Slow to respond coal can still just pay people to use its power.
Though gas power plants were taken offline, nuclear and coal plants can’t be quickly shut down, so they went on running and had to pay to sell power into the grid for several hours, while industrial customers such as refineries and foundries earned money by consuming electricity.
Or just shut them down and clean up the environment.
What kind of commenter tries to shoehorn in meaning that wasn't there in order to polarise a discussion,all while hiding as AC? I know which I'd rather be.
Compare this against human matches in Quake championships where both players not only needed to have good aim, but also had to memorize spawn timers and routes through the map and would blindly fire rockets around corners simply because that's where the opponent might be after seeing them five seconds ago as well as knowing not to run down some corridor because you know your opponent is thinking the same thing.
To make the challenge harder for the agents, each game was played on a completely new, procedurally generated map. This ensured the bots weren’t learning strategies that only worked on a single map.
Your kid with sad puppy eyes might not let you.
I'd tell them beforehand that they were just looking, and if we can find something you like we can buy it later. What kind of parent buys their kid a toy every time they go to a toy-store?
From the other side, coal can't shut down or start fast enough for overnight off peak times when less power is needed. So they often have to pay people to take the coal power no one wants because it's too slow to shut down overnight and turn on again the next day.
You are so far out in front with respect to CO2 emissions per person that even if you dropped by 66%. Cut your emissions down to only 1/3 your current level. You would still be higher than the world average.
Let that sink in for a minute...
All your talk about decreasing by a fraction of a percent, or getting excited about a whole percentage point decrease means nothing in this context. America is "moving in the right direction" but way too slowly to make any difference to anything.
It's easy to fall by the most when you are so far out in front.
You're the morbidly obese man who lost 3kg and is now only 100kg overweight, thinking he is doing better than a healthy person who was never overweight in the first place.
You are the FUCKING joke Windy. America per person is still way out in front on CO2 emissions. Even as you very slowly drop, you are still way way above the world average, and higher than just about all comparable countries. All those countries you mentioned have lower per person emissions than you do, so they are all already cleaner than you. (and could continue to increase and you decrease and it won't change those facts.
You are both a bit wrong. (well Windy is completely wrong but that's to be expected) China's coal use decreased from the 2013 highs but coal for electricity has risen a little, but the % of coal used for electricity has decreased. China is installing more solar and wind etc compared to coal, and China is relying less on coal for electricity and much less for other uses. That explains why it is still going down despite a small increase in electricity use. You have never showed credible evidence coal use is increasing as much as you often claim. (more lies by you)
Why do you again lie and claim anyone said new coal is 2x as efficient? A strawman so you can look like you have a clue? Well that backfired didn't it.
As always you miss the point entirely. Capacity isn't use. America and China could both burn about twice as much coal without building any more plants. Just because the new plants have the same capacity, it wouldn't stop them from burning twice the coal anyway. So your idea is pointless stupidity.
You also tried to say China is bad and then contrast that with 'successful nations'. But you are implying China is the most successful nation since they have the most hydro..oops.
No need for anyone to lie about what you say. We can all see for ourselves and your continuing lies are well documented all the time.
It's taken you 20+ years to 'drop' to still much much higher than most comparable countries. At that rate you will never get down to their levels even if you keep 'dropping'.
Until now there has been uncertainty over how much carbon is drifting between the stars. About half is expected to be found in its pure form. The rest is chemically bound with hydrogen in either a grease-like form, known as aliphatic carbon, or as a gaseous version of naphthalene, the main chemical component of mothballs.
Now we know why we haven't seen any moth based interstellar life. Time to update the drake equation again.
Slashdot Mirror
The US is the world's top steel importer. The value of steel shipped into the US was just over $29 billion in 2017.
It's clearly not because you don't need steel anymore either.
Though gas power plants were taken offline, nuclear and coal plants can’t be quickly shut down, so they went on running and had to pay to sell power into the grid for several hours, while industrial customers such as refineries and foundries earned money by consuming electricity.
Or just shut them down and clean up the environment.
What kind of commenter tries to shoehorn in meaning that wasn't there in order to polarise a discussion,all while hiding as AC?
I know which I'd rather be.
Lucky that isn't the case then isn't it.
