By what process does crop rotation make zinc magically (and from where) appear in the soil? Crop rotation works because of things like nitrogen fixation and breaking disease cycles, not trace mineral magicking.
Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance. Often it is, but it's useful to judge things on their own merits, otherwise you end up with:
It's a combination of factors, potentially, not just CO2 concentrations.
With regard to supplements, it's trivial if (1) the need is recognised and (2) people can afford them. Neither are a given, and it could mean that self-sufficiency is no longer possible for some.
How do the drivers know it was no reason? There's no reason, no apparent reason, a reason that had gone away by the time the other driver drove around.
Safe distance is a nice academic idea which ignores the reality of driving on busy roads. Leave enough of a gap between yourself and the car in front and someone will cut in and fill it.
So your argument is that because other drivers drive badly everyone should drive badly?
close driving is far more efficient in terms of utilising road space in city enviroments.
SDCs should be able to platoon more safely than human drivers.
I think Bluetooth could be used to communicate with the other car and have some system within the recipient car say something appropriate to the driver.
I don't think FaceBook is in a position to mandate that aircraft should switch to renewables. And all hotels that their staff may stop at when away from home, etc., etc. So yes, it is aiming to power itself with 100% renwables. The big step would be investing in renewables or carbon credits or whatever, to offset that remaining 25% as well.
Yes, unless it dilutes support effort such that libraries are not developed or bugs fixed. It also potentially dilutes the ability to be productive over a long period of time if you need to keep learning new languages and frameworks. Sometimes languages evolve sufficiently that even a single language requires that.
Octave isn't really aimed at computer scientists, rather scientists. Matlab is aimed at scientists and engineers. OK, somewhat of a simplification, but Computer Science is not what springs to mind when someone says Octave.
Of course scientists also use R, Python, C++, and Fortran, depending on what they do, etc. And occasionally Java, Scala, Julia, and a few others.
It might be that her real first name is Veronica, and Reality is a nickname that stuck to the extent she uses it as her legal name. She should probably now change her last name to Sucks.
They already have remote drone pilots. Drones in Afghanistan (both UK and USA) were flown from some place in the middle of the USA. It was reported on pretty extensively.
Actually in WW2, I don't think the Italians had a reversible armoured car, but the UK, France and Germany did (two driving positions, and either respectable or as fast in reverse).
Why would Denmark not want to replace worn out natural gas with something safer and with lower CO2 output?
Because they have a high start-up cost and energy providers don't want to spend that money in one go. It's easier, in terms of finance, to build simpler, cheaper, and more incremental gas plants.
Nuclear power reduces that to near zero.
It's lower than natural gas, but not zero, as the supply chain to obtain the fuel still uses fossil fuels to power it. If the entire supply chain didn't use fossil fuels, then that argument would be more convincing. And I am a firm believer at looking at all the inputs, and this applies to renewables too (e.g. the concrete and steel for a wind farm).
Again, why use natural gas when there is an energy source that is safer, lower CO2, and just as cheap?
The levelised costs of natural gas are lower in every assessment I've seen, and the finance for new plants is much easier to work out, and it is power companies that build them, not Denmark per se. If it really was cheaper, in terms of the operating costs and the cost of capital to build them, they would have been built already. Look at the UK where the government has had to pretty much beg someone to build on. Because it is a hugely capital-intensive operation, the cost of capital and the ability to attract finance is the killer as there are places with faster and better returns available if you have $1 billion of money to invest and burning a hole in your pocket. Part of the issue here is that investors build in a risk premium based on the chance of delay, and that is very likely for large projects.
It's not likely to completely replace natural gas for things like load following but it makes sense to reduce the natural gas, and certainly coal, burning as much as possible.
I am not sure how it breaks down for Denmark, but at 7%, that looks a lot like almost all of the natural gas power generation being load following, except that grid trading across borders might undermine that suggestion.
I think you are confusing Denmark with Norway there.
I wasn't aware that Denmark had any natural gas. I stand corrected, thankyou.
It wasn't an attempt at diversion, I simply didn't realise you meant ton-for-ton, as that seems an odd metric to use, as CO2 is produced in such massively larger amounts.
You seem to be confusing dust ejected by Pinatubo, which affected the weather, and CO2, which is what we are discussing. In any case, a Mt. Pinatubo does not happen every year.
Slashdot Mirror
A fair way from Arsenal, though.
Indeed, and I thought the pedal was explicitly making reference to anatomy. Making reference to Steve Winwood's brother would be tricky too.
By what process does crop rotation make zinc magically (and from where) appear in the soil? Crop rotation works because of things like nitrogen fixation and breaking disease cycles, not trace mineral magicking.
Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance. Often it is, but it's useful to judge things on their own merits, otherwise you end up with:
Therefore, I'm immortal.
