But if prices are negative, why don't they just feather the wind mills? No point in producing energy and paying for it, might as well shut them down if there's too much supply and too little demand.
EU and German law requires wind and solar to take priority over all other sources, so that last thing you are allowed to curtail is wind. Wind is only 15% total annual generation in Germany, if they want much higher penetration, they will need to curtail wind a lot more, which will make the cost of wind rise.
Exactly. Spot prices don't reflect real cost, average prices over time do correlate.
Regardless, this headline makes it out to be a good thing. Wild market volatility and negative pricing are symptoms of underlying problems, not good things.
So they are accusing Trump of talking in a manner that might be considered pressuring the FBI to stop an investigation that he had been told was based on salicious and unverified information.
125 jobs also doesn't seem like enough of a potential gain in terms of salary cuts to offset the potential PR blowback.
Those probably aren't the only cuts, just the ones making the press because 'some' of them will be offshored. But its still over $1M per year in salary saved just on that part. The only blowback will be from slashdotters and the like, I can't see many people would stop shopping at Lowes because of this. It is a very small cut for a company their size, but its smart to make moves before you need to have huge cuts.
One could argue that we, humans, did not 'directly observe' it, we indirectly observed it through equipment that directly observed it, thus old Albert is still right.
People didn't want what Cuban produced. It was a failure. He just got lucky selling it to stupid Yahoo for $5.7 billion which then shuttered it. He was in the right place at the right time in the middle of a bubble.
Nobody 'gets lucky' selling 5.7B of stock. You have to take work, make decisions, and take actions that result in owning stock with that much value. Boiling it down to 'just lucky' kind of reinforces the OP's point.
You didn't even know about said phishing campaign until now, and only because the NSA told you so, but you're confident that you know all the effects and whether or not they were successful.
The whole premise is that the hackers publicly released info they obtained via their hacks to affect the election. Nothing released 1) is a strong indicator they didn't get anything (or anything of value) and 2) means there was no impact on anyone's vote decision.
And it does not appear the 'spear phishing' campaign actually resulted in access and subsequent distribution of any information beyond what's already been well publicized.
I'm wondering if the leaks will hurt or help the ratings. Some people will watch the downloads instead of the broadcasts, but those people may generate buzz for the shows (if they're any good) and increase the excitement and eventual ratings.
If the shows are lousy, the leaks will probably hurt, but otherwise they should help.
I suppose some people that would never normally watch it might just because they can get a pirated copy.
You just soak up what the Post feeds you. What a nice liberal sponge you are. Good boy, keep doing what you are told, after all blind followers are the heart of the far left.
As of now, we have zero evidence that the chemical reactions that created life on earth have occurred in a similar fashion anywhere else. There is no real evidence that this lake hosted life, its just interesting speculation. The religious minded could speculate the lake is the lost Eden of the Bible with equal evidence to support it.
But we a pretty sure the lake existed, that is all we need know to write an article about how life might have been teeming in it. And of course, since the lake was on Mars, its almost obligatory to write such an article.
There were once rivers on Mars. They may have been teeming with life. You heard it here.
Flow batteries recharge slowly, and have low energy density so its hard to know how much charge you could achieve overnight. Theoretically you could have a tank an electrolyte charging tank at home, which you could use to replace the car's electrolyte, but that would actually require two tanks at home so you could empty the care battery first. So it doesn't sound practical, or something most people would want to deal with.
As long as you don't lose the sense of urgency, which is a real risk.
Urgency is the main reason to replace coal with gas, it is the fastest and lowest cost move to make the biggest dent in CO2 emissions. But unfortunately many don't like that approach.
Why would we switch back to coal? I did clearly say 'in the near term'. Do you think giving ourselves more time to find other workable and more economic solutions while very quickly reducing our CO2 output for lower cost is a bad thing?
My spidey senses tell me that this is less about getting in trouble for sick days... more likely this is employees getting in trouble for doing a no-call-no-show and then trying to pass it off as a sick day after the fact.
