People care about their standard of living. If you are going to convince people to lower their carbon footprint then showing that an acceptable standard of living is possible with a lower carbon footprint is reasonable.
I wish my carbon footprint was lower, but I am weak in terms of reducing it as it takes effort to reduce it further. When I can get an affordable (i.e. used) electric car with a 250 mile range I'll do that, or new if I have a windfall. Solar thermal and PV if I can offset the capital costs. But it would also be helpful if new houses were at Passivhaus standard, and more power was generated with renewables. The latter is no particular effort on my part, and my provider does buy 100% renewables on a wholesale basis, although the electrons I get come from multiple sources.
To be fair, the USA is a lot bigger than Germany, which looks much better on a per capita basis, which seems to be the basis for carbon footprint discussions.
Denmark even more so (lowest carbon footprint per capita in the world, although a very fair criticism would be it doesn't have much manufacturing AFAIK)
If you look at domestic manufacturing output per capita between Germany and the USA it is pretty similar as a proportion of the economy, and product mix. The whole industrial sector in the USA is only 20% of the total, so it doesn't obviously explain the high per capita emissions in the USA, although it does seem to be rather more CO2 intense than in Germany. You could argue that some of this is because the USA is large, and components get shipped. This is a fair point, as although components are shipped around Europe, the distances between the major manufacturing locations are less than the USA coast-to-coast. Perhaps if the USA redistributed manufacturing it would reduce shipping distances.
German car manufacturers could do that, but AFAIK, for global sales they have not, just to places like Poland. US car manufacturers can do the same, or in their case, move it to Mexico, taking advantage of NAFTA.
We? We won't be humans in a few million years, let alone billion? It's even more remote from us than ancient fish saying they need to get out of the sea and onto land.
I know many people who have retired because they could afford to and wanted to do other things with their lives (e.g. spending time in their workshops turning wood, etc.), or to travel the world, or learn musical instruments. Many retired early.
If there is no expectation that the eagle kill rate would exceed more than a few hundred per year then why did the wind energy lobby ask for a quadrupling of the existing levels to reach an allowed 4200 kills per year? Seems to me that they expected to exceed prior limits or they would not have asked for the limits to be raised.
I have no idea. It baffles me too. The study I noted found that the numbers killed were about triple the number reported by the energy companies, but still tiny. And the kill rate, even then, isn't even hundreds a year - nowhere close.
That's a blog post from someone whose professional career is not in the area of energy policy. Do you have a peer-reviewed source?
Then when natural gas leakage is taken into account, because no pipe is perfect, the greenhouse gas effect exceeds that of using coal..
Pipes aren't perfect, but the real issue is leakage from reservoirs, depending on how they are tapped. With conventional drilling and distribution, I'm not convinced that you assertion is correct. Do you have a decent citation (not a youtube video)? Yes, I have looked at peer-reviewed sources on this.
An excellent question. How many eagles have been killed by coal? How many by wind? How many by nuclear? I did some research and I'm quite certain of the answers.
I somewhat doubt there are good figures for the numbers killed as a consequence of coal (e.g. pollution) or nuclear (side effects of mining ore) as it would be very hard to determine exact attribution, but just because attribution is hard, doesn't mean the number is zero.
That may be true now but what about in the 30 years for which these permits have been issued? I see estimates now of about 500 golden eagles lost to impacts with windmills, electrocutions on power lines, and other causes by human made structures.
Lumping together a series of unrelated causes seems odd. Which of them is the most significant?
In terms of wind turbines we see:
"Between 1997 and June 2012, researchers identified 85 combined bald eagle and golden eagle fatalities attributed to wind turbines, or roughly 5.6 deaths per year in the entirety of the contiguous United States. Moreover, of those 85 total eagle deaths in a 15-year period, only six were bald eagles. The remaining 79 deceased birds were golden eagles. Those findings were illustrated in a state-by-state table:"
So whilst permits may be issued for 4200 (which is per year, I thought it was over 30 years, as that would still be massively more than the observed number of deaths), it is highly unlikely that wind turbines will kill that many eagles.
