This death is not medically attributed to Fukushima. It is simply the result of a legal requirement that all cancers in workers who worked at Fukushima and got a certain level of exposure be attributed to Fukushima so that they cover medical costs. Its a social/cultural thing they do,
‘Safety regulators say workers can be safely exposed to up to 50 millisieverts a year, but if a worker with an accumulated 100 millisieverts develops an illness after five years of exposure, that can be ruled an occupational injury. According to an expert cited by the Mainichi Shimbun, a daily newspaper, the man had been exposed to 74 millisieverts at the Fukushima plant since the accident.’
Medical science tells us that such a cancer is highly unlikely to be caused by exposures at these levels. There is a huge body of science to back this up.
Too easy to fool the media. Does anybody even think about the details.
And when the car needs service, Mercedes can rely on their existing service infrastructure. Tesla may have trouble keeping their customers happy with limited service locations. High end buyers care about service.
If Mercedes is really going to sell electric cars, Tesla will have completion in their niche market, which means Tesla is more rapidly running out of runway. Now they have price competition and less of a differentiator for their products. Their margin for error was always pretty small, but this will only make it smaller.
I think Musk sees this coming, which explains his erratic behavior of late as CEO of Tesla. I hope I'm wrong, but it doesn't look like he's taking the stress very well.
Seems like Goldman Sachs agrees. They have stock rates as a sell and think it will drop to $210. Bad news for those hoping they'd recover to the $360 convertible debt strike price by February. With production numbers falling behind recent targets, it is hard to see how the stock can be lifted that much in the next 6 months. With competition coming in their high end niche, and with the apparent struggles to find a way to be profitable off of something in the mid priced range, they have some tough challenges ahead.
Also, since you will ignore me, you should look up the answers of why CO2 emissions improvement due to wind a solar additions is failing in Germany. There is plenty of information available, why do you remain ignorant to it? Here is one, there are plenty more just some google searches away.
I've shown it multiple times yet you argue. CO2/KWh has not significantly reduced in Germany with the expansion of wind and solar starting around 2008
Does not make sense if renewables rose from ~20% to ~40%...
Should be a no brainer.
How should CO2 per kW/h not shrink if you double the amount of renewable power?
Because you are using more coal and gas which are required to offset intermittance. And because you fail to distinquish the wind and solar part of what you call 'renewables'. Wind and solar, which is the subject matter, are not 40% annual generation.
Because I don't search for stuff like this, why don't you search yourself?
I know the answer. I've shown it multiple times yet you argue. CO2/KWh has not significantly reduced in Germany with the expansion of wind and solar starting around 2008 (or earlier in 2000s if it makes your feel better) and later under Energiewende. The most significant additions being in those years till present. With essentially zero improvement in C02/kwh emissions.
Anecdotes about isolated wind projects are irrelevant.
Germany did have big gains in the past, as you say, when they added nuclear;
I see you still avoid quoting CO2/MWH hr output due to wind and solar additions Improvements due to other factor back in the 1900's really doesn't matter. Wind and solar were not added in significance until around 2008.
Their are charts that show the answer. You will avoid showing them.
Dude, no idea what you want to say.
Last year we produced about 33%-38% of electricity CO2 free.
This year in summer, we already are at 50%, but going towards winter, that might drop.
And: unlike you, I follow the discussion close enough to know that you got bombarded with dozens of links regarding to this topic by other/.ers
I gave you two institutions to check, fraunhofer.de and energy-dingsbums org, don't have it on my tablet, just look in the history. They answer all your questions.
So: I already know that you have links proofing my point. Why do you bother me searching the same links for you again?
Why don't you quote what matter, CO2/KWH annually? You avoid it because you know that it hasn't been improving significantly.
You seem to fail to have a grasp of basic electrical fundamentals. Power flows toward loads from sources. You don't direct power down a certain line. Import/export agreements are basically availability agreements. They simply monitor the flow.
The western grid of Germany uses imports from France to help balance. Its pretty obvious. The power flow in constantly fluctuating, meeting the needs of Germany.
We all know you just say stuff based on what you believe, not facts.