Part of a problem can be employees abusing sick leave benefit and often taking sick days when they are not sick, leading to a potential excessive scrutiny for any sick days taken. That aspect is of course ignored in this article, but it is very real. Sick days are not vacation days. Companies can decide to just lump the two together and just have more vacation and few or no 'sick days', but then they will be attacked for not paying sick time in some cases where employees have used all their time off and then get sick.
I'm not saying that these particular employees were not being treated unfairly, I'm just saying there are other factors that come to play in these situations. And when it comes to individuals, we only get to hear one side of the story because companies have to tread very lightly on what information they can release about any particular employee's behavior.
So when I read articles like this, I wonder what more there is to the story.
Many have decided the only solution they will accept is wind and solar, even if it means failure to significantly reduce CO2. The US has greater CO2 reduction in the last 6 years than any other country, but everyone likes to point to Germany as the model, despite spending hundreds of billions with essentially no CO2 reduction, and they expect to see an increase each time they take a nuclear unit offline.
Meanwhile, the French Academy of sciences has made it their official position that France cannot achieve meaningful CO2 reductions without their entire nuclear fleet, based a lot on what they have seen in Germany.
The right answer is a mix of technologies that include wind, solar, and nuclear, and even replacing coal with nat gas in the near term. Its the only one that we know for certain will work and doesn't depend on some miraculous breakthrough in storage or other. China gets its, and they are moving faster than anyone because they don't get caught up appeasing the solar-wind or bust crowd.
ESPN decided to focus more on political statements than on pure sport culture, which may have given them a bump in viewership for a while, but its not going to sustain interest. 3 months of analysis about who is standing during the national anthem is enough to drive the most avid sports enthusiast away.
If they target the medium to large home theater market, they could probably charge $150 and it would be kind of a social event. 15 people would only be $10 each.
Slashdot Mirror
But if prices are negative, why don't they just feather the wind mills? No point in producing energy and paying for it, might as well shut them down if there's too much supply and too little demand.
EU and German law requires wind and solar to take priority over all other sources, so that last thing you are allowed to curtail is wind. Wind is only 15% total annual generation in Germany, if they want much higher penetration, they will need to curtail wind a lot more, which will make the cost of wind rise.
Exactly. Spot prices don't reflect real cost, average prices over time do correlate.
Regardless, this headline makes it out to be a good thing. Wild market volatility and negative pricing are symptoms of underlying problems, not good things.
So they are accusing Trump of talking in a manner that might be considered pressuring the FBI to stop an investigation that he had been told was based on salicious and unverified information.
That angle isn't going anywhere.
125 jobs also doesn't seem like enough of a potential gain in terms of salary cuts to offset the potential PR blowback.
Those probably aren't the only cuts, just the ones making the press because 'some' of them will be offshored. But its still over $1M per year in salary saved just on that part. The only blowback will be from slashdotters and the like, I can't see many people would stop shopping at Lowes because of this. It is a very small cut for a company their size, but its smart to make moves before you need to have huge cuts.
One could argue that we, humans, did not 'directly observe' it, we indirectly observed it through equipment that directly observed it, thus old Albert is still right.
People didn't want what Cuban produced. It was a failure. He just got lucky selling it to stupid Yahoo for $5.7 billion which then shuttered it. He was in the right place at the right time in the middle of a bubble.
Nobody 'gets lucky' selling 5.7B of stock. You have to take work, make decisions, and take actions that result in owning stock with that much value. Boiling it down to 'just lucky' kind of reinforces the OP's point.
You didn't even know about said phishing campaign until now, and only because the NSA told you so, but you're confident that you know all the effects and whether or not they were successful.
The whole premise is that the hackers publicly released info they obtained via their hacks to affect the election. Nothing released 1) is a strong indicator they didn't get anything (or anything of value) and 2) means there was no impact on anyone's vote decision.
Chuck Norris tapes will last forever.
And it does not appear the 'spear phishing' campaign actually resulted in access and subsequent distribution of any information beyond what's already been well publicized.
And if there were, what difference would that make, now?
I'm betting zilch.
They use terms like 'played a larger role' to imply it without having to actually back it up.
