Either way, its a major flaw in the study when they don't include major costs of fossil fuel but do include those costs for electricity. Flagrant bias.
No, they don't include those costs for either. You are just viewing it through a flagrantly biased lens.
Even for a flightless creature, wings could certainly help it run faster and steadier, turn quicker, and/or leap further. I've got no clue, just sayin.....
There has not been much change in coal plant output since 2010/2012, or at least not enough to significantly change the conclusions, the data was clearly referenced so that anyone can adjust if they have better data. Nothing to hide.
The study does not 'forget' fuel extraction and transportation. They specifically, and right up front, state that they do not include the extraction and transportation of the coal fueling the EVs and Hybrids, nor the petrol fueling the ICE's and Hyrbids. It certainly takes more energy to extract 1 BTU of coal vs 1 BTU of petrol, so I doubt those factors would influence the results as much as you might hope.
"some in the know"..... might as well say, "anonymous people posting on reddit or similar".
The NBER says that your car is much cleaner in their study, so I guess you agree with them.
BTW, what do you base NBER labeling as a conservative think tank on? Is that just and excuse to dismiss information you don't like? They have plenty of study conclusions that support liberal & environmentalist agendas.
One example of its bias: It uses a "well to wheels" analysis of electric car energy use but for fossil fueled vehicles, it only uses the "pump to wheels" emissions, leaving out all of the energy impacts of extraction, refining and transportation of fossil fuels.
Apply your skepticism objectively, and you may get a different take. You clearly don't like the conclusions of the study. It seems reasonable to be.
Evidently, they are very clear that they did not include the price of energy extraction and transportation for the coal that powers the EV, the gas for the ICEs, nor the gas or coal for the Hybrids.
It seems open and reasonable. Extraction and distribution of a BTU of petroleum is much easier energy-wise than 1 BTU of coal. Due to a much lower energy density, transportation of a BTU of coal is likely more costly than petroleum as well. I doubt counting all those factors would have a bit impact on the results.
I'm sure the same people that are claiming this NBER study doesn't deserve consideration because it is not peer reviewed will at the same time embrace the information you reference which appears to be just patched together by a reporter. The NBER at least has a history of credible work and noble prize winning contributors.
This study appears to be very clear on what it takes into account, with the core data.
I don't understand some of the criticism. The results come out to what any reasonable person with an engineering background would expect. FWIW, extracting petroleum is much easier per BTU than extracting coal, so I actually am more skeptical of the conclusions of the reporter you reference. The "amount of electricity" used is really not even important, as much of the energy used is not electrical.
I suppose in the US shopkeepers collectively increase their prices to compensate for the credit card 'cut'.
Correct, prices reflect the average cost based on how much cash and credit transactions they typically have, although some gas stations still do have a higher price for credit card vs cash. Europe seems to be catching up in that regard, accepting that cost at more and more places and using the cards. That's nice for me because its less Euro cash I need to mess with when there.
If you were as objective you might realize that many, and in fact most Republicans do not deny that AGW exists. Making it a political battle only forces people to defend and take sides, and basically stagnates progress. It is interesting to see that most GW threads are seized as opportunities to bash political parties or religious people. When has that approach ever yielded progress on anything? If anything, it is biasing our solutions to be those that are most politically popular, and not most effective.
Good to see you guys catching up on credit cards. When are you going to finally modernize your banking system as well?;)
Oddly enough, over that last decade I have spent a lot of time in Germany and there were still many small shops that don't accept cards due to the fees, while cards had already become almost ubiquitous in the US.
I bought a used car with cash. The owner gave me a reduced price vs check. I got a good deal, he got the cash he wanted.
I carry cash around for tips, so I make sure the waiter/waitress gets theirs.
I buy food with cash at the local farmers market because its faster than paying with a card. They prefer it as well, there is a cost adder for them to take credit.
By default it's usually the other persons fault, but I have seen cars slowing down quickly or suddenly causing rear enders so maybe at "11" it is their fault.
Legally and technically it is always the persons fault that rear-ends someone. However, stopping abruptly or in a poorly chosen place can be a contributor. Also, I have more than once seen a car coming up behind me rapidly and have moved to help increase stopping distance for them.
I am not saying any of these apply to Google cars incidents, just making the general point regarding rear-enders. Safe driving doesn't just mean not being at fault.
They could simply run some air duct tubes through the insulation near the batteries, then open/close dampers as needed. Very little energy used or added weight required.
What are you claiming, that under certain conditions you can have a compressed music file sound like and uncompressed one? That I would agree with, but unless ABX tests show detailed audio results of compressed music across the board, at low bitrates as well as high, compared with master copies, I'd say you totally missed my points.
I agree there are ridiculous audiophile claims out there, and a lot of psychology at play, but to broadly claim that lossy compression cannot degrade quality is just is ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
Your sources are not so 'objective' themselves.
Either way, its a major flaw in the study when they don't include major costs of fossil fuel but do include those costs for electricity. Flagrant bias.
No, they don't include those costs for either. You are just viewing it through a flagrantly biased lens.
No, I am not saying that. Why would you think I was?
Even for a flightless creature, wings could certainly help it run faster and steadier, turn quicker, and/or leap further. I've got no clue, just sayin.....