If the goal is to have half of our electricity from wind power, and it produces less than 10% now, then this could be a serious problem real quick for the eagles.
Permitting a number to be killed does not mean that that many will be killed. See above.
This is just one of many problems for wind power. First, it kills birds. Second, it kills people. More people die from windmill accidents than nuclear power accidents, and wind produces 1/4 the power in the USA compared to nuclear.
Are you talking about major circa 1MW windmills, or including small ones on farms? If the latter, then that is a dishonest comparison compared to nuclear power plants, which are large, well-maintained facilities, much as wind farms are.
Third, wind power is a proxy for natural gas. There was a German study that found for every 4 megawatts of wind power capacity installed there needs to be 3 megawatts of natural gas turbine capacity to make up for when the wind does not blow.
And when the wind blows, those peaking plants are not on. If they are half as efficient as combined cycle, but are on less than half as often, then overall the CO2 output is reduced.
There is no CO2 savings from wind power, not yet anyway.
How many eagles have actually been killed by wind turbines as compared to pollution, or even in total? It may be an unfortunate, but acceptable, trade off if renewables lead to less overall damage, and assuming we don't want to go back to living in huts. Wind farms are subject to approvals, which take into account potential damage that may be done. If you look at the numbers, and we assume that about 50% of those killed are bald eagles then that's about 0.1% of the bald eagle population being killed by wind turbines per year - not very significant. The population decreased dramatically in the 150 years before 1918, from habitat loss and other factors. Wind turbines are an insignificant risk to bald eagles overall, even if each loss of such a majestic bird is a tragedy.
The ECB hasn't printed money to deal with the banking crisis. That's misunderstanding how QE works. The EU is also not an entity that can ask the ECB to act like that, as the EU is a trading block, with a commission and a parliament and a council of ministers. The council of ministers might be able to ask, but that's not the same as the EU asking.
Pilots have a lot of work to do before they take off, such as ensuring that the plane has the required amount of fuel to get where it is going, checking weather reports, and pre-flight checks. I expect it adds up. And at the very least, during the flight, they are on call for what could be a very skilled job of, say, landing the thing in a river.
Paying more doesn't necessarily increase the supply of pilots in the short term overall, although it might allow one airline to tempt pilots from another. However, that might just end up in a bidding war, and so an airline might end up with no more pilots overall, but higher costs. It might encourage people to eventually become pilots that could be hired, but there might be a long lag.
The GP's meaning was pretty clear. If you can't hire pilots to fly twice as many flights, you don't try to offer that many flights, even if you could fill them if you offered them.
Many Linuxes can run that long if required, so the potential uptime doesn't seem particularly special. I'd be concerned about running that long without significant patching from a security perspective, though. And I'd want to have some pretty good intrusion detection, file alteration monitoring, and process scanning to avoid the chances of compromise going undetected,
The lack of official support would be a complete show stopper in many environments, though, certainly many commercial ones.
Licensing officially support Linux everywhere can get expensive, but using one of the ones associated with one with commercial support allows you to run the commercial version on the most critical or public-facing systems where you might want fast support or a fast patching regime, but piggy back less critical elements on the upstream patches making it to the open associated version relatively quickly.
There is a need, for some purposes, for having a pretty static image, although that is often more a requirement for scientific or medical systems paired with Windows machines. The other common case would be for verification purposes.
In the UK the car year traditionally starts in August, so mid-year changes are normal, as it just represents the next model for the new registration plates. I can see having two models with the same year nomenclature being complex, but the year identification method isn't prevalent in the UK.
Slashdot Mirror
People care about their standard of living. If you are going to convince people to lower their carbon footprint then showing that an acceptable standard of living is possible with a lower carbon footprint is reasonable. I wish my carbon footprint was lower, but I am weak in terms of reducing it as it takes effort to reduce it further. When I can get an affordable (i.e. used) electric car with a 250 mile range I'll do that, or new if I have a windfall. Solar thermal and PV if I can offset the capital costs. But it would also be helpful if new houses were at Passivhaus standard, and more power was generated with renewables. The latter is no particular effort on my part, and my provider does buy 100% renewables on a wholesale basis, although the electrons I get come from multiple sources.
