What is the margin on wholesale batteries, and what proportion of cost? Owning a battery factory might be a 1% saving on overall vost or 10%.
And Tesla can get there faster than Mercedes or any other legacy car maker can.
The majors have a lot of revenue to throw at it, so it's not a given. And a lot od car building experience. If push came to shove my money would be on the majors. VW just absorbed a huge fine and barely blinked, that's how much power the majors have.
That assumes either perfect memory, knowledge, or documentation. And you can't even use the old adage: three things, pick two, as likely none of those will be perfect. And sometimes you may believe you know what it does, given your own design, but are in error, even before you consider that libraries or frameworks you have used may have errors. So about the most you can say is "more chance of understanding".
Looking at figures for the UK, the rate is half that of the USA per mile driven (which very much surprised me), at least in terms of casualties. I haven't found a good figure for accidents as a whole yet. It might be the UK has lots of accidents, but at relatively low speed, for example, and low casualty rates.
from Australia (first relevant link I found but I forgot to copy the link - doh)
"More than half (57 per cent) of Aussies surveyed by job site SEEK have thrown caution to the wind and pursued a new path and one in five did so in the past 12 months.
Of people who have made a career change, most (38 per cent) have made just one but more than a quarter (29 per cent) have made two and 33 per cent have made three or more."
Those statistics seem a bit mixed and maybe contradictory without more detail, though. (With more detail there might be no contradiction).
It's what we do with vitamin D and some other nutrients.
Indeed, and if it is safe and cost-effective for zinc, that's fine. I wouldn't presuppose it is without more informatin, though.
Assuming pretty modest GDP growth, people in 80 years will be 10x wealthier than we are in absolute terms.
That's assuming that climate change doesn't constrain growth (nor anything else), which it is likely to do, so it seems a poor projection. 50 years ago world GDP (GWP) growth was roughly 5% p.a. but that has fallen pretty steadily since. If that trend continued in a linear fashion it would hit roughly zero by around 2060. However, it is also possible that it is flattening out at 2.5%. At 2.5% that's 7 times richer, if it is heading towards zero by around 2060, it's 1.6 times richer in the next 80 years.,/p>
In terms of the IPCC and Paris: A major report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that efforts to stabilize levels of greenhouse-gas emissions would require investments of about $13 trillion through 2030." This is just under $1 trillion per annum, or 0.1% of global world product (GWP). The effect on global GWP growth rates are hard to determine, but also likely to be small, possibly of the same order. That's basically 6.6 times richer in 80 years at constant growth compared to 7.2 times. Not a catastrophe, and CC might cost a lot to fix late in the day, so could be worse than this cost.
P.S. And I meant to say anecdotes are not data, so I do need to check. 460000/accident seems surprisingly safe to me, so checking is required to see if that's just the USA or more widely true.
I'll have a look at what UK stats are, as a lot of people here (entirely anecdotally) seem to average one reported accident a decade, roughly, but there are a number of minor bangs (backing into a low wall, etc.) that go unreported, or at least before collision detectors. And I doubt the driver reported knocking me off my bicycle (I was only bruised, and my handlebars easily straightened, but his POS car had a long gouge from my handlebar down it) a decade ago.
P.S. I would say that whilst the cost of climate change is uncertain, it's most likely a chioce between a lot and a hell of a lot. Not much cost is unlikely to be an option, on a global scale at least.
I am not sure to what extent staying at a firm from cradle to gave was, apart from around 1945-80, outside agriculture. My father managed to stay in the same job and employer, but his father changed careers once, and his father had three separate careers. One of my father's brothers stayed with the same employer, his other two did not. My mother's father had three different major types of career including coal mining, brick laying and driving a train. My mother had jobs as diverse as being a seamstress, making inductors, machining parts for aircraft engines, a baker, cleaning houses, and picking items for mail order. One of her brothers largely stayed with the same employer (himself), and the other worked in several major different careers, including nursing, software develoment, hospitality, and as a statistician.
