbed on to to sell clicks that plastic garbage in the oceans is the same thing as microplastics, even though those are two completely separate issues, with separate causes and separate effects.
Like I said, in many countries, the spot exchanges literally mandate this, because laws and regulations require it.
Which in turn require it because wind and solar are intermittent generators who's generation capacity cannot be predicted reliably and is controlled by environmental factors largely outside human control. So to function in anything that even remotely resembles economical fashion, they must be given priority over generators who's output is human controlled and highly predictable.
This is not a wrong approach to take per se. It's just that you should have compensation for reliable generators so you don't end up like Denmark. A sovereign state that allowed this process to bankrupt the reliable producers, and is now paying a heavy price to Norwegian and Swedish grid operators because its spinning and cold reserve is now wholly dependent on their co-operation. And last year, those two literally demanded that not only does Denmark pay much more for this service, but it also cede full control over who gets to produce power over which time on Denmark's territory to Swedish and Norwegian grid operators.
They gave the same terms to us Finns to, to which we rightfully told them to get fucked. Unlike Denmark, our grid is not dependent on foreign interconnects for immediate reserves, so we could operate completely disconnected from Sweden in Norway in case of an emergency. Notably around here, it's mandated by the law that we cannot even cede control over who gets to generate electricity at what time to foreign entity for reasons of national security.
Denmark on the other hand is fucked because of its ideologically motivated choices, and those chickens have been coming home to roost over last few years in a very painful way.
First part of the last sentence is the one part you got right. Let's hope that you eventually realise that green dogma is anti-science sooner rather than later.
Of course, judging by the way you use language, your mental age is young enough that you can be forgiven for being an ignorant and opinionated twat. Just don't get old while retaining that kind of behaviour. What is forgivable at 20 is met with very harsh reaction at 40.
>Our results suggest that, although the central dogma of maternal inheritance of mtDNA remains valid, there are some exceptional cases where paternal mtDNA could be passed to the offspring.
It may need to be revisited, but considering the way abstract talks about their findings, it would make more sense to invest time in replicating this study's results and identifying these "exceptional cases" and what causes them.
Of course there are. But the problem has been solved for those who are willing to buy the tech. So it is in fact solved.
P.S. In your desperate anti-science dogma, you keep conflating microplastics with plastic garbage. Reminder: we are quite full of microplastics, and we don't eat them. We drink them. And as far as we know, and as people who found them kept reminding us in their study, they are in fact biologically inert and too small to cause mechanical damage. So I'll be fine.
You on the other hand really should stop shoving green anti-science dogma in your head. It's unhealthy.
It's ok, progress doesn't happen in a day. We'll give it a few years. Hopefully you'll grow up a bit, realise that anti-science part of green movement is quite awful, and maybe even learn enough basic human courtesy to apologise for being an asshole in addition to being wrong on basic facts.
Until then, I fully expect you to spout your inane anti-science dogma as AC. Break a leg.
But does it provide Mein Kampf quotes like the Boghossian's "study" did? Or make complex conclusions about human homosexuality based on dogs fucking in parks?
You can spam the religious nonsense that is modern grievance studies all you want. All that makes you is that one God freak in the room of atheists.
Both heavy metal emissions and SO2/NOx (substances that cause acid rain) problems have been solved in coal burning in larger plants quite a while ago. The problem that we cannot solve is CO2 emissions per power generated. It's too high.
Even that is only half of the truth. The other half is how much of Western world started treating electric generation vs consumption. On many spot markets, wind and solar get "first dibs", in that no one else gets to sell their generation until all of wind and solar are sold. This is followed by various power generation systems that are ranked in order of CO2 emissions. That means coal lands on the bottom, and is legally forbidden from selling when others are producing enough to cover the consumption.
Hence the lack of profitability. When you plant takes many hours to spin up or spin down, and you can't sell much of what you produce because you're forbidden from doing so even if you can sell at prices lower than competition, you're going to go into red very quickly.
That's why CCGTs are popping up. They can spin up and take load much faster, so when wind drops out of the grid, they can pick up the load and get paid premium for peaking, and they can also economically produce during longer periods of higher consumption. Add to that the unique situation in North America where fracking is producing massive amounts of natgas that is essentially free as a byproduct of oil extraction, and you have a situation where in developed countries, coal is really struggling.
But go outside developed countries, without the rules for punishing coal and subsidizing wind and solar, and situation reverses completely. Unlike natgas, biomass and other coal replacements in developed countries coal is inherently very cheap to extract, transport and store. That means that in developing world, coal continues to be one of the most economical sources of power.
The only problem with coal we still can't solve is CO2 emissions per power generated. It's just too high. But developing countries overwhelmingly don't care about it. They just go with what is inherently cheap and efficient. Which is more often than not coal.