It's a combination of factors, potentially, not just CO2 concentrations.
With regard to supplements, it's trivial if (1) the need is recognised and (2) people can afford them. Neither are a given, and it could mean that self-sufficiency is no longer possible for some.
How do the drivers know it was no reason? There's no reason, no apparent reason, a reason that had gone away by the time the other driver drove around.
Safe distance is a nice academic idea which ignores the reality of driving on busy roads. Leave enough of a gap between yourself and the car in front and someone will cut in and fill it.
So your argument is that because other drivers drive badly everyone should drive badly?
close driving is far more efficient in terms of utilising road space in city enviroments.
SDCs should be able to platoon more safely than human drivers.
Reported accidents. FTFY.
Increasingly insurance rates are set by algorithms, not humans.
I think Bluetooth could be used to communicate with the other car and have some system within the recipient car say something appropriate to the driver.
I don't think FaceBook is in a position to mandate that aircraft should switch to renewables. And all hotels that their staff may stop at when away from home, etc., etc. So yes, it is aiming to power itself with 100% renwables. The big step would be investing in renewables or carbon credits or whatever, to offset that remaining 25% as well.
Having languages to choose from is a good thing.
Yes, unless it dilutes support effort such that libraries are not developed or bugs fixed. It also potentially dilutes the ability to be productive over a long period of time if you need to keep learning new languages and frameworks. Sometimes languages evolve sufficiently that even a single language requires that.
Octave isn't really aimed at computer scientists, rather scientists. Matlab is aimed at scientists and engineers. OK, somewhat of a simplification, but Computer Science is not what springs to mind when someone says Octave.
Of course scientists also use R, Python, C++, and Fortran, depending on what they do, etc. And occasionally Java, Scala, Julia, and a few others.
It might be that her real first name is Veronica, and Reality is a nickname that stuck to the extent she uses it as her legal name. She should probably now change her last name to Sucks.
They already have remote drone pilots. Drones in Afghanistan (both UK and USA) were flown from some place in the middle of the USA. It was reported on pretty extensively.
Actually in WW2, I don't think the Italians had a reversible armoured car, but the UK, France and Germany did (two driving positions, and either respectable or as fast in reverse).
Driverless company now ruddlerless, surely?
You are too modest. You have been a huge asset to the community over many, many years. You are allowed the occasional error.
Why would Denmark not want to replace worn out natural gas with something safer and with lower CO2 output?
Because they have a high start-up cost and energy providers don't want to spend that money in one go. It's easier, in terms of finance, to build simpler, cheaper, and more incremental gas plants.
Nuclear power reduces that to near zero.
It's lower than natural gas, but not zero, as the supply chain to obtain the fuel still uses fossil fuels to power it. If the entire supply chain didn't use fossil fuels, then that argument would be more convincing. And I am a firm believer at looking at all the inputs, and this applies to renewables too (e.g. the concrete and steel for a wind farm).
Again, why use natural gas when there is an energy source that is safer, lower CO2, and just as cheap?
The levelised costs of natural gas are lower in every assessment I've seen, and the finance for new plants is much easier to work out, and it is power companies that build them, not Denmark per se. If it really was cheaper, in terms of the operating costs and the cost of capital to build them, they would have been built already. Look at the UK where the government has had to pretty much beg someone to build on. Because it is a hugely capital-intensive operation, the cost of capital and the ability to attract finance is the killer as there are places with faster and better returns available if you have $1 billion of money to invest and burning a hole in your pocket. Part of the issue here is that investors build in a risk premium based on the chance of delay, and that is very likely for large projects.
It's not likely to completely replace natural gas for things like load following but it makes sense to reduce the natural gas, and certainly coal, burning as much as possible.
I am not sure how it breaks down for Denmark, but at 7%, that looks a lot like almost all of the natural gas power generation being load following, except that grid trading across borders might undermine that suggestion.
I think you are confusing Denmark with Norway there.
I wasn't aware that Denmark had any natural gas. I stand corrected, thankyou.
It wasn't an attempt at diversion, I simply didn't realise you meant ton-for-ton, as that seems an odd metric to use, as CO2 is produced in such massively larger amounts.
Then make it 10 or 15, does not matter to me
Even half is an overestimate. 10 to 15 times is still absurd
20 years ago the footprint of an american was about 10 times of that of an european.
This is patently untrue. 20 years ago the output by an American, per capita, was about 20 tons of CO2 per annum, and for a European around 8.
You seem to be confusing dust ejected by Pinatubo, which affected the weather, and CO2, which is what we are discussing. In any case, a Mt. Pinatubo does not happen every year.
Which scandals are you referring to specifically?
sorry, cat helped a bit.