Indeed, you could be indicating to turn left (come off the roundabout in the UK) while still turning right around it, as you are supposed to initiate the signal to turn off immediately on passing the previous exit. On some roundabouts that are large but have relatively few exits, that could be 20 seconds before you actually turn off, depending on the level of traffic. In London, it could be closer to 20 minutes before.
The best I can suggest is that if you make a particular trip often (e.g. your commute) it could assume that you are going to do it. But ideally you'd want it to say "Dave, I suggest you signal turning off the highway now".
Even with GPS I would not suggest it automatically going as far as signalling. Sometimes there is only part of a journey I need the GPS for, but it will be on for all of it as I don't want to stop part way to turn it on. But, say, returning home I might decide to stop at the grocery store on the way, and the GPS isn't going to know I am going to do that, so won't select a turn off for me I need to indicate, unless it's also talking to my fridge, the state of the cat's litter box, and a whole host of other systems.
Once my GPS directed me down a road. It was narrow, but I assumed the GPS knew what it was doing until I reached the farmyard with no other exit than the way I'd come in. I was close to my destination, but I don't think the farmer would have appreciated me driving through his barn and over a field to get there. Nor is my card the best off-roader.
Often, though, a pedestrian thinks they have indicated their intention, or is at a location where the driver should yield. Or should they take a series of large cards for each potential action and hold them out from the side of the road, in a recreation of some Bob Dylan video?
Wouldn't 'even benefit anyone' not necessarily comply with traffic laws in all locations? It might need to be GPS-aware so it knows if you are crossing from state-to-state, or country-to-country. This is also a potential complication for SDCs, and in some places (e.g. Northern Ireland and Eire) the road can swap across borders every few hundred metres on an otherwise straightforward drive down the same road.
No, the argument is that you can't keep a safe distance because other cars will prevent it. If a car swoops in, then you have to slow down to recreate the 2-second gap, but then another car swoops in, and another and another all day.
I understand what you are saying, and it frustrates me too (the behaviour, not your comment). But the solution is for better education to encourage people to follow the requirements, not those previously following the rules to abandon it. To me that makes as much sense as saying that the statistics on teenage shoplifting look bad, so we need more adults to shoplift to make it look better for teens.
As far as the paper is concerned, the causative factor CO2 concentrations, nothing else.
It's one paper looking at one aspect, but other papers have looked at others. At some point someone will probably publish a review paper bring all of that together. CO2 would seem to be the most dominant effect as it increases growth rate at certain points in the lifecycle, though.
I'm glad we agree on that. Which tells you that the actual problem isn't the level of zinc in the crops, but the wealth of the citizens.
Not entirely. Note I mentioned that realising you have an issue is part of the problem, and that goes for those in wealthy countries too. To catch all those with deficiency a screening programme would be required of a type that I would suspect is more likely in a country with middling income per capita than low OR high. Even after this, if the nutrients were there then for deficiency wealth would not be an issue, so whilst lack of wealth compounds the problem, it's not the cause of it. If I'd had more coffee I'd try to come up with an analogy.
Well, "self-sufficiency" (or nutritional sufficiency) certainly won't be possible for a lot of people if we burden global GDP with the several percent reduction that would result from taking the economic steps outlined in the Paris accords.
If the very mild steps from Paris are not taken, the climate change will burden GDP with several percent reduction in economic activity, that will fall mostly on those in countries that are already less wealthy. Done well, the Paris requirements should not be so burdensome, and indeed growth is still positive in those nations required to make changes (e.g. Western Europe) so it doesn't seem that it has that great an effect on demand for goods from developing nations from Western nations, and has no particular effect directly on the developing nations as they have fewer obligations and can simply avoid some of the polluting activities anyway. Arguably, though, Paris will not stop economic damage from climate change anyway, as it's not enough.
Slashdot Mirror
What is the margin on wholesale batteries, and what proportion of cost? Owning a battery factory might be a 1% saving on overall vost or 10%.
And Tesla can get there faster than Mercedes or any other legacy car maker can.
The majors have a lot of revenue to throw at it, so it's not a given. And a lot od car building experience. If push came to shove my money would be on the majors. VW just absorbed a huge fine and barely blinked, that's how much power the majors have.
