Around here there are properties that had to be written off because tunnels or more often mines dug under them caused problems. Water companies occasionally have to pay out because of burst underground pipes.
For this particular project I'd like to know what happens if there is an accident and a fire in the tunnel. Lithium batteries, gasoline, confined but ventilated space... Say the concrete melts, what then? What kind of fire suppression do they have?
I'm sure they have figured all this stuff out, but we have to check.
Dark sunglasses might work better, at least that way they can't so easily tell if you are paying any attention to their ad. Maybe some IR LEDs to blind their cameras.
It's probably not an issue with wildlife, but an issue with digging under people's property. There have to be checks done to make sure that digging won't cause subsidence of buildings on the surface, or affect things like wells. There can also be issues with drainage and underground waterways that get diverted by the tunnel, which can have knock on effects.
Voters didn't like the impeachment of Clinton, it didn't help the Republicans. What I'm saying is that it would be better for the Democrats to stay out of it and to let prosecutors deal with him, maybe just assisting with some subpoenas.
Well the US has a few differences. The main one being that it's starting from a much worse position in terms of per-capita emissions, and a lot of the big and relatively easy wins like improving buildings or installing basic energy saving tech was done in Europe long ago. Even now the average European has a much more efficient house/workplace and vehicle.
The US also had more coal mining operations that closed recently, helping it go downwards. It also pumped a lot of money into the economy to get out of the 2008 crash faster than Europe did, so the bounce back came much sooner.
This could be what takes ad-blocking mainstream. Imagine driving down the road and the billboard suddenly changes to show you the new Ford SUX Rockhard, with the slogan "IS YOURS BIG ENOUGH?" and a young lady dressed in some very specific fetish gear draped over it. Then it photoshops your contorted face behind the wheel and you curse yourself for not unplugging your webcam before visiting xHamster.
The EU is already doing a lot to reduce its emissions. The much hyped increase in the last year is just a correction after the economic downturn of 2008, but the trend is still firmly downwards and it's undeniable that a lot of money and regulation is going in to addressing the issue.
Also note that the targets are set by each country, so if the EU really wanted to meet them it could just set easy ones. Most EU countries were ambitious and set their goals low enough to be a challenge, to create the impetus to act.
Having said that it's true that certain countries could do a lot more. The UK recently cut the incentives for EVs, for example. I expect post-Brexit many other schemes will go out the window too.
As I explained, China is developing rapidly. Just like the US would never accept targets that destroyed its economy, neither would China. So for China the goal is to peak as early as possible and then come down as fast as possible.
Note that China exceeded its original goal that was considered ambitious and is on target for its Paris goal.
The US, like other western nations, enjoyed the same economic benefits of emitting CO2 in the last century, so it's entirely fair and reasonable.
Well you could start by reading EDF's Wikipedia page. The French version is best but the English one catalogues their financial woes too.
Basically their nuclear stuff is so expensive and risky that they keep running out of money and having to delay to take more bail-outs from the government.
Brexit has pretty much killed off the other "leave" movements in the EU. Everyone has seen that the milk and honey fantasy was impossible. They know their politicians won't do any better, and see how the EU has presented a united, strong front the whole way through.
There will be some economic harm, but in some ways Brexit has actually been a benefit to the EU. As well as discouraging anyone else thinking of leaving, it's created an opportunity to reform and move ahead without Britain holding it back.
France, with about 70% nuclear and very little renewable energy, has by far the cheapest electricity prices in Europe
Only because the real price is hidden from you. Those nuclear plants are heavily, heavily subsidised. And now they are too big to fail, it's basically corporate welfare for the likes of EDF. French voters are fed up with it, they know that the kWh price they pay is only a fraction of the cost.
That's an oversimplification that leads to the wrong conclusion.
For a start there are times when there clearly are benefits to using less energy, such as anything that is battery powered. The less energy you use, the smaller you can make the battery and the longer it will last between charges.
Lower energy consumption also means better performance in many applications. Your CPU could go faster if it wasn't for the fact that it would melt. There is always waste heat, and often it's a limiting factor. From phones to EVs.
High power devices are often worse in other ways too, e.g. air-con creates annoying chills and uneven temperature around the building compared to a well designed passively cooled building, even if the energy to run that air-con is free and clean. And of course it's never really free, solar panels cost money.
The goal should always be to improve quality of life in a sustainable way, and for the most part reducing
That's like saying depression is the disease of being sad. It's not that they don't want to be confined, it's that unlike most people they can't handle it to the extent that without treatment they can't function in normal society.
People of the country wanted some bizarre fantasy that was little more than a fever dream. Now that reality is setting in they are less keen.
Considering how that bullshit was sold to them I'm not convinced that they wouldn't support leaving the ECHR. Maybe now they are more skeptical. We can only hope.
How is it any different from western journals that publish any old crap, most of which can't be reproduced or is flawed anyway? How is it different from all the pseudo-science we put up such as alternative medicine and endless Kickstarter scams?
