You are a fucking lunatic who believes that it's possible for a system to operate with 100% efficiency.
Physics ensures everything is 100% efficient because energy is neither created nor destroyed. If you fail to specify the what the bounds of system are then it's up to speaker to decide. I chose to define the system bounds as being our ecosphere. It is unproductive to turn to anger when some explains something beyond your comprehension.
I asked Al if he wanted to grab a beer and he told me he couldn't because he was busying working for no pay while putting people out of jobs. Stop relying on Al to do all your work and give the guy a break! >:(
Which is a non sequitur as in my straw man argument.
FTFY.
PV panels produce less than 80% of their original electrical output after 20-25 years but they still produce electricity. However, they are also made of highly recyclable materials, so it's really just re-manufacturing the panels when you are done with them.
Sure, it's not done because it's economical and it's not economical because pollution isn't taxed and therefore costs less to just pollute and make new ones. Tax pollution and recycling suddenly becomes economical. Are you seeing a trend here? Pollution is the problem.
Tax everything based on Ecological Harm, including the production of equipment used for (all forms of) energy production.
Exactly. Then use that tax money to pay another company to reverse the ecological harm done. This cyclical system is called a feedback loop and it's how everything in nature works.
Manufacturing can be clean or dirty, depending on how you do it but it's 100% pollution free after that. Fossil fuels also go through a manufacturing process which can be clean or dirty and it's 100% polluting after that.
What does that even mean?
It means that once it's manufactured, there is no part of it's operation that pollutes.
the expected life span of a PV panel is 20-25 years, the expected lifespan of a wind turbine is still 20-25 years. You can NOT just say "heck, it is pollution free after manufacturing",
PV panels produce less than 80% of their original electrical output after 20-25 years but they still produce electricity. However, they are also made of highly recyclable materials, so it's really just re-manufacturing the panels when you are done with them.
Measuring the real environmental impact of a given process is very hard, even subjective to some extent (are there pollutants better than others?). Measuring the real environmental impact _per energy produced_ is even more complex;
It's only complex if you want an exact number for a specific situation. However, in general less waste is produced when using renewable energy by several orders of magnitude.
it is all politics.
Only in the imaginary world where science doesn't matter and Earth gets warmer because it feels loved.
"Well they are all made out of super recyclable materials, so it's another manufacturing cycle."
Insert magic here!
You do know you just need to clean, melt down and then re-purify metals to recycle them, right? What do you think solar cells and wind turbines are made of?
"Yes, light and wind (which are results of the laws of physics) are 100% efficient."
You should stop talking here, you clearly have a lot of learning to do...if that's possible.
Or perhaps it's possible you don't realize that renewable energy (light and wind) is simply harvested and that which is not is still part of our ecosystem.
An ICE is the "result of the laws of physics", is it 100% efficient? What can that possibly mean?
It would mean you are utilizing the heat that it produces as well as the chemical byproduct. However, we do not usually utilize the heat put of by an ICE nor the chemical emissions it expels.
It's good to know our star is named Sol, though. Thanks for that.
Glad you learned something. Sol is the name of Roman personification of the Sun. The Latin postfix -ar means "relating to" which is where you get "solar". Likewise Earth's moon is named Luna after the Roman personification of the Moon again postfixed you get "lunar".
Now you can also be annoyed when people/movies refer to other star systems as "solar systems". You're welcome.;)
Half-serious because I know it's an entrenched technology.
JAVA is primarily JIT and.NETs core CLR is pretty much in the same boat, although one can use Ahead Of Time if they so choose to do. But simple? not really.
If you are use.NET then you aren't serious about security to start with. If you use Java then you have chosen poorly.
There really is no slowing down or moving away from this iceberg.
I'm not trying to stop anything, I'm saying some people are serious about security and others are only pretending.
There's no pollution in the disposal after its life expectancy?
Well they are all made out of super recyclable materials, so it's another manufacturing cycle.
What is the thermodynamic efficiency of renewables, 100%? If not 100%, can the byproducts of its use be used for something else
Yes, light and wind (which are results of the laws of physics) are 100% efficient. The energy we harvest from these renewable energy sources are a sliver of what Earth gets from our star, Sol. That which is not collected is reflected (helping reduce the impact of excess CO2) or blows by and continues acting as part of Earth's global weather system.
my point is that you're saying "we need to" do this but the reality is you can't even say how much that would be or even suggest how you would go about making it happen much less actually do anything to make it happen.
How much it costs is dependent on the product and the manufacturing process. Do you expect me to go and investigate every product before suggesting something? Also, I pointed out that government regulation is the way to accomplish this. It's not rocket science to know you need the government involved here.