We've finally reached the point where progressives are actually citing feminist studies as citable science. At this point one can no longer deny that progressivism is simply a religious movement that cannot get over its dogma.
Yes, I am. And you're that anti-science moron who still thinks that microplastics and plastic garbage in oceans are the same thing.
On the bright side, after getting -1 troll mods applied to your anti-science screeching over last month or so of stalking me across much of my posting history, you appear to have discovered the value of not being a complete and utter ass hat. Progress. We may get you to drop the anti-science shtick in a few years.
And the article references nvidia as taking a hit in this one, which is equally ignorant, as ethereum ASICs pushed GPU mining out completely a few months ago. It's why nvidia and its board partners are reported to have large warehouses full of unsold GTX 1060s, which were the most economical card to mine ethereum on before ASIC hit the market.
They are literally different diseases, that however result in extremely similar outcomes. Which is why we call them "diabetes" and then specify the type.
Being a slow killer simply means that cumulative effect on population is delayed. Eventually it will start being felt, and it will keep getting worse. This appears to be the beginning of this delayed effect showing on mortality rates. It will likely keep getting worse as more and more diabetics die early due to wide array of health complications that both type1 and type2 cause.
Fun part about your analogy. World average IQ is in fact about 20 points higher than it was about a hundred years ago. Biggest suppressing element on IQ until modernity was childhood starvation.
We still have the test cases in places like Malawi, where children were starving just a few decades ago. And now, they have a severe problem with competitiveness of work force against surrounding states, because those that were starving but survived as children have problems even at rudimentary tasks like doing housework due to depressed intelligence and are measurably lower on IQ scale on average than people of surrounding nations.
It's utterly crippling on civilizational scale, and that's how our ancestors were on average just a century or two ago. Perhaps genetic engineering will be the second "removal of childhood starvation" level of civilizational advancement in our lifetimes.
The primary ethical principle of any state is state survival. It overrides everything else.
That is because if you do not have survival, everything else is taken from you. This is not unique to humans, or even animals. This is a base principle of evolutionary process itself. And yes, that's one of the pathways to being the winners in the evolutionary race in the long run.
Once human genetic engineering become possible, a few hundred years in the future this kind of ethics will be the ethics held by those who will be known as "ancient ancestors that went extinct under competitive pressure with us".
Which is why anyone with interest in continuation of their lineage will now be pouring resources into it.
Most people living their comfortable lives in Western cities tend to forget something that everyone else remains acutely aware of. Evolution hasn't stopped. It's chugging on. And there's nothing as powerful as complacency to select one's tribe from gene pool.
Slashdot Mirror
Feel free to elaborate.
The world you're describing is diametrically opposed to any kind of observable reality. In real world, when you generate a solution for the problem that needs lack of this solution to persist, the problem either goes away entirely, or becomes small enough to be irrelevant.
Example: vaccination and mumps, measles and rubella. Just because some people don't vaccinate, and in some regions vaccines aren't used doesn't mean that problem of complications associated with mumps, measles and rubella infections haven't been solved.
Wait, you think that the acid from acid rain is still causing severe harm in regions where NOx and SO2 emissions have been taken care of?
Our biosphere has very powerful circulation of elements. The damage is taken care of in a matter of years by the normal activity of the nature itself if the cause is halted.
Even heavy metals get flushed out of the system eventually, through that tends to take longer. But luckily in most cases, heavy metal poisoning is extremely localized problem, to the point where contaminated area can simply be abandoned for a few decades with minimal economic impact. The only one that really can't be addressed this way is mercury, most specifically mercury in the oceans. And that is because mercury keeps getting emitted in developing countries that just don't care about emissions.
As someone who has family working in building various burners, I've no idea when you did what you claim to do, or if you ever did that. I do know for a fact that in US today, as well as EU the norms are overwhelmingly strictly enforced, and typically followed because there are economic incentives to hit certain targets on emissions in most developed countries over long period of time. Benefits that in some cases are so great that when fuel is below certain thresholds forcing the plant to emit more than is sufficient for certain economic incentive threshold to be hit, plant owner will literally execute a controlled shut down of the plant so they can maintain the sufficient buffer to be able to emit.
And since everything is logged on control systems of the plant, you didn't need people climbing smoke stacks in decades beyond replacing the sensors. You just make the query from each sensor. Falsifying this data is not just very hard to do, but would put actors who would agree to such an act in prison in most developing countries today.
So in your view, literally none of the problems humans had in primeval times have been solved, because there can be mistakes which lead to improper handling of the solution, which result in disastrous consequences?
In what world is that a sane view to hold?
You're not wrong on the matter of principle, but devil is, as usual, in the details. And in the details, it's specifically intermittent renewables (in case of Denmark, mostly offshore wind with some onshore wind). Those just don't work in modern grid without spinning and cold reserve that can back them up when they go offline because there's no wind or too fast wind.