There is plenty of good science being done in China. Lots of money being thrown at it, and a good standard of living on offer. The pay has to be good because it's hard for foreigners there; the language is hard, the internet censorship is a massive pain in the arse because a lot of western services are blocked and of course people worry about it not being a democracy or having a strong, independent legal system.
They always say "check the description down below for the link", and I'm like "how do I do that on my smart TV? can't you just put the URL on the screen or a QR code I can scan with my phone?"
But alas they always make me open the video again on my phone or PC just to get that link.
It's even worse when there are vital corrections in the description, and I never see it because a) I usually watch on a smart TV and b) I rarely look at the description even on desktop.
A compromise solution would be forced subtitles. Unclickable to prevent abuse.
May is in charge of Brexit. How does she have "fuck all to do with Brexit or the EU"?
The fact is that the UK could not leave the ECHR while still in the EU. May has said she wants to repeal the UK implementation and replace it with something that lets her abuse people's human rights. Her post-referendum support of Brexit has focused on xenophobia (like the "jumping the queue" bullshit).
So what about the widespread opposition to further subsidies to nuclear power companies like EDF? The French electorate are kind of fed up of bailing them out when their nuclear plants fail to be profitable or experience expensive problems that need fixing. Worse still a lot of that money is flowing overseas with vague promises that there will be some ROI one day maybe, thanks to multiple failing construction projects around the EU.
Commercial nuclear in France is a basket case, reliant on government support just to survive and keep the lights on. Too big to fail, continually writing off assets and downgrading valuations.
If the Cors Des Comptes is screaming about renewable subsidies they must being having a heart attack over the nuclear ones.
Cheaper, cleaner, no dangerous waste output or tricky decommissioning, and it's proven technology that can be exported.
The French are fed up of throwing money at nuclear. It became a form of corporate welfare for energy companies like EDF.
If it was just about science we would be throwing money at fusion, but it's about what is affordable for tax/utility bill payers and what is an acceptable risk for investors.
Slashdot Mirror
Around here there are properties that had to be written off because tunnels or more often mines dug under them caused problems. Water companies occasionally have to pay out because of burst underground pipes.
For this particular project I'd like to know what happens if there is an accident and a fire in the tunnel. Lithium batteries, gasoline, confined but ventilated space... Say the concrete melts, what then? What kind of fire suppression do they have?
I'm sure they have figured all this stuff out, but we have to check.
IR LEDs might be a more practical option. They tend to blind most cameras but are invisible to the naked eye.
Biometric data can only be processed with explicit permission from the subject. It would have to be opt-in.
Disgust = engagement.
Dark sunglasses might work better, at least that way they can't so easily tell if you are paying any attention to their ad. Maybe some IR LEDs to blind their cameras.
It's probably not an issue with wildlife, but an issue with digging under people's property. There have to be checks done to make sure that digging won't cause subsidence of buildings on the surface, or affect things like wells. There can also be issues with drainage and underground waterways that get diverted by the tunnel, which can have knock on effects.
Voters didn't like the impeachment of Clinton, it didn't help the Republicans. What I'm saying is that it would be better for the Democrats to stay out of it and to let prosecutors deal with him, maybe just assisting with some subpoenas.
Well the US has a few differences. The main one being that it's starting from a much worse position in terms of per-capita emissions, and a lot of the big and relatively easy wins like improving buildings or installing basic energy saving tech was done in Europe long ago. Even now the average European has a much more efficient house/workplace and vehicle.
The US also had more coal mining operations that closed recently, helping it go downwards. It also pumped a lot of money into the economy to get out of the 2008 crash faster than Europe did, so the bounce back came much sooner.
This could be what takes ad-blocking mainstream. Imagine driving down the road and the billboard suddenly changes to show you the new Ford SUX Rockhard, with the slogan "IS YOURS BIG ENOUGH?" and a young lady dressed in some very specific fetish gear draped over it. Then it photoshops your contorted face behind the wheel and you curse yourself for not unplugging your webcam before visiting xHamster.
The EU is already doing a lot to reduce its emissions. The much hyped increase in the last year is just a correction after the economic downturn of 2008, but the trend is still firmly downwards and it's undeniable that a lot of money and regulation is going in to addressing the issue.
Also note that the targets are set by each country, so if the EU really wanted to meet them it could just set easy ones. Most EU countries were ambitious and set their goals low enough to be a challenge, to create the impetus to act.
Having said that it's true that certain countries could do a lot more. The UK recently cut the incentives for EVs, for example. I expect post-Brexit many other schemes will go out the window too.
Ah, okay, well that makes more sense.
As I explained, China is developing rapidly. Just like the US would never accept targets that destroyed its economy, neither would China. So for China the goal is to peak as early as possible and then come down as fast as possible.
Note that China exceeded its original goal that was considered ambitious and is on target for its Paris goal.
The US, like other western nations, enjoyed the same economic benefits of emitting CO2 in the last century, so it's entirely fair and reasonable.
