Incorrect. You can change the power of coal power plants, it just takes several hours. And France has load-following nuclear plants, so they actually reduce generation during the night time. Then we have hydro (which is also a part of the baseload) that can be adjusted in _seconds_.
So please, stop showing your complete ignorance of actual issues.
No, it doesn't. Emergency shutdowns are rare events and there's enough spare capacity to compensate for them. What green fucking hippies are offering is to make the grid magically compatible with multiple emergency shutdowns at the same time across a geographically large region. Can be done, but at ridiculous cost.
First of all, for starters: it is impossible that a offshore wind farm does not produce energy fro two days
It's possible. It doesn't happen _often_, but it happens at least one time every year on the Eastern coast of the US. Mostly during big storms when turbines must be turned off.
This is the case RIGHT NOW, but not when we have a 100% renewable grid.
No they don't. Germany still has a very reliable baseload generation which produces MOST of the power locally, so from the point of view of the power company their electricity supply IS mostly predictable and constant.
Denmark, Portugal and other postage-stamp-sized countries are simply not interesting - they can overbuild power transmission infrastructure and buy electricity from neighbors.
Imagine two cities with power plants. Each power plant produces 2-4GW of power. There is a power line between cities capable of transmitting 1GW. What is going to happen if one power plant closes one unit producing 500MW for maintenance? Answer: nothing much, since the other plant and transmission line can handle the increased load.
Now imagine that a blowhard greenpeace hippies closed one power plant and installed wind turbines around the one of the cities. What is going to happen if a sudden anticyclone causes a windless weather over a large region? Answer: whoops, your the power line between cities has just melted, even though the other power plant had enough capacity to handle the load.
And this is not a theory, such things might happen any time in Germany now. Its grid is overstressed because renewable energy generation and consumption are quite often not correlated.
Yes, you are racists. Most blacks were born in the USA, so why should they go anywhere? Maybe it's you who should buy a ticket to England or Ireland or to a country where your ancestors came from?
Pedant mode: the plural of "virus" is "viruses". If you/insist/ on using Latin then it should be "vira", since it's a neuter noun in the second declension. Though we don't have any actual examples of such use in contemporary sources.
It could go either way. I was in an actual war zone during a war (Ukraine 2 months ago). I can't say that it affected me much, though I wasn't that much into FPS games even before that. However, I know someone who simply stopped playing Counter-Strike completely after a tour in a region with actual terrorist insurgents.
There is no black market for radionuclides - they are useless for criminals. And terrorists would want either something REALLY hot for a dirty bomb (in which case they don't need to do any tests except standing nearby with a dosimeter) or highly enriched uranium or weapons-grade plutonium. Both require expertise to turn into actual weapons.
Yes, there were attempts to explain it using a yet-another-MOND. But we've seen several such examples by now, and no conceivable MOND can explain them.
I'm arguing that living space _was_ guaranteed and it was free, even for anti-Soviet dissidents. And that is true. It's also certainly true that there were lots of political prisoners - but that's irrelevant. So I added another irrelevant fact.
And I know people who were given a free world-class education, even though their parents were illiterate peasants in the Russian Empire. Nobody argues that USSR was a 100% nice free democratic country.
Ok. Then the burden is still on you to explain why inflation is bad. Why is expansion of fiat currency supply without corresponding price increases is bad?
So to sum it up - you don't have a working model that can correctly predict the result of 3x expansion of the monetary supply. So you simply start raving, repeating discredited cliches. For example, Weimar Republic fell after 2 years of _deflation_. USSR had no inflation until it decided to allow free market.
And 100 years of currency destruction got us from muddy roads filled with horse dung to modern cities, airplanes and computers. I call that a win.
Duh. 1991 was the start of the collapse, try checking 1988 for a better comparison. And no, "running of other peoples' money" was not the reason. It's a catchy phrase, but it's stupid beyond belief.
If you are really interested, then you should know that there were two independent currencies in the USSR. The major one was the 'cashless ruble' which was used only in transactions between state-owned companies and the minor one was regular cash money (only used to pay salaries). These two systems had been pretty much independent with negligible flows between them until 1985 when limited private companies (cooperatives) were allowed. Cooperatives had ability to get cashless money and convert it into hard currency (that process was called 'obnalichka' at the time) - that was the proximate cause of economy collapse.
Then we should talk about why cooperatives were even allowed to operate and about structural problems in the USSR economy. But it's much more complicated than "running out of peoples' money".
ANYONE could get a place to live, even anti-Soviet dissidents. Of course, if you had connections to the right people then you could get a much nicer place. There were no rent payment you're probably confusing them with payments for utilities.
As for the availability, the USSR grew quickly from a very poor country with most of population living in squalor to a moderately wealthy one. Whole cities were built from scratch to provide better living conditions, and such advances were not uniformly distributed geographically.
I'm NOT saying that the USSR was a paradise or even a nice place to live. But it was not a totally bad commie hell with doom and gloom everywhere.
Sure. We can call increase in the monetary supply (fiat or any other type) a 'cheesecake', 'gazonk', 'blurb' or anything else. It's just not 'inflation' unless there's a corresponding increase in general prices for all goods.
Nope. Expanding a fiat currency supply is not bad. And history is my witness.
Feel free to create a model that correctly predicts the result of 3x increase in the monetary supply. What's going to happen and why? Does it happen in all cases?
Slashdot Mirror
Incorrect. You can change the power of coal power plants, it just takes several hours. And France has load-following nuclear plants, so they actually reduce generation during the night time. Then we have hydro (which is also a part of the baseload) that can be adjusted in _seconds_.
So please, stop showing your complete ignorance of actual issues.