Their problem was that in their favouring wind power over their existing burners (of various fuels), they created a situation where much of time, there was so much wind power that none of the burners could sell their electricity at all. So many companies that could be competitive if they were allowed to sell electricity went bankrupt. Which resulted in the fact that there wasn't enough spinning reserve to backup all that wind power.
Luckily Denmark already had high capacity interconnects to Norway and Sweden, both of which have excess hydro in their mountainous regions. Hydro makes for really good spinning reserve. Just let the water storage fill up by closing the flow valves when you don't need power, and open them and let them spin the turbines when you need power. But Denmark like much of Central European plain is pretty flat. No real hydro potential. Unlike the mountainous Norway and northern Sweden, where there's too much hydro capacity.
But that means Denmark became wholly dependent on foreign state for its energy security. And like anyone who concedes their energy security to foreign entity inevitably learns, that deal is truly a deal with the devil, even if devil looks like a nice friendly neighbour and terms and price look acceptable at the start.
That is a story of improper disposal of coal ash. How is it in any way relevant to my statement of:
>Both heavy metal emissions and SO2/NOx (substances that cause acid rain) problems have been solved in coal burning in larger plants quite a while ago. The problem that we cannot solve is CO2 emissions per power generated. It's too high.
Fracking doesn't exist on any meaningful scale outside North America. Renewables don't exist on a meaningful scale outside developed world.
Most of the world is not in these two categories, and cannot afford their power costs to go up further, nor do they have bureaucratic ability to enforce any meaningful environmental regulations.
Which is why you may potentially be correct for developing world, the rest of the world will keep up with consuming coal at ever increasing rates. It's just too cheap to extract, too easy to move around and store and too convenient and simple to burn in a controlled fashion.
I didn't say we know the effect to be harmless. I said that as far as we know right now, they're harmless. Which if you understand the scientific method, is literally the best that can be said about anything. We can never prove something to the fullest extent, we can merely state that as far as the best effort attempts to find out found out, it appears to be harmless. The original study that found the microplastics in human bodies stated that they were observed to be chemically inert and mechanically too small to interact with cellular structures, though which they appear to pass uninhibited.
The AC stalker edgy boy here is trying to continue with the PR narrative that much of journalist class grabbed on to to sell clicks that plastic garbage in the oceans is the same thing as microplastics, even though those are two completely separate issues, with separate causes and separate effects.
Like I said, in many countries, the spot exchanges literally mandate this, because laws and regulations require it.
Which in turn require it because wind and solar are intermittent generators who's generation capacity cannot be predicted reliably and is controlled by environmental factors largely outside human control. So to function in anything that even remotely resembles economical fashion, they must be given priority over generators who's output is human controlled and highly predictable.
This is not a wrong approach to take per se. It's just that you should have compensation for reliable generators so you don't end up like Denmark. A sovereign state that allowed this process to bankrupt the reliable producers, and is now paying a heavy price to Norwegian and Swedish grid operators because its spinning and cold reserve is now wholly dependent on their co-operation. And last year, those two literally demanded that not only does Denmark pay much more for this service, but it also cede full control over who gets to produce power over which time on Denmark's territory to Swedish and Norwegian grid operators.
They gave the same terms to us Finns to, to which we rightfully told them to get fucked. Unlike Denmark, our grid is not dependent on foreign interconnects for immediate reserves, so we could operate completely disconnected from Sweden in Norway in case of an emergency. Notably around here, it's mandated by the law that we cannot even cede control over who gets to generate electricity at what time to foreign entity for reasons of national security.
Denmark on the other hand is fucked because of its ideologically motivated choices, and those chickens have been coming home to roost over last few years in a very painful way.
First part of the last sentence is the one part you got right. Let's hope that you eventually realise that green dogma is anti-science sooner rather than later.
Of course, judging by the way you use language, your mental age is young enough that you can be forgiven for being an ignorant and opinionated twat. Just don't get old while retaining that kind of behaviour. What is forgivable at 20 is met with very harsh reaction at 40.
From the abstract:
>Our results suggest that, although the central dogma of maternal inheritance of mtDNA remains valid, there are some exceptional cases where paternal mtDNA could be passed to the offspring.
It may need to be revisited, but considering the way abstract talks about their findings, it would make more sense to invest time in replicating this study's results and identifying these "exceptional cases" and what causes them.
Of course there are. But the problem has been solved for those who are willing to buy the tech. So it is in fact solved.
P.S. In your desperate anti-science dogma, you keep conflating microplastics with plastic garbage. Reminder: we are quite full of microplastics, and we don't eat them. We drink them. And as far as we know, and as people who found them kept reminding us in their study, they are in fact biologically inert and too small to cause mechanical damage. So I'll be fine.
