You've assumed the picture on that Wiki page were all the HCDC lines. But they are just the undersea ones. There's many others both between countries and within countries of Europe.
They're both very volatile and cannot be counted upon to meet base-load demand.
This is a myth. All electricity generation in a developed country is indeed connected to a grid. There is never a time when there is no wind/solar/hydro/tide/wave power from anywhere.
Furthermore theses sources are pretty predictable.
Renewables can form part of the baseload, just as other sources can. Diversity is always the key.
Anything you read on Watt's Up With That is inevitably bullshit. It's a site that will make any argument to match a far right wing agenda. It's anti-science.
Personally, I think that Tesla would be an excellent company to talk with. Elon Musk speaks their language.
They already have had talks. And Musk thinks Google's approach is too expensive. Which is quite damning considering the prices of Tesla's existing cars.
Losses due to collisions will be paid for by insurance companies just like now, the money coming from premiums paid ultimately be the car owners. Whether car owners pay directly to the insurance companies, or indirectly via higher prices for the cars is just a detail to be legislated around.
That sounds worse than it is, given that autonomous vehicles good enough to be approved will have less collisions than ordinary cars.
Some academic with a model in an ivory tower with a million dollar grant or the lyin' eyes of a farmer who spends his life outside dealing with the real climate?
That line of thought leads you to weather forecasting via groundhog appearance.
Why would someone be "concerned" about a "tomado"(I take it that you mean "tornado"?), when "weather is not("NOT", for, I guess, "dramatic effect"?) climate"?
According to the post you are responding to, because they are simple farmers. It wasn't the poster's position that tornados are climate.
airlines are mostly entirely self sustaining and self funding enterprises with no need for public investment.
Also not true. International air travel enjoys massive tax breaks on fuel. Which is a subsidy of that form of travel over all others. And airports are often built with public money.
Much has been made of that recently though I question the accuracy of the accounting. I've had too much experience with the convenient accounting of government to trust anything they're saying without auditing it.
I'm afraid you're suffering confirmation bias. When you thought the numbers were on your side, you didn't dispute them. Now they are contrary to what you believe, you assume the figures must be wrong rather than your beliefs.
Personally I'm not disputing the figures because it's the same story the world over.
Do you know what it would cost to fix a pot hole if you just let people fix it rather then farming it out to the god damn transit unions every single fucking time?
We're talking about splashing some asphalt into a hole every so often. Total cost of that is just north of zero.
You're living in cloud cuckoo land. First of all no one would do it. Secondly if they did, they would last a matter of weeks. Thirdly, there would be a death toll related to people with shovels being hit by rapidly moving vehicles.
Toll roads are unscalable. They work for major highways where the traffic is large. And private non toll roads only work for very lightly used roads and dirt tracks. They can't work for the majority of roads.
Slashdot Mirror
They're not the same things either.
No one said that, asshole.
It doesn't get any more local than solar panels on the roof, and a turbine on the local hill.
The grid only needs to balance out the demand.
You've assumed the picture on that Wiki page were all the HCDC lines. But they are just the undersea ones. There's many others both between countries and within countries of Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
In cables on the sea floor, the same way it's done everywhere else.
If they have interconnects, they are part of the grid.
They're both very volatile and cannot be counted upon to meet base-load demand.
This is a myth. All electricity generation in a developed country is indeed connected to a grid. There is never a time when there is no wind/solar/hydro/tide/wave power from anywhere.
Furthermore theses sources are pretty predictable.
Renewables can form part of the baseload, just as other sources can. Diversity is always the key.
Anything you read on Watt's Up With That is inevitably bullshit. It's a site that will make any argument to match a far right wing agenda. It's anti-science.
Personally, I think that Tesla would be an excellent company to talk with. Elon Musk speaks their language.
They already have had talks. And Musk thinks Google's approach is too expensive. Which is quite damning considering the prices of Tesla's existing cars.
Losses due to collisions will be paid for by insurance companies just like now, the money coming from premiums paid ultimately be the car owners. Whether car owners pay directly to the insurance companies, or indirectly via higher prices for the cars is just a detail to be legislated around.
That sounds worse than it is, given that autonomous vehicles good enough to be approved will have less collisions than ordinary cars.
If the OP needs more than 1.35 million years history to make today's temperatures not look warm, then there's the problem right there.
Both sides deny science, if it fits their politics.
That may be true, however conservatives seem to find it happens more often that their politics are in conflict with science.
Water level is also "un-countable", but that doesn't mean that waves are the same thing as tides.
No, it's just you that's not understanding the dictionary.
The dictionary isn't wrong, as far as it goes. It's your inability to understand the dictionary that is the problem.
It's linked to an Apple ID via a certificate. Whether or not it's still in the app store is irrelevant.
Uhhhh, so if a region's climate changes from wet to semiarid, the local weather is not going to change?
The weather is typically going to change daily, or at least seasonally, even if there's no climate change.
Weather is not climate.
Some academic with a model in an ivory tower with a million dollar grant or the lyin' eyes of a farmer who spends his life outside dealing with the real climate?
That line of thought leads you to weather forecasting via groundhog appearance.
But their opinions were not arrived at through talk radio.
Maybe not. But farmers are typically conservatives, and it is conservatives that tend to deny science.
The earth is in a cooler than average phase now.
Nope.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/...
Why would someone be "concerned" about a "tomado"(I take it that you mean "tornado"?), when "weather is not("NOT", for, I guess, "dramatic effect"?) climate"?
According to the post you are responding to, because they are simple farmers. It wasn't the poster's position that tornados are climate.
As per the definition, there is no time period where weather ceases to be weather.
I'm afraid that's the continuum fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
No. Weather is an instantaneous set of measurements taken at a specific place and point in time. Climate is many locations and times averaged.
Saying climate is weather is like saying a square is a point. It's not. A square has points within it, bit it's not a point.
Climate is not weather. Anyone who doesn't know that doesn't have anything worthwhile to contribute to the discussion.
airlines are mostly entirely self sustaining and self funding enterprises with no need for public investment.
Also not true. International air travel enjoys massive tax breaks on fuel. Which is a subsidy of that form of travel over all others. And airports are often built with public money.
Much has been made of that recently though I question the accuracy of the accounting. I've had too much experience with the convenient accounting of government to trust anything they're saying without auditing it.
I'm afraid you're suffering confirmation bias. When you thought the numbers were on your side, you didn't dispute them. Now they are contrary to what you believe, you assume the figures must be wrong rather than your beliefs.
Personally I'm not disputing the figures because it's the same story the world over.
Do you know what it would cost to fix a pot hole if you just let people fix it rather then farming it out to the god damn transit unions every single fucking time?
We're talking about splashing some asphalt into a hole every so often. Total cost of that is just north of zero.
You're living in cloud cuckoo land. First of all no one would do it. Secondly if they did, they would last a matter of weeks. Thirdly, there would be a death toll related to people with shovels being hit by rapidly moving vehicles.
Toll roads are unscalable. They work for major highways where the traffic is large. And private non toll roads only work for very lightly used roads and dirt tracks. They can't work for the majority of roads.