No, it doesn't. Emergency shutdowns are rare events and there's enough spare capacity to compensate for them. What green fucking hippies are offering is to make the grid magically compatible with multiple emergency shutdowns at the same time across a geographically large region. Can be done, but at ridiculous cost.
First of all, for starters: it is impossible that a offshore wind farm does not produce energy fro two days
It's possible. It doesn't happen _often_, but it happens at least one time every year on the Eastern coast of the US. Mostly during big storms when turbines must be turned off.
This is the case RIGHT NOW, but not when we have a 100% renewable grid.
And a pony. Don't forget a pony.
Baseload generation can change and often does. It just changes _predictably_.
No they don't. Germany still has a very reliable baseload generation which produces MOST of the power locally, so from the point of view of the power company their electricity supply IS mostly predictable and constant.
Denmark, Portugal and other postage-stamp-sized countries are simply not interesting - they can overbuild power transmission infrastructure and buy electricity from neighbors.
Imagine two cities with power plants. Each power plant produces 2-4GW of power. There is a power line between cities capable of transmitting 1GW. What is going to happen if one power plant closes one unit producing 500MW for maintenance? Answer: nothing much, since the other plant and transmission line can handle the increased load.
Now imagine that a blowhard greenpeace hippies closed one power plant and installed wind turbines around the one of the cities. What is going to happen if a sudden anticyclone causes a windless weather over a large region? Answer: whoops, your the power line between cities has just melted, even though the other power plant had enough capacity to handle the load.
And this is not a theory, such things might happen any time in Germany now. Its grid is overstressed because renewable energy generation and consumption are quite often not correlated.
Or how do you think the seller got it to the buyer?
By transmitting it only a _short_ distance through the grid.
Yes, you are racists. Most blacks were born in the USA, so why should they go anywhere? Maybe it's you who should buy a ticket to England or Ireland or to a country where your ancestors came from?
Pedant mode: the plural of "virus" is "viruses". If you /insist/ on using Latin then it should be "vira", since it's a neuter noun in the second declension. Though we don't have any actual examples of such use in contemporary sources.
Except that Fukushima is not even close to Chernobyl in the level of pollution.
It could go either way. I was in an actual war zone during a war (Ukraine 2 months ago). I can't say that it affected me much, though I wasn't that much into FPS games even before that. However, I know someone who simply stopped playing Counter-Strike completely after a tour in a region with actual terrorist insurgents.
There is no black market for radionuclides - they are useless for criminals. And terrorists would want either something REALLY hot for a dirty bomb (in which case they don't need to do any tests except standing nearby with a dosimeter) or highly enriched uranium or weapons-grade plutonium. Both require expertise to turn into actual weapons.
Yes, there were attempts to explain it using a yet-another-MOND. But we've seen several such examples by now, and no conceivable MOND can explain them.
Right now Putin has 86% approval rating, confirmed by multiple statistics agencies. No way he can be beaten by anybody right now.
There's no crackdown on WiFi. The quoted rule only applies to publicly-owned free WiFi hotspots: http://slon.ru/fast/russia/pra...
It was not 'rent', it was a utility payment (and also small fee for property upkeep).
I'm arguing that living space _was_ guaranteed and it was free, even for anti-Soviet dissidents. And that is true. It's also certainly true that there were lots of political prisoners - but that's irrelevant. So I added another irrelevant fact.
And I know people who were given a free world-class education, even though their parents were illiterate peasants in the Russian Empire. Nobody argues that USSR was a 100% nice free democratic country.
Ok. Then the burden is still on you to explain why inflation is bad. Why is expansion of fiat currency supply without corresponding price increases is bad?
So to sum it up - you don't have a working model that can correctly predict the result of 3x expansion of the monetary supply. So you simply start raving, repeating discredited cliches. For example, Weimar Republic fell after 2 years of _deflation_. USSR had no inflation until it decided to allow free market.
And 100 years of currency destruction got us from muddy roads filled with horse dung to modern cities, airplanes and computers. I call that a win.
Duh. 1991 was the start of the collapse, try checking 1988 for a better comparison. And no, "running of other peoples' money" was not the reason. It's a catchy phrase, but it's stupid beyond belief.
If you are really interested, then you should know that there were two independent currencies in the USSR. The major one was the 'cashless ruble' which was used only in transactions between state-owned companies and the minor one was regular cash money (only used to pay salaries). These two systems had been pretty much independent with negligible flows between them until 1985 when limited private companies (cooperatives) were allowed. Cooperatives had ability to get cashless money and convert it into hard currency (that process was called 'obnalichka' at the time) - that was the proximate cause of economy collapse.
Then we should talk about why cooperatives were even allowed to operate and about structural problems in the USSR economy. But it's much more complicated than "running out of peoples' money".
ANYONE could get a place to live, even anti-Soviet dissidents. Of course, if you had connections to the right people then you could get a much nicer place. There were no rent payment you're probably confusing them with payments for utilities.
As for the availability, the USSR grew quickly from a very poor country with most of population living in squalor to a moderately wealthy one. Whole cities were built from scratch to provide better living conditions, and such advances were not uniformly distributed geographically.
I'm NOT saying that the USSR was a paradise or even a nice place to live. But it was not a totally bad commie hell with doom and gloom everywhere.
Yes, and there was an amazing level of gender equality only recently surpassed by the Western world. And a lot of other cool stuff.
But of course, there were some downsides. Like lack of the freedom of speech, or pervasive spying. Oh wait...
Sure. We can call increase in the monetary supply (fiat or any other type) a 'cheesecake', 'gazonk', 'blurb' or anything else. It's just not 'inflation' unless there's a corresponding increase in general prices for all goods.
Nope. Expanding a fiat currency supply is not bad. And history is my witness.
Feel free to create a model that correctly predicts the result of 3x increase in the monetary supply. What's going to happen and why? Does it happen in all cases?