If you're lobbying for it or doing the math and putting that forward then I'd be very interested to see it, if we do indeed need to do it then then I'm curious as to what you're doing.
Well the alternative is turning the planet into Venus and everything dies, so what's that worth to you?
Manufacturing can be clean or dirty, depending on how you do it but it's 100% pollution free after that. Fossil fuels also go through a manufacturing process which can be clean or dirty and it's 100% polluting after that.
Tax subsidy Government can create the same outcome through selective tax breaks as through cash payment.[3] For example, suppose a government sends monetary assistance that reimburses 15% of all health expenditures to a group that is paying 15% income tax. Exactly the same subsidy is achieved by giving a health tax deduction. Tax subsidies are also known as tax expenditures. Tax subsidies are one of the main explanations for why the American tax code is so complicated.[8]
Tax breaks are often considered to be a subsidy. Like other subsidies, they distort the economy; but tax breaks are also less transparent, and are difficult to undo.[9]
tax subsidy noun [ C or U ] UK US TAX, GOVERNMENT, ECONOMICS a reduction in tax in order to reduce the cost of producing food, a product, etc. and to help to keep its price low:
Huh, Spectre was an issue with speculation and branch prediction, not with JIT.
Yes but the issue is that JIT code could be executed to read memory of the process from within the JIT environment. Basically, JIT compiled javascript could read your browser passwords because it's part of the same process. The reason it can do this is because the JIT compiler is translating the javascript into native instructions which if ordered correctly can exploit the spectre flaw. Were it to use a javascript interpreter engine then it would be completely unable to invoke the spectre flaw at all.
Well, no. It never has over geological history, has it.
Yeah, I'm not talking about geological timescales, I'm talking about human timescales. By 2100 it's going to be 7*F hotter globally and that's a conservative estimate. That's a HUGE shift which is unprecedented. After that it's only going to get hotter until we do something about. You would have to be stupid or insane to think this is normal.
Meltdown is an Intel problem. Spectre is only a problem if you use Just-In-Time compilation on your system. The obviously solution is to simply not use JIT in the first place. Nothing fundamentally needs it, it simply makes the execution of unverified code faster. Nobody writing applications needs to worry about Spectre... unless you are writing a JIT compiler. This is a very small number of applications and they can still run unverified code using an interpreter engine, it's just a bit slower.
LOL! What planet do you live on? It sounds nice there.
Now, you want to talk about environmental damage? Cool! Then let's also include the damage for refining steel, copper, rare earth metals, and such as needed for building renewable energy sources.
This is correct. If done improperly then all manufacturing can have serious environmental consequences. However, it should be noted that once refined, it's quite easy to recycle these things. While I may be pointing out petroleum pollution in this case, I think that all manufacturing should have to pay to clean up the pollution they cause. People and organizations of all kinds around the world should be all be held responsible for their pollution and the best way to do that is to include the price of reversing the pollution directly in the price of the goods/service they are selling. Why is that idea so objectionable to you?
And then let's deduct the benefits of the results - the petroleum used for fertilizer and medicines.
You're just acting silly now. The problem is the pollution from burning petroleum, not petroleum itself.
you work out how much that is (the full price of the product) for all the things you buy, tally that up and let us know how much it is, then you donate that to an environmental organization.
Sadly, the environmental cost of many products is hidden from the buyers. It would require government regulation to ensure the proper pricing is applied. However, your point that it would cost more and you snidely do not wish to pay for it is exactly the point. This new market force will result in an entirely new line of products that are far more environmentally friendly and therefore less expensive than existing products. The key is not to dump high prices on everyone all at once but rather slowly raise them an allow companies to adapt.
The free market isn't perfect but cost optimization is something it does very well.
The poor will always be victims when change is required and nobody considers them. However, discussing caveats when introducing a general concept is just wasting people's time and derailing the discussion with details that aren't foundational.
For immediate and direct monetary subsidies there is a brief report by the Treasury department in 2015: https://www.treasury.gov/open/... However, the more important and far more expensive is the environmental subsidies. Basically, they've gifted corporations the right to sell products that causes pollution when used without having to clean the pollution up. That gift is by definition a subsidy (check your own link if you want) and therefore it's subsidized pollution. We need to start including the full price of a product in it's sale price.
Slashdot Mirror
You are a fucking lunatic who believes that it's possible for a system to operate with 100% efficiency.
Physics ensures everything is 100% efficient because energy is neither created nor destroyed. If you fail to specify the what the bounds of system are then it's up to speaker to decide. I chose to define the system bounds as being our ecosphere. It is unproductive to turn to anger when some explains something beyond your comprehension.
