linky
here's an article trying to decry how deadly turbines are...and yet buries the lead with this paragraph:
And, according to a 2013 report from scientists from the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute and FWS, stray and outdoor pet cats kill a median of 2.4 billion birds and 12.3 billion mammals, mostly native mammals like shrews, chipmunks and voles, annually.
emphasis mine
Even if you go with the more recent figures of almost a million turbine bird deaths, it's still more than a thousand times more.
Turbines are far safer today than they were just a decade ago. They spin slower and use gearing to increase generated power, rather than just having faster blade rotation.
What he said perhaps wasn't exactly direct, but "less than a million years old" references using cellulose for fuel not coal. Yes coal of any kind isn't going to be carbon neutral as the time frame is too long.
Using actual plants, whether tree/sawdust, shrubs, switchgrass, etc is still orders of magnitude better for the environment since you're using carbon removed from the atmosphere extremely recently and from sources that we, conceivably, could renew.
The scale needed for that is significant and possibly not practical, but as the poster was saying, IF, we can get cheap cellulose to fuel it raises a significant option in the goal of carbon neutral energy sources.
Oh it certainly can change rapidly...it's just exceptionally rare. We have quite good historical records showing this.
Humans have developed during a period with even more exceptionally stable climate. So massive quick change is even more a danger to us.
"Survival is going to mean discarding a lot of our short term and fairly new concepts."
everything you've ever known is included in this statement.
Climate does change...over very very long periods of time. right now it's changing over very very short periods do directly to our actions.
You're basically saying that brick buildings should be 'adaptable' to the motion of an earthquake. The current ecosystems are the buildings and our carbon emissions are the quake. They aren't going to 'adapt' at the rate required for the inputs because the simply aren't designed for it.
Vote. the GOP is the issue here. Rep Marsha Blackbeurn R-TN being the lead defender in chief of cable co's. Sure some Dem's are this way too but not at all to the level of lockstep on the GOP side
Again, when things are congested nobody can rightly complain if speeds get throttled *during the congestion*. See dropped calls around a concert venue. It has nothing to do with their wider network ability but localized tower supplies.
But that's not what Verizon (and the rest do). They CUT you off entirely if you use more than 4GB....completely independent of any congestion
Now, Verizon will, for a additional fee, not cut you off entirely but throttle your entire connection to 256kbps for the remaineder of your billing period...again completely independent of any congestion.
It's almost as if congestion isn't actually a problem since it isn't what they use to set their pricing.
Your points are logically sound...they just aren't supported by the realities of the wireless networks current status.
Verizon has flatly stated "We don't compete on price". In what fucking mass market does a company say this and survive? It's a oligarchy among a few companies controlling duplicate massively inefficient networks that know they don't have competition to force them to be competitive.
The cost of the data to Verizon is zero. They didn't spend a dime to put YouTubes videos online for me to stream over Verizon s network.
Congestion on the network is a real issue but unrelated to a per GB charge.
nothing stops them from simply slowing speeds on a congested tower. Which solves that problem, but doesn't make them money.
There is so far no evidence of the significant limits claimed by Verizon. Not the theoretical, but actual on the network.
There are 2 costs. Infrastructure and content. The former is entirely non-linear. It has absolutely no relation to a per MB charge structure.
The latter is not something Verizon is paying so is entirely free in this scenario.
Physical goods simply don't translate here.
Physical good analogies don't work here. Your gasoline or burger costs money to be created.
Verizon isn't creative the data on the network so there is zero cost to Verizon for the data transiting their network.
The cost of data transit is not a per data amount so charging that way is pure profit for Verizon
Slashdot Mirror
And, according to a 2013 report from scientists from the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute and FWS, stray and outdoor pet cats kill a median of 2.4 billion birds and 12.3 billion mammals, mostly native mammals like shrews, chipmunks and voles, annually.
emphasis mine
Even if you go with the more recent figures of almost a million turbine bird deaths, it's still more than a thousand times more.
Turbines are far safer today than they were just a decade ago. They spin slower and use gearing to increase generated power, rather than just having faster blade rotation.
House cats kill 1000 times the number of birds. Yes a thousand
peaking at 8.7 billion in just 40 years? given that we're over 7 already...that would seem to foretell some massive die offs... Do you have a source?
yep they did fail to materialize. the temps are HIGHER than predicted. show us the scientific studies that predicted otherwise.
you see economic collapse, whereas history would tell you it's simply a massive opportunity.