Europe hasn't been 90% forested since early neolithic times.
To be fair, the USA is a lot bigger than Germany, which looks much better on a per capita basis, which seems to be the basis for carbon footprint discussions.
Denmark even more so (lowest carbon footprint per capita in the world, although a very fair criticism would be it doesn't have much manufacturing AFAIK)
If you look at domestic manufacturing output per capita between Germany and the USA it is pretty similar as a proportion of the economy, and product mix. The whole industrial sector in the USA is only 20% of the total, so it doesn't obviously explain the high per capita emissions in the USA, although it does seem to be rather more CO2 intense than in Germany. You could argue that some of this is because the USA is large, and components get shipped. This is a fair point, as although components are shipped around Europe, the distances between the major manufacturing locations are less than the USA coast-to-coast. Perhaps if the USA redistributed manufacturing it would reduce shipping distances.
German car manufacturers could do that, but AFAIK, for global sales they have not, just to places like Poland. US car manufacturers can do the same, or in their case, move it to Mexico, taking advantage of NAFTA.
I believe bluetooth receivers that can then transmit to a car aux have been invented, on the basis that I have one. And one for home audio connection.
Kung Po is more my style.
It takes some serious effort to actually make something Windows 10 only.
Challenge accepted!
We? We won't be humans in a few million years, let alone billion? It's even more remote from us than ancient fish saying they need to get out of the sea and onto land.
I know many people who have retired because they could afford to and wanted to do other things with their lives (e.g. spending time in their workshops turning wood, etc.), or to travel the world, or learn musical instruments. Many retired early.
If there is no expectation that the eagle kill rate would exceed more than a few hundred per year then why did the wind energy lobby ask for a quadrupling of the existing levels to reach an allowed 4200 kills per year? Seems to me that they expected to exceed prior limits or they would not have asked for the limits to be raised.
I have no idea. It baffles me too. The study I noted found that the numbers killed were about triple the number reported by the energy companies, but still tiny. And the kill rate, even then, isn't even hundreds a year - nowhere close.
https://blog.oup.com/2017/10/s...
That's a blog post from someone whose professional career is not in the area of energy policy. Do you have a peer-reviewed source?
Then when natural gas leakage is taken into account, because no pipe is perfect, the greenhouse gas effect exceeds that of using coal. .
Pipes aren't perfect, but the real issue is leakage from reservoirs, depending on how they are tapped. With conventional drilling and distribution, I'm not convinced that you assertion is correct. Do you have a decent citation (not a youtube video)? Yes, I have looked at peer-reviewed sources on this.
An excellent question. How many eagles have been killed by coal? How many by wind? How many by nuclear? I did some research and I'm quite certain of the answers.
I somewhat doubt there are good figures for the numbers killed as a consequence of coal (e.g. pollution) or nuclear (side effects of mining ore) as it would be very hard to determine exact attribution, but just because attribution is hard, doesn't mean the number is zero.
That may be true now but what about in the 30 years for which these permits have been issued? I see estimates now of about 500 golden eagles lost to impacts with windmills, electrocutions on power lines, and other causes by human made structures.
Lumping together a series of unrelated causes seems odd. Which of them is the most significant?
In terms of wind turbines we see:
"Between 1997 and June 2012, researchers identified 85 combined bald eagle and golden eagle fatalities attributed to wind turbines, or roughly 5.6 deaths per year in the entirety of the contiguous United States. Moreover, of those 85 total eagle deaths in a 15-year period, only six were bald eagles. The remaining 79 deceased birds were golden eagles. Those findings were illustrated in a state-by-state table:"
So whilst permits may be issued for 4200 (which is per year, I thought it was over 30 years, as that would still be massively more than the observed number of deaths), it is highly unlikely that wind turbines will kill that many eagles.