That assumes either perfect memory, knowledge, or documentation. And you can't even use the old adage: three things, pick two, as likely none of those will be perfect. And sometimes you may believe you know what it does, given your own design, but are in error, even before you consider that libraries or frameworks you have used may have errors. So about the most you can say is "more chance of understanding".
Looking at figures for the UK, the rate is half that of the USA per mile driven (which very much surprised me), at least in terms of casualties. I haven't found a good figure for accidents as a whole yet. It might be the UK has lots of accidents, but at relatively low speed, for example, and low casualty rates.
WIth the amount I drive, 154.8k would see me through to SDCs being widely available.
I know. I was simply contrasting.
That's ~8 jobs, but not more than 8 careers.
from Australia (first relevant link I found but I forgot to copy the link - doh)
"More than half (57 per cent) of Aussies surveyed by job site SEEK have thrown caution to the wind and pursued a new path and one in five did so in the past 12 months.
Of people who have made a career change, most (38 per cent) have made just one but more than a quarter (29 per cent) have made two and 33 per cent have made three or more."
Those statistics seem a bit mixed and maybe contradictory without more detail, though. (With more detail there might be no contradiction).
It's what we do with vitamin D and some other nutrients.
Indeed, and if it is safe and cost-effective for zinc, that's fine. I wouldn't presuppose it is without more informatin, though.
Assuming pretty modest GDP growth, people in 80 years will be 10x wealthier than we are in absolute terms.
That's assuming that climate change doesn't constrain growth (nor anything else), which it is likely to do, so it seems a poor projection. 50 years ago world GDP (GWP) growth was roughly 5% p.a. but that has fallen pretty steadily since. If that trend continued in a linear fashion it would hit roughly zero by around 2060. However, it is also possible that it is flattening out at 2.5%. At 2.5% that's 7 times richer, if it is heading towards zero by around 2060, it's 1.6 times richer in the next 80 years. ,/p>
In terms of the IPCC and Paris: A major report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that efforts to stabilize levels of greenhouse-gas emissions would require investments of about $13 trillion through 2030." This is just under $1 trillion per annum, or 0.1% of global world product (GWP). The effect on global GWP growth rates are hard to determine, but also likely to be small, possibly of the same order. That's basically 6.6 times richer in 80 years at constant growth compared to 7.2 times. Not a catastrophe, and CC might cost a lot to fix late in the day, so could be worse than this cost.
The IPCC is very conservative, though.
P.S. And I meant to say anecdotes are not data, so I do need to check. 460000/accident seems surprisingly safe to me, so checking is required to see if that's just the USA or more widely true.
I'll have a look at what UK stats are, as a lot of people here (entirely anecdotally) seem to average one reported accident a decade, roughly, but there are a number of minor bangs (backing into a low wall, etc.) that go unreported, or at least before collision detectors. And I doubt the driver reported knocking me off my bicycle (I was only bruised, and my handlebars easily straightened, but his POS car had a long gouge from my handlebar down it) a decade ago.
P.S. I would say that whilst the cost of climate change is uncertain, it's most likely a chioce between a lot and a hell of a lot. Not much cost is unlikely to be an option, on a global scale at least.
You don't have to screen, you just supplement.
Is that efficient?
(3) The cost of Paris is immediate and certain, while the cost of climate change is far off and uncertain.
The cost later of taking action if action is not taken now is much greater, so arguably the rational choice is to take action now.
(4) Because developed countries pay but don't benefit much, it's not going to happen.
If developed countries can't work out a way to benefit (e.g. selling technology to reduce emissions) that's a bit poor.
I am not sure to what extent staying at a firm from cradle to gave was, apart from around 1945-80, outside agriculture. My father managed to stay in the same job and employer, but his father changed careers once, and his father had three separate careers. One of my father's brothers stayed with the same employer, his other two did not. My mother's father had three different major types of career including coal mining, brick laying and driving a train. My mother had jobs as diverse as being a seamstress, making inductors, machining parts for aircraft engines, a baker, cleaning houses, and picking items for mail order. One of her brothers largely stayed with the same employer (himself), and the other worked in several major different careers, including nursing, software develoment, hospitality, and as a statistician.