Unless we just sit and stew in our own failure, there will be massive demand for mitigation technology...something that's rather good for an economy.
The boy who cried wolf was still right when the wolf came...
In this case the scientists are saying "the wolf is coming unless we act now"
And yet luddites get treated as some sort of valid opinion.
well he did say "this shit is happening" so apparently so! ;-)
Yup, failed so hard Tesla turned a profit!
Two words 'clean coal' Tesla is 100â... correct in that it's cars are zero emission.
Fossil fuels are only viable because they can pollute freely. Add in the cost of capturing their carbon emissions and they are wildly unprofitable
And it still receives billions in subsidy. As the OP said, if it isn't viable without the subsidy...
perhaps you've heard of auto complete on phones? Jeebus grammar Nazi-ing is so pathetic
Sorry your dog died :(
What he said perhaps wasn't exactly direct, but "less than a million years old" references using cellulose for fuel not coal. Yes coal of any kind isn't going to be carbon neutral as the time frame is too long.
Using actual plants, whether tree/sawdust, shrubs, switchgrass, etc is still orders of magnitude better for the environment since you're using carbon removed from the atmosphere extremely recently and from sources that we, conceivably, could renew.
The scale needed for that is significant and possibly not practical, but as the poster was saying, IF, we can get cheap cellulose to fuel it raises a significant option in the goal of carbon neutral energy sources.
Glad you agree with me that it 'can' change fast.
"From my point of view, I look at all these quasi-linear climate models very suspiciously."
From what 'point of view'/on what grounds?
Oh it certainly can change rapidly...it's just exceptionally rare. We have quite good historical records showing this. Humans have developed during a period with even more exceptionally stable climate. So massive quick change is even more a danger to us.
"Survival is going to mean discarding a lot of our short term and fairly new concepts." everything you've ever known is included in this statement.
Climate does change...over very very long periods of time. right now it's changing over very very short periods do directly to our actions.
You're basically saying that brick buildings should be 'adaptable' to the motion of an earthquake. The current ecosystems are the buildings and our carbon emissions are the quake. They aren't going to 'adapt' at the rate required for the inputs because the simply aren't designed for it.
except poster wasn't talking about coal at all. Talking about taking cellulose from living plants and turning it into fuel.
So your argument against requiring registration of drones before use....is cars? Don't drive much do you...
Vote. the GOP is the issue here. Rep Marsha Blackbeurn R-TN being the lead defender in chief of cable co's. Sure some Dem's are this way too but not at all to the level of lockstep on the GOP side
Again, when things are congested nobody can rightly complain if speeds get throttled *during the congestion*. See dropped calls around a concert venue. It has nothing to do with their wider network ability but localized tower supplies.
But that's not what Verizon (and the rest do). They CUT you off entirely if you use more than 4GB....completely independent of any congestion
Now, Verizon will, for a additional fee, not cut you off entirely but throttle your entire connection to 256kbps for the remaineder of your billing period...again completely independent of any congestion.
It's almost as if congestion isn't actually a problem since it isn't what they use to set their pricing.
Your points are logically sound...they just aren't supported by the realities of the wireless networks current status.
Verizon has flatly stated "We don't compete on price". In what fucking mass market does a company say this and survive? It's a oligarchy among a few companies controlling duplicate massively inefficient networks that know they don't have competition to force them to be competitive.
The cost of the data to Verizon is zero. They didn't spend a dime to put YouTubes videos online for me to stream over Verizon s network. Congestion on the network is a real issue but unrelated to a per GB charge. nothing stops them from simply slowing speeds on a congested tower. Which solves that problem, but doesn't make them money. There is so far no evidence of the significant limits claimed by Verizon. Not the theoretical, but actual on the network.
There are 2 costs. Infrastructure and content. The former is entirely non-linear. It has absolutely no relation to a per MB charge structure. The latter is not something Verizon is paying so is entirely free in this scenario. Physical goods simply don't translate here.
Physical good analogies don't work here. Your gasoline or burger costs money to be created. Verizon isn't creative the data on the network so there is zero cost to Verizon for the data transiting their network. The cost of data transit is not a per data amount so charging that way is pure profit for Verizon
are pretty far apart
so half a world away?
You should have demanded $20 from her. Since your lowering her home value saved her money in taxes!