If the goal is to have half of our electricity from wind power, and it produces less than 10% now, then this could be a serious problem real quick for the eagles.
Permitting a number to be killed does not mean that that many will be killed. See above.
This is just one of many problems for wind power. First, it kills birds. Second, it kills people. More people die from windmill accidents than nuclear power accidents, and wind produces 1/4 the power in the USA compared to nuclear.
Are you talking about major circa 1MW windmills, or including small ones on farms? If the latter, then that is a dishonest comparison compared to nuclear power plants, which are large, well-maintained facilities, much as wind farms are.
Third, wind power is a proxy for natural gas. There was a German study that found for every 4 megawatts of wind power capacity installed there needs to be 3 megawatts of natural gas turbine capacity to make up for when the wind does not blow.
And when the wind blows, those peaking plants are not on. If they are half as efficient as combined cycle, but are on less than half as often, then overall the CO2 output is reduced.
There is no CO2 savings from wind power, not yet anyway.
Citation needed.
How many eagles have actually been killed by wind turbines as compared to pollution, or even in total? It may be an unfortunate, but acceptable, trade off if renewables lead to less overall damage, and assuming we don't want to go back to living in huts. Wind farms are subject to approvals, which take into account potential damage that may be done. If you look at the numbers, and we assume that about 50% of those killed are bald eagles then that's about 0.1% of the bald eagle population being killed by wind turbines per year - not very significant. The population decreased dramatically in the 150 years before 1918, from habitat loss and other factors. Wind turbines are an insignificant risk to bald eagles overall, even if each loss of such a majestic bird is a tragedy.
whoosh
The ECB hasn't printed money to deal with the banking crisis. That's misunderstanding how QE works. The EU is also not an entity that can ask the ECB to act like that, as the EU is a trading block, with a commission and a parliament and a council of ministers. The council of ministers might be able to ask, but that's not the same as the EU asking.
Isn't the fire the responsibility of Microsoft/Amazon/Google to deal with?
With some irony, Ryan Air has been experiencing strikes over pilot pay.
Many people delivering pizzas are not 'starting out' but relatively mature, but possibly without stellar education.
Software engineers regularly work 16 hour days 6 days a week
Seems excessive.
Pilots have a lot of work to do before they take off, such as ensuring that the plane has the required amount of fuel to get where it is going, checking weather reports, and pre-flight checks. I expect it adds up. And at the very least, during the flight, they are on call for what could be a very skilled job of, say, landing the thing in a river.
Paying more doesn't necessarily increase the supply of pilots in the short term overall, although it might allow one airline to tempt pilots from another. However, that might just end up in a bidding war, and so an airline might end up with no more pilots overall, but higher costs. It might encourage people to eventually become pilots that could be hired, but there might be a long lag.
The GP's meaning was pretty clear. If you can't hire pilots to fly twice as many flights, you don't try to offer that many flights, even if you could fill them if you offered them.
Many Linuxes can run that long if required, so the potential uptime doesn't seem particularly special. I'd be concerned about running that long without significant patching from a security perspective, though. And I'd want to have some pretty good intrusion detection, file alteration monitoring, and process scanning to avoid the chances of compromise going undetected,
The lack of official support would be a complete show stopper in many environments, though, certainly many commercial ones.
Licensing officially support Linux everywhere can get expensive, but using one of the ones associated with one with commercial support allows you to run the commercial version on the most critical or public-facing systems where you might want fast support or a fast patching regime, but piggy back less critical elements on the upstream patches making it to the open associated version relatively quickly.
There is a need, for some purposes, for having a pretty static image, although that is often more a requirement for scientific or medical systems paired with Windows machines. The other common case would be for verification purposes.
In the UK the car year traditionally starts in August, so mid-year changes are normal, as it just represents the next model for the new registration plates. I can see having two models with the same year nomenclature being complex, but the year identification method isn't prevalent in the UK.