It will be for a specific implementation, I expect.
Indeed, you could be indicating to turn left (come off the roundabout in the UK) while still turning right around it, as you are supposed to initiate the signal to turn off immediately on passing the previous exit. On some roundabouts that are large but have relatively few exits, that could be 20 seconds before you actually turn off, depending on the level of traffic. In London, it could be closer to 20 minutes before.
The best I can suggest is that if you make a particular trip often (e.g. your commute) it could assume that you are going to do it. But ideally you'd want it to say "Dave, I suggest you signal turning off the highway now".
Even with GPS I would not suggest it automatically going as far as signalling. Sometimes there is only part of a journey I need the GPS for, but it will be on for all of it as I don't want to stop part way to turn it on. But, say, returning home I might decide to stop at the grocery store on the way, and the GPS isn't going to know I am going to do that, so won't select a turn off for me I need to indicate, unless it's also talking to my fridge, the state of the cat's litter box, and a whole host of other systems.
Once my GPS directed me down a road. It was narrow, but I assumed the GPS knew what it was doing until I reached the farmyard with no other exit than the way I'd come in. I was close to my destination, but I don't think the farmer would have appreciated me driving through his barn and over a field to get there. Nor is my card the best off-roader.
How does pulling over kill you?
Often, though, a pedestrian thinks they have indicated their intention, or is at a location where the driver should yield. Or should they take a series of large cards for each potential action and hold them out from the side of the road, in a recreation of some Bob Dylan video?
Or a turn signal in the wrong direction. Especially in the UK on roundabouts.
Wouldn't 'even benefit anyone' not necessarily comply with traffic laws in all locations? It might need to be GPS-aware so it knows if you are crossing from state-to-state, or country-to-country. This is also a potential complication for SDCs, and in some places (e.g. Northern Ireland and Eire) the road can swap across borders every few hundred metres on an otherwise straightforward drive down the same road.
No, the argument is that you can't keep a safe distance because other cars will prevent it. If a car swoops in, then you have to slow down to recreate the 2-second gap, but then another car swoops in, and another and another all day.
I understand what you are saying, and it frustrates me too (the behaviour, not your comment). But the solution is for better education to encourage people to follow the requirements, not those previously following the rules to abandon it. To me that makes as much sense as saying that the statistics on teenage shoplifting look bad, so we need more adults to shoplift to make it look better for teens.
As far as the paper is concerned, the causative factor CO2 concentrations, nothing else.
It's one paper looking at one aspect, but other papers have looked at others. At some point someone will probably publish a review paper bring all of that together. CO2 would seem to be the most dominant effect as it increases growth rate at certain points in the lifecycle, though.
I'm glad we agree on that. Which tells you that the actual problem isn't the level of zinc in the crops, but the wealth of the citizens.
Not entirely. Note I mentioned that realising you have an issue is part of the problem, and that goes for those in wealthy countries too. To catch all those with deficiency a screening programme would be required of a type that I would suspect is more likely in a country with middling income per capita than low OR high. Even after this, if the nutrients were there then for deficiency wealth would not be an issue, so whilst lack of wealth compounds the problem, it's not the cause of it. If I'd had more coffee I'd try to come up with an analogy.
Well, "self-sufficiency" (or nutritional sufficiency) certainly won't be possible for a lot of people if we burden global GDP with the several percent reduction that would result from taking the economic steps outlined in the Paris accords.
If the very mild steps from Paris are not taken, the climate change will burden GDP with several percent reduction in economic activity, that will fall mostly on those in countries that are already less wealthy. Done well, the Paris requirements should not be so burdensome, and indeed growth is still positive in those nations required to make changes (e.g. Western Europe) so it doesn't seem that it has that great an effect on demand for goods from developing nations from Western nations, and has no particular effect directly on the developing nations as they have fewer obligations and can simply avoid some of the polluting activities anyway. Arguably, though, Paris will not stop economic damage from climate change anyway, as it's not enough.
From? Do you mean to?
Are you sure that wasn't just a dream after seeing an episode of Scrubs?