There has not been much change in coal plant output since 2010/2012, or at least not enough to significantly change the conclusions, the data was clearly referenced so that anyone can adjust if they have better data. Nothing to hide.
The study does not 'forget' fuel extraction and transportation. They specifically, and right up front, state that they do not include the extraction and transportation of the coal fueling the EVs and Hybrids, nor the petrol fueling the ICE's and Hyrbids. It certainly takes more energy to extract 1 BTU of coal vs 1 BTU of petrol, so I doubt those factors would influence the results as much as you might hope.
"some in the know"..... might as well say, "anonymous people posting on reddit or similar".
The NBER says that your car is much cleaner in their study, so I guess you agree with them.
BTW, what do you base NBER labeling as a conservative think tank on? Is that just and excuse to dismiss information you don't like? They have plenty of study conclusions that support liberal & environmentalist agendas.
One example of its bias: It uses a "well to wheels" analysis of electric car energy use but for fossil fueled vehicles, it only uses the "pump to wheels" emissions, leaving out all of the energy impacts of extraction, refining and transportation of fossil fuels.
Apply your skepticism objectively, and you may get a different take. You clearly don't like the conclusions of the study. It seems reasonable to be.
Evidently, they are very clear that they did not include the price of energy extraction and transportation for the coal that powers the EV, the gas for the ICEs, nor the gas or coal for the Hybrids.
It seems open and reasonable. Extraction and distribution of a BTU of petroleum is much easier energy-wise than 1 BTU of coal. Due to a much lower energy density, transportation of a BTU of coal is likely more costly than petroleum as well. I doubt counting all those factors would have a bit impact on the results.
I'm sure the same people that are claiming this NBER study doesn't deserve consideration because it is not peer reviewed will at the same time embrace the information you reference which appears to be just patched together by a reporter. The NBER at least has a history of credible work and noble prize winning contributors.
This study appears to be very clear on what it takes into account, with the core data.
I don't understand some of the criticism. The results come out to what any reasonable person with an engineering background would expect. FWIW, extracting petroleum is much easier per BTU than extracting coal, so I actually am more skeptical of the conclusions of the reporter you reference. The "amount of electricity" used is really not even important, as much of the energy used is not electrical.
I suppose in the US shopkeepers collectively increase their prices to compensate for the credit card 'cut'.
Correct, prices reflect the average cost based on how much cash and credit transactions they typically have, although some gas stations still do have a higher price for credit card vs cash. Europe seems to be catching up in that regard, accepting that cost at more and more places and using the cards. That's nice for me because its less Euro cash I need to mess with when there.
If you were as objective you might realize that many, and in fact most Republicans do not deny that AGW exists. Making it a political battle only forces people to defend and take sides, and basically stagnates progress. It is interesting to see that most GW threads are seized as opportunities to bash political parties or religious people. When has that approach ever yielded progress on anything? If anything, it is biasing our solutions to be those that are most politically popular, and not most effective.
Ex Machina is the best
The best since Dot Matrix.
I bet it tastes good with bacon on it.
Good to see you guys catching up on credit cards. When are you going to finally modernize your banking system as well? ;)
Oddly enough, over that last decade I have spent a lot of time in Germany and there were still many small shops that don't accept cards due to the fees, while cards had already become almost ubiquitous in the US.
I bought a used car with cash. The owner gave me a reduced price vs check. I got a good deal, he got the cash he wanted.
I carry cash around for tips, so I make sure the waiter/waitress gets theirs.
I buy food with cash at the local farmers market because its faster than paying with a card. They prefer it as well, there is a cost adder for them to take credit.
I wonder if they even teach about highway passing lanes anymore.
By default it's usually the other persons fault, but I have seen cars slowing down quickly or suddenly causing rear enders so maybe at "11" it is their fault.
Legally and technically it is always the persons fault that rear-ends someone. However, stopping abruptly or in a poorly chosen place can be a contributor. Also, I have more than once seen a car coming up behind me rapidly and have moved to help increase stopping distance for them.
I am not saying any of these apply to Google cars incidents, just making the general point regarding rear-enders. Safe driving doesn't just mean not being at fault.
They could simply run some air duct tubes through the insulation near the batteries, then open/close dampers as needed. Very little energy used or added weight required.
Not when I see it so often in failed rebut attempts between others. How often do you use it?
So, he must base his present opinion of quality on old standards? Is it wrong to expect more nowadays?
Ahh, the common call of the 'strawman' when, in fact, you describe your own behavior as well.
Exactly. We all know that standard for smoothness is a baby's bottom. They need to use the BB scale.
Nobody has made the claim that lossy compression never perceptively degrades quality. You argument is a straw man.
Well, I guess your interpretation of 'cannot tell the difference', is different than mine.
Well, that wasn't one of his songs. Their is a reason his was considered great, and it wasn't his voice.
What are you claiming, that under certain conditions you can have a compressed music file sound like and uncompressed one? That I would agree with, but unless ABX tests show detailed audio results of compressed music across the board, at low bitrates as well as high, compared with master copies, I'd say you totally missed my points.
I agree there are ridiculous audiophile claims out there, and a lot of psychology at play, but to broadly claim that lossy compression cannot degrade quality is just is ridiculous.
As soon as they start charging people. He said he doesn't want people paying for inferior quality.