What kind of parent doesn't buy their kid a toy every time they go to a toy-store?
The parent with self discipline, who are training their kids to be just like them.
Seriously kids love to play with toys, even if they know they can't take them home.
Compare this against human matches in Quake championships where both players not only needed to have good aim, but also had to memorize spawn timers and routes through the map and would blindly fire rockets around corners simply because that's where the opponent might be after seeing them five seconds ago as well as knowing not to run down some corridor because you know your opponent is thinking the same thing.
To make the challenge harder for the agents, each game was played on a completely new, procedurally generated map. This ensured the bots weren’t learning strategies that only worked on a single map.
Which one sounds more like a mindless robot?
Your kid with sad puppy eyes might not let you.
I'd tell them beforehand that they were just looking, and if we can find something you like we can buy it later. What kind of parent buys their kid a toy every time they go to a toy-store?
People would just go there, try out the toys to see what they liked. Then go home and buy the cheapest version they can find on the internet.
From the other side, coal can't shut down or start fast enough for overnight off peak times when less power is needed. So they often have to pay people to take the coal power no one wants because it's too slow to shut down overnight and turn on again the next day.
You mean when the artificial reef shows up offshore?
And when everyone goes solar and wind what will they do? Start liberating sunny and windy places?
Screen On Time. How long the screen is on.
A medical test was done but we don't know how it did it. That's the AI part. No one told it how.
Or do you somehow mean the program itself invented a whole new medical test? Because that would be even stronger AI.
Film at 11.
but it also contains, li, U, P, Pu, Ag, Th, Au, Fe, Cu, etc.
Not in nearly enough quantities to be useful.
So why are they using it themselves instead of selling it all to help 'corner the market'?
It's also a simple question.
Isn't it?
And?
You are so far out in front with respect to CO2 emissions per person that even if you dropped by 66%. Cut your emissions down to only 1/3 your current level. You would still be higher than the world average.
Let that sink in for a minute...
All your talk about decreasing by a fraction of a percent, or getting excited about a whole percentage point decrease means nothing in this context. America is "moving in the right direction" but way too slowly to make any difference to anything.
One can only assume you are attempting to troll. If you really are that clueless, do a search for One Child Policy and tell us what you find...
It's easy to fall by the most when you are so far out in front. You're the morbidly obese man who lost 3kg and is now only 100kg overweight, thinking he is doing better than a healthy person who was never overweight in the first place.
You are the FUCKING joke Windy. America per person is still way out in front on CO2 emissions. Even as you very slowly drop, you are still way way above the world average, and higher than just about all comparable countries. All those countries you mentioned have lower per person emissions than you do, so they are all already cleaner than you. (and could continue to increase and you decrease and it won't change those facts.
You are both a bit wrong. (well Windy is completely wrong but that's to be expected) China's coal use decreased from the 2013 highs but coal for electricity has risen a little, but the % of coal used for electricity has decreased. China is installing more solar and wind etc compared to coal, and China is relying less on coal for electricity and much less for other uses. That explains why it is still going down despite a small increase in electricity use. You have never showed credible evidence coal use is increasing as much as you often claim. (more lies by you)
Why do you again lie and claim anyone said new coal is 2x as efficient? A strawman so you can look like you have a clue? Well that backfired didn't it.
As always you miss the point entirely. Capacity isn't use. America and China could both burn about twice as much coal without building any more plants. Just because the new plants have the same capacity, it wouldn't stop them from burning twice the coal anyway. So your idea is pointless stupidity.
You also tried to say China is bad and then contrast that with 'successful nations'. But you are implying China is the most successful nation since they have the most hydro..oops.
No need for anyone to lie about what you say. We can all see for ourselves and your continuing lies are well documented all the time.
It's taken you 20+ years to 'drop' to still much much higher than most comparable countries. At that rate you will never get down to their levels even if you keep 'dropping'.
Until now there has been uncertainty over how much carbon is drifting between the stars. About half is expected to be found in its pure form. The rest is chemically bound with hydrogen in either a grease-like form, known as aliphatic carbon, or as a gaseous version of naphthalene, the main chemical component of mothballs.
Now we know why we haven't seen any moth based interstellar life. Time to update the drake equation again.