I asked Al if he wanted to grab a beer and he told me he couldn't because he was busying working for no pay while putting people out of jobs. Stop relying on Al to do all your work and give the guy a break! >:(
Which is a non sequitur as in my straw man argument.
FTFY.
PV panels produce less than 80% of their original electrical output after 20-25 years but they still produce electricity. However, they are also made of highly recyclable materials, so it's really just re-manufacturing the panels when you are done with them.
So highly recyclable that the US still lack an infrastructure to recycle them. In the EU, PV panels are recycled because it is mandatory by law. In the US, an expert of solar energy technology at the Electric Power Research Institute said: "Either [PV recycling] becomes economical or it gets mandated. But I’ve heard that it will have to be mandated because it won’t ever be economical."
Sure, it's not done because it's economical and it's not economical because pollution isn't taxed and therefore costs less to just pollute and make new ones. Tax pollution and recycling suddenly becomes economical. Are you seeing a trend here? Pollution is the problem.
I'm not sure who this Al guy is but he's doing a lot of great things. :)
Good grief. Do you really believe that? It's complete and utter nonsense.
Perhaps you should tell that to the Trump administration because that's what they reported.
Tax everything based on Ecological Harm, including the production of equipment used for (all forms of) energy production.
Exactly. Then use that tax money to pay another company to reverse the ecological harm done. This cyclical system is called a feedback loop and it's how everything in nature works.
Manufacturing can be clean or dirty, depending on how you do it but it's 100% pollution free after that.
Fossil fuels also go through a manufacturing process which can be clean or dirty and it's 100% polluting after that.
What does that even mean?
It means that once it's manufactured, there is no part of it's operation that pollutes.
the expected life span of a PV panel is 20-25 years, the expected lifespan of a wind turbine is still 20-25 years. You can NOT just say "heck, it is pollution free after manufacturing",
PV panels produce less than 80% of their original electrical output after 20-25 years but they still produce electricity. However, they are also made of highly recyclable materials, so it's really just re-manufacturing the panels when you are done with them.
Measuring the real environmental impact of a given process is very hard, even subjective to some extent (are there pollutants better than others?). Measuring the real environmental impact _per energy produced_ is even more complex;
It's only complex if you want an exact number for a specific situation. However, in general less waste is produced when using renewable energy by several orders of magnitude.
it is all politics.
Only in the imaginary world where science doesn't matter and Earth gets warmer because it feels loved.
"Well they are all made out of super recyclable materials, so it's another manufacturing cycle."
Insert magic here!
You do know you just need to clean, melt down and then re-purify metals to recycle them, right? What do you think solar cells and wind turbines are made of?
"Yes, light and wind (which are results of the laws of physics) are 100% efficient."
You should stop talking here, you clearly have a lot of learning to do...if that's possible.
Or perhaps it's possible you don't realize that renewable energy (light and wind) is simply harvested and that which is not is still part of our ecosystem.
An ICE is the "result of the laws of physics", is it 100% efficient? What can that possibly mean?
It would mean you are utilizing the heat that it produces as well as the chemical byproduct. However, we do not usually utilize the heat put of by an ICE nor the chemical emissions it expels.
It's good to know our star is named Sol, though. Thanks for that.
Glad you learned something. Sol is the name of Roman personification of the Sun. The Latin postfix -ar means "relating to" which is where you get "solar". Likewise Earth's moon is named Luna after the Roman personification of the Moon again postfixed you get "lunar".
Now you can also be annoyed when people/movies refer to other star systems as "solar systems". You're welcome. ;)
The solution is simple: dump JIT.
HA! I'm sure you're being sarcastic, right?
Half-serious because I know it's an entrenched technology.
JAVA is primarily JIT and .NETs core CLR is pretty much in the same boat, although one can use Ahead Of Time if they so choose to do. But simple? not really.
If you are use .NET then you aren't serious about security to start with. If you use Java then you have chosen poorly.
There really is no slowing down or moving away from this iceberg.
I'm not trying to stop anything, I'm saying some people are serious about security and others are only pretending.
There's no pollution in the disposal after its life expectancy?
Well they are all made out of super recyclable materials, so it's another manufacturing cycle.
What is the thermodynamic efficiency of renewables, 100%? If not 100%, can the byproducts of its use be used for something else
Yes, light and wind (which are results of the laws of physics) are 100% efficient. The energy we harvest from these renewable energy sources are a sliver of what Earth gets from our star, Sol. That which is not collected is reflected (helping reduce the impact of excess CO2) or blows by and continues acting as part of Earth's global weather system.
my point is that you're saying "we need to" do this but the reality is you can't even say how much that would be or even suggest how you would go about making it happen much less actually do anything to make it happen.