Germany depends on importing power intermittently from France to maintain their stability and exports
That is your interpretation, as you don't know how the european wide grid and market works.
You demonstrate repetitively you don't know how the grid works. Those changes in imports from France are not market decisions, they are response to demand.
When I work, you pay me for it. When you consider it work that I read emails, you pay me for it. You don't pay me when I commute, I won't read emails when I commute.
It is actually that simple.
My work and off work life are so mixed I don't even care. I'll gladly answer some emails off hours, I leave early if I need, work from home if I need, run errands during the workday, etc. It allows me to better manage all my time. I realize not everyone is in a similar situation.
I'd be much more impressed if these companies/states just did it without having to press-release it all.
And even after they did it, why brag about? We will all just notice how much cooler our globe is and move on.
But they won't even do it. They'll be powered by the same grid mix as everyone around them. If they invest in renewable capacity additions, they are certainly entitled to take credit for that, but they are still depending on non-renewable power to operate.
I see why you are confused. You are pointing to grid pricing, not retail pricing. Grid pricing does not include transmission and infrastructure costs, idling costs, reserve costs, it most important of all it is post subsidy.
I showed you the the retail prices, those reflect systemic prices and subsidy corrections via taxes and fees.
Slashdot Mirror
This death is not medically attributed to Fukushima. It is simply the result of a legal requirement that all cancers in workers who worked at Fukushima and got a certain level of exposure be attributed to Fukushima so that they cover medical costs. Its a social/cultural thing they do,
... ipad-share1
‘Safety regulators say workers can be safely exposed to up to 50 millisieverts a year, but if a worker with an accumulated 100 millisieverts develops an illness after five years of exposure, that can be ruled an occupational injury. According to an expert cited by the Mainichi Shimbun, a daily newspaper, the man had been exposed to 74 millisieverts at the Fukushima plant since the accident.’
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...
Medical science tells us that such a cancer is highly unlikely to be caused by exposures at these levels. There is a huge body of science to back this up.
Too easy to fool the media. Does anybody even think about the details.
And when the car needs service, Mercedes can rely on their existing service infrastructure. Tesla may have trouble keeping their customers happy with limited service locations. High end buyers care about service.
If Mercedes is really going to sell electric cars, Tesla will have completion in their niche market, which means Tesla is more rapidly running out of runway. Now they have price competition and less of a differentiator for their products. Their margin for error was always pretty small, but this will only make it smaller.
I think Musk sees this coming, which explains his erratic behavior of late as CEO of Tesla. I hope I'm wrong, but it doesn't look like he's taking the stress very well.
Seems like Goldman Sachs agrees. They have stock rates as a sell and think it will drop to $210. Bad news for those hoping they'd recover to the $360 convertible debt strike price by February. With production numbers falling behind recent targets, it is hard to see how the stock can be lifted that much in the next 6 months. With competition coming in their high end niche, and with the apparent struggles to find a way to be profitable off of something in the mid priced range, they have some tough challenges ahead.
Another perspective; If you look at the list of possible safety improvements, why would this one be chosen to invest in?
Also, since you will ignore me, you should look up the answers of why CO2 emissions improvement due to wind a solar additions is failing in Germany. There is plenty of information available, why do you remain ignorant to it? Here is one, there are plenty more just some google searches away.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
I've shown it multiple times yet you argue. CO2/KWh has not significantly reduced in Germany with the expansion of wind and solar starting around 2008
Does not make sense if renewables rose from ~20% to ~40% ...
Should be a no brainer.
How should CO2 per kW/h not shrink if you double the amount of renewable power?
Because you are using more coal and gas which are required to offset intermittance. And because you fail to distinquish the wind and solar part of what you call 'renewables'. Wind and solar, which is the subject matter, are not 40% annual generation.
Because I don't search for stuff like this, why don't you search yourself?
I know the answer. I've shown it multiple times yet you argue. CO2/KWh has not significantly reduced in Germany with the expansion of wind and solar starting around 2008 (or earlier in 2000s if it makes your feel better) and later under Energiewende. The most significant additions being in those years till present. With essentially zero improvement in C02/kwh emissions.