You on the other hand really should stop shoving green anti-science dogma in your head. It's unhealthy.
It's ok, progress doesn't happen in a day. We'll give it a few years. Hopefully you'll grow up a bit, realise that anti-science part of green movement is quite awful, and maybe even learn enough basic human courtesy to apologise for being an asshole in addition to being wrong on basic facts.
Until then, I fully expect you to spout your inane anti-science dogma as AC. Break a leg.
But does it provide Mein Kampf quotes like the Boghossian's "study" did? Or make complex conclusions about human homosexuality based on dogs fucking in parks?
You can spam the religious nonsense that is modern grievance studies all you want. All that makes you is that one God freak in the room of atheists.
Both heavy metal emissions and SO2/NOx (substances that cause acid rain) problems have been solved in coal burning in larger plants quite a while ago. The problem that we cannot solve is CO2 emissions per power generated. It's too high.
Even that is only half of the truth. The other half is how much of Western world started treating electric generation vs consumption. On many spot markets, wind and solar get "first dibs", in that no one else gets to sell their generation until all of wind and solar are sold. This is followed by various power generation systems that are ranked in order of CO2 emissions. That means coal lands on the bottom, and is legally forbidden from selling when others are producing enough to cover the consumption.
Hence the lack of profitability. When you plant takes many hours to spin up or spin down, and you can't sell much of what you produce because you're forbidden from doing so even if you can sell at prices lower than competition, you're going to go into red very quickly.
That's why CCGTs are popping up. They can spin up and take load much faster, so when wind drops out of the grid, they can pick up the load and get paid premium for peaking, and they can also economically produce during longer periods of higher consumption. Add to that the unique situation in North America where fracking is producing massive amounts of natgas that is essentially free as a byproduct of oil extraction, and you have a situation where in developed countries, coal is really struggling.
But go outside developed countries, without the rules for punishing coal and subsidizing wind and solar, and situation reverses completely. Unlike natgas, biomass and other coal replacements in developed countries coal is inherently very cheap to extract, transport and store. That means that in developing world, coal continues to be one of the most economical sources of power.
The only problem with coal we still can't solve is CO2 emissions per power generated. It's just too high. But developing countries overwhelmingly don't care about it. They just go with what is inherently cheap and efficient. Which is more often than not coal.
We've finally reached the point where progressives are actually citing feminist studies as citable science. At this point one can no longer deny that progressivism is simply a religious movement that cannot get over its dogma.
Yes, I am. And you're that anti-science moron who still thinks that microplastics and plastic garbage in oceans are the same thing.
On the bright side, after getting -1 troll mods applied to your anti-science screeching over last month or so of stalking me across much of my posting history, you appear to have discovered the value of not being a complete and utter ass hat. Progress. We may get you to drop the anti-science shtick in a few years.
And the article references nvidia as taking a hit in this one, which is equally ignorant, as ethereum ASICs pushed GPU mining out completely a few months ago. It's why nvidia and its board partners are reported to have large warehouses full of unsold GTX 1060s, which were the most economical card to mine ethereum on before ASIC hit the market.
They are literally different diseases, that however result in extremely similar outcomes. Which is why we call them "diabetes" and then specify the type.
Being a slow killer simply means that cumulative effect on population is delayed. Eventually it will start being felt, and it will keep getting worse. This appears to be the beginning of this delayed effect showing on mortality rates. It will likely keep getting worse as more and more diabetics die early due to wide array of health complications that both type1 and type2 cause.
Fun part about your analogy. World average IQ is in fact about 20 points higher than it was about a hundred years ago. Biggest suppressing element on IQ until modernity was childhood starvation.
We still have the test cases in places like Malawi, where children were starving just a few decades ago. And now, they have a severe problem with competitiveness of work force against surrounding states, because those that were starving but survived as children have problems even at rudimentary tasks like doing housework due to depressed intelligence and are measurably lower on IQ scale on average than people of surrounding nations.
It's utterly crippling on civilizational scale, and that's how our ancestors were on average just a century or two ago. Perhaps genetic engineering will be the second "removal of childhood starvation" level of civilizational advancement in our lifetimes.
The primary ethical principle of any state is state survival. It overrides everything else.
That is because if you do not have survival, everything else is taken from you. This is not unique to humans, or even animals. This is a base principle of evolutionary process itself. And yes, that's one of the pathways to being the winners in the evolutionary race in the long run.
Once human genetic engineering become possible, a few hundred years in the future this kind of ethics will be the ethics held by those who will be known as "ancient ancestors that went extinct under competitive pressure with us".
Which is why anyone with interest in continuation of their lineage will now be pouring resources into it.
Most people living their comfortable lives in Western cities tend to forget something that everyone else remains acutely aware of. Evolution hasn't stopped. It's chugging on. And there's nothing as powerful as complacency to select one's tribe from gene pool.