Well you could start by reading EDF's Wikipedia page. The French version is best but the English one catalogues their financial woes too.
Basically their nuclear stuff is so expensive and risky that they keep running out of money and having to delay to take more bail-outs from the government.
https://www.ft.com/content/04d...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk...
Of course the government has no choice, if EDF failed they would have to nationalize it anyway to keep the lights on.
Brexit has pretty much killed off the other "leave" movements in the EU. Everyone has seen that the milk and honey fantasy was impossible. They know their politicians won't do any better, and see how the EU has presented a united, strong front the whole way through.
There will be some economic harm, but in some ways Brexit has actually been a benefit to the EU. As well as discouraging anyone else thinking of leaving, it's created an opportunity to reform and move ahead without Britain holding it back.
On-shore wind is profitable even without subsidy in Europe. The rest is subsidised at far lower rates than nuclear now.
France, with about 70% nuclear and very little renewable energy, has by far the cheapest electricity prices in Europe
Only because the real price is hidden from you. Those nuclear plants are heavily, heavily subsidised. And now they are too big to fail, it's basically corporate welfare for the likes of EDF. French voters are fed up with it, they know that the kWh price they pay is only a fraction of the cost.
That's an oversimplification that leads to the wrong conclusion.
For a start there are times when there clearly are benefits to using less energy, such as anything that is battery powered. The less energy you use, the smaller you can make the battery and the longer it will last between charges.
Lower energy consumption also means better performance in many applications. Your CPU could go faster if it wasn't for the fact that it would melt. There is always waste heat, and often it's a limiting factor. From phones to EVs.
High power devices are often worse in other ways too, e.g. air-con creates annoying chills and uneven temperature around the building compared to a well designed passively cooled building, even if the energy to run that air-con is free and clean. And of course it's never really free, solar panels cost money.
The goal should always be to improve quality of life in a sustainable way, and for the most part reducing
That's like saying depression is the disease of being sad. It's not that they don't want to be confined, it's that unlike most people they can't handle it to the extent that without treatment they can't function in normal society.
The people of the country wanted to leave the EU.
People of the country wanted some bizarre fantasy that was little more than a fever dream. Now that reality is setting in they are less keen.
Considering how that bullshit was sold to them I'm not convinced that they wouldn't support leaving the ECHR. Maybe now they are more skeptical. We can only hope.
How is it any different from western journals that publish any old crap, most of which can't be reproduced or is flawed anyway? How is it different from all the pseudo-science we put up such as alternative medicine and endless Kickstarter scams?
There is plenty of good science being done in China. Lots of money being thrown at it, and a good standard of living on offer. The pay has to be good because it's hard for foreigners there; the language is hard, the internet censorship is a massive pain in the arse because a lot of western services are blocked and of course people worry about it not being a democracy or having a strong, independent legal system.
They always say "check the description down below for the link", and I'm like "how do I do that on my smart TV? can't you just put the URL on the screen or a QR code I can scan with my phone?"
But alas they always make me open the video again on my phone or PC just to get that link.
It's even worse when there are vital corrections in the description, and I never see it because a) I usually watch on a smart TV and b) I rarely look at the description even on desktop.
A compromise solution would be forced subtitles. Unclickable to prevent abuse.
Trump
facts
CHINA
International Kum-Bay-Yah
SJW virtue-signaling
West-hating ecomarxist apologists
You really went out of your way to undermine whatever point you were trying to make there.
What makes you think that these closings are due to fear? Seems like there are very compelling economic reasons to move away from nuclear power.
If she was the only one I wouldn't worry, but the danger is that she gets replaced by one of the Brexiteers who wants rid of the ECHR too.
May is in charge of Brexit. How does she have "fuck all to do with Brexit or the EU"?
The fact is that the UK could not leave the ECHR while still in the EU. May has said she wants to repeal the UK implementation and replace it with something that lets her abuse people's human rights. Her post-referendum support of Brexit has focused on xenophobia (like the "jumping the queue" bullshit).
So what about the widespread opposition to further subsidies to nuclear power companies like EDF? The French electorate are kind of fed up of bailing them out when their nuclear plants fail to be profitable or experience expensive problems that need fixing. Worse still a lot of that money is flowing overseas with vague promises that there will be some ROI one day maybe, thanks to multiple failing construction projects around the EU.
Commercial nuclear in France is a basket case, reliant on government support just to survive and keep the lights on. Too big to fail, continually writing off assets and downgrading valuations.
If the Cors Des Comptes is screaming about renewable subsidies they must being having a heart attack over the nuclear ones.
Cheaper, cleaner, no dangerous waste output or tricky decommissioning, and it's proven technology that can be exported.
The French are fed up of throwing money at nuclear. It became a form of corporate welfare for energy companies like EDF.
If it was just about science we would be throwing money at fusion, but it's about what is affordable for tax/utility bill payers and what is an acceptable risk for investors.