I'm wondering if the leaks will hurt or help the ratings. Some people will watch the downloads instead of the broadcasts, but those people may generate buzz for the shows (if they're any good) and increase the excitement and eventual ratings.
If the shows are lousy, the leaks will probably hurt, but otherwise they should help.
I suppose some people that would never normally watch it might just because they can get a pirated copy.
You just soak up what the Post feeds you. What a nice liberal sponge you are. Good boy, keep doing what you are told, after all blind followers are the heart of the far left.
"a massive lake that may have hosted life."
As of now, we have zero evidence that the chemical reactions that created life on earth have occurred in a similar fashion anywhere else. There is no real evidence that this lake hosted life, its just interesting speculation. The religious minded could speculate the lake is the lost Eden of the Bible with equal evidence to support it.
But we a pretty sure the lake existed, that is all we need know to write an article about how life might have been teeming in it. And of course, since the lake was on Mars, its almost obligatory to write such an article.
There were once rivers on Mars. They may have been teeming with life. You heard it here.
man my typing sucks.
Flow batteries recharge slowly, and have low energy density so its hard to know how much charge you could achieve overnight. Theoretically you could have a tank an electrolyte charging tank at home, which you could use to replace the car's electrolyte, but that would actually require two tanks at home so you could empty the care battery first. So it doesn't sound practical, or something most people would want to deal with.
I hate those people at twitter that won't remove hate speech fast enough.
As long as you don't lose the sense of urgency, which is a real risk.
Urgency is the main reason to replace coal with gas, it is the fastest and lowest cost move to make the biggest dent in CO2 emissions. But unfortunately many don't like that approach.
Why would we switch back to coal? I did clearly say 'in the near term'. Do you think giving ourselves more time to find other workable and more economic solutions while very quickly reducing our CO2 output for lower cost is a bad thing?
My spidey senses tell me that this is less about getting in trouble for sick days ... more likely this is employees getting in trouble for doing a no-call-no-show and then trying to pass it off as a sick day after the fact.
Part of a problem can be employees abusing sick leave benefit and often taking sick days when they are not sick, leading to a potential excessive scrutiny for any sick days taken. That aspect is of course ignored in this article, but it is very real. Sick days are not vacation days. Companies can decide to just lump the two together and just have more vacation and few or no 'sick days', but then they will be attacked for not paying sick time in some cases where employees have used all their time off and then get sick.
I'm not saying that these particular employees were not being treated unfairly, I'm just saying there are other factors that come to play in these situations. And when it comes to individuals, we only get to hear one side of the story because companies have to tread very lightly on what information they can release about any particular employee's behavior.
So when I read articles like this, I wonder what more there is to the story.
Many have decided the only solution they will accept is wind and solar, even if it means failure to significantly reduce CO2. The US has greater CO2 reduction in the last 6 years than any other country, but everyone likes to point to Germany as the model, despite spending hundreds of billions with essentially no CO2 reduction, and they expect to see an increase each time they take a nuclear unit offline.
Meanwhile, the French Academy of sciences has made it their official position that France cannot achieve meaningful CO2 reductions without their entire nuclear fleet, based a lot on what they have seen in Germany.
The right answer is a mix of technologies that include wind, solar, and nuclear, and even replacing coal with nat gas in the near term. Its the only one that we know for certain will work and doesn't depend on some miraculous breakthrough in storage or other. China gets its, and they are moving faster than anyone because they don't get caught up appeasing the solar-wind or bust crowd.
It's not a battery, it's a big ass capacitor that can take a huge charge instantly and let it our slowly.
Its just another flow battery. Nothing new here, except these guys claim their design is better, which every flow battery designer does.
They are just being honest. There is nothing inherently wrong with a large company using its size to get a better deal.
ESPN decided to focus more on political statements than on pure sport culture, which may have given them a bump in viewership for a while, but its not going to sustain interest. 3 months of analysis about who is standing during the national anthem is enough to drive the most avid sports enthusiast away.
If they target the medium to large home theater market, they could probably charge $150 and it would be kind of a social event. 15 people would only be $10 each.
I've always assumed they were useless measurements, except maybe for comparing your own individual workouts on that particular equipment.