Anecdotes about isolated wind projects are irrelevant.
Germany did have big gains in the past, as you say, when they added nuclear;
http://petrushelsinki.net/wp-c...
I see you still avoid quoting CO2/MWH hr output due to wind and solar additions Improvements due to other factor back in the 1900's really doesn't matter. Wind and solar were not added in significance until around 2008.
Their are charts that show the answer. You will avoid showing them.
I know you don't care if you are correct, but I and others do.
Dude, no idea what you want to say. Last year we produced about 33%-38% of electricity CO2 free. This year in summer, we already are at 50%, but going towards winter, that might drop.
And: unlike you, I follow the discussion close enough to know that you got bombarded with dozens of links regarding to this topic by other /.ers
I gave you two institutions to check, fraunhofer.de and energy-dingsbums org, don't have it on my tablet, just look in the history. They answer all your questions.
So: I already know that you have links proofing my point. Why do you bother me searching the same links for you again?
Why don't you quote what matter, CO2/KWH annually? You avoid it because you know that it hasn't been improving significantly.
Tired of your BS.
France is a net importer of power from Germany ... just in case you did not know.
I am so tired of you just saying stuff that is completely wrong. Once again, you prove you don't know anything.
Import/Export;
2017 Germany to France: 2.2 TWh
2017 France to Germany: 6.2 TWh
2018 Germany to France: 0.8 TWh
2018 France to Germany: 6.9 TWh
https://www.energy-charts.de/e...
Please stop responding to my posts with your ignorance.
I've looked, many times, CO2 per kwh in Germany has not significantly improved. Prices have risen significantly.
You seem to fail to have a grasp of basic electrical fundamentals. Power flows toward loads from sources. You don't direct power down a certain line. Import/export agreements are basically availability agreements. They simply monitor the flow.
The western grid of Germany uses imports from France to help balance. Its pretty obvious. The power flow in constantly fluctuating, meeting the needs of Germany.
We all know you just say stuff based on what you believe, not facts.
Germany depends on importing power intermittently from France to maintain their stability and exports That is your interpretation, as you don't know how the european wide grid and market works.
You demonstrate repetitively you don't know how the grid works. Those changes in imports from France are not market decisions, they are response to demand.
So, you can't show any CO2 reductions. Thanks
I really can't imagine the degree of cowardice necessary to actually pay someone to inform an employer that you're quitting.
A social avoidance generation? It'll get worse when they reproduce. They'll be paying services to tell their kids its time to go to bed.
Wow, my comment went from +4 Funny to -1 Troll.
Quite the turn of events...
I paid a service to moderate the forum for me. Look like I need to fire them.
Agreed. And I also charge in 15 minute increments. But I'm a contractor.
My rules are; - get my work done - be available when needed. - put in my hours
There may be more leaks. Someone needs to go outside and brush soapy water over the whole station.
You can get to the bottom without racing there.
When I work, you pay me for it. When you consider it work that I read emails, you pay me for it. You don't pay me when I commute, I won't read emails when I commute.
It is actually that simple.
My work and off work life are so mixed I don't even care. I'll gladly answer some emails off hours, I leave early if I need, work from home if I need, run errands during the workday, etc. It allows me to better manage all my time. I realize not everyone is in a similar situation.
Who cares what researchers say. What counts as work to a company is whatever the company says counts.
Do researches want to subtract time on slashdot during work?
Unfortunately, what's obvious to you and me falls on deaf ears to those that have an oversimplified view of how it all works. Very frustrating.
I'd be much more impressed if these companies/states just did it without having to press-release it all.
And even after they did it, why brag about? We will all just notice how much cooler our globe is and move on.
But they won't even do it. They'll be powered by the same grid mix as everyone around them. If they invest in renewable capacity additions, they are certainly entitled to take credit for that, but they are still depending on non-renewable power to operate.
I see why you are confused. You are pointing to grid pricing, not retail pricing. Grid pricing does not include transmission and infrastructure costs, idling costs, reserve costs, it most important of all it is post subsidy.
I showed you the the retail prices, those reflect systemic prices and subsidy corrections via taxes and fees.