How much it costs is dependent on the product and the manufacturing process. Do you expect me to go and investigate every product before suggesting something? Also, I pointed out that government regulation is the way to accomplish this. It's not rocket science to know you need the government involved here.
If you're lobbying for it or doing the math and putting that forward then I'd be very interested to see it, if we do indeed need to do it then then I'm curious as to what you're doing.
Well the alternative is turning the planet into Venus and everything dies, so what's that worth to you?
production of renewables does not pollute?
Manufacturing can be clean or dirty, depending on how you do it but it's 100% pollution free after that.
Fossil fuels also go through a manufacturing process which can be clean or dirty and it's 100% polluting after that.
Call it hacking and it's good, call it GMO and it's bad.
GMOs aren't bad, it's the modifications that are made that are bad.
Growing faster with fewer resources = good modification.
Able to resist being covered in increasingly caustic pesticides = bad modification.
Just tax pollution and renewables will pay for themselves.
Ecosystems by definition contain living organisms. If they do not contain organisms then they are not an ecosystem. Stop being dense.
Subsidies are a cash grant; only an idiot or liar would claim that a cut in taxes (meaning you pay less, but you still pay) is a subsidy.
well you better go fix wikipedia and some dictionaries! LOL!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Tax subsidy
Government can create the same outcome through selective tax breaks as through cash payment.[3] For example, suppose a government sends monetary assistance that reimburses 15% of all health expenditures to a group that is paying 15% income tax. Exactly the same subsidy is achieved by giving a health tax deduction. Tax subsidies are also known as tax expenditures. Tax subsidies are one of the main explanations for why the American tax code is so complicated.[8]
Tax breaks are often considered to be a subsidy. Like other subsidies, they distort the economy; but tax breaks are also less transparent, and are difficult to undo.[9]
https://dictionary.cambridge.o...
tax subsidy
noun [ C or U ] UK US TAX, GOVERNMENT, ECONOMICS
a reduction in tax in order to reduce the cost of producing food, a product, etc. and to help to keep its price low:
Huh, Spectre was an issue with speculation and branch prediction, not with JIT.
Yes but the issue is that JIT code could be executed to read memory of the process from within the JIT environment. Basically, JIT compiled javascript could read your browser passwords because it's part of the same process. The reason it can do this is because the JIT compiler is translating the javascript into native instructions which if ordered correctly can exploit the spectre flaw. Were it to use a javascript interpreter engine then it would be completely unable to invoke the spectre flaw at all.
Well, no. It never has over geological history, has it.
Yeah, I'm not talking about geological timescales, I'm talking about human timescales. By 2100 it's going to be 7*F hotter globally and that's a conservative estimate. That's a HUGE shift which is unprecedented. After that it's only going to get hotter until we do something about. You would have to be stupid or insane to think this is normal.
Meltdown is an Intel problem. Spectre is only a problem if you use Just-In-Time compilation on your system. The obviously solution is to simply not use JIT in the first place. Nothing fundamentally needs it, it simply makes the execution of unverified code faster. Nobody writing applications needs to worry about Spectre... unless you are writing a JIT compiler. This is a very small number of applications and they can still run unverified code using an interpreter engine, it's just a bit slower.
The solution is simple: dump JIT.
Deductions from taxes aren't subsidies.
LOL! What planet do you live on? It sounds nice there.
Now, you want to talk about environmental damage? Cool! Then let's also include the damage for refining steel, copper, rare earth metals, and such as needed for building renewable energy sources.
This is correct. If done improperly then all manufacturing can have serious environmental consequences. However, it should be noted that once refined, it's quite easy to recycle these things. While I may be pointing out petroleum pollution in this case, I think that all manufacturing should have to pay to clean up the pollution they cause. People and organizations of all kinds around the world should be all be held responsible for their pollution and the best way to do that is to include the price of reversing the pollution directly in the price of the goods/service they are selling. Why is that idea so objectionable to you?
And then let's deduct the benefits of the results - the petroleum used for fertilizer and medicines.
You're just acting silly now. The problem is the pollution from burning petroleum, not petroleum itself.
Oceans are ecosystems, retard.
Do you want a Moon Nazi invasion because this is how you get a Moon Nazi invasion! #IronSky
you work out how much that is (the full price of the product) for all the things you buy, tally that up and let us know how much it is, then you donate that to an environmental organization.
Sadly, the environmental cost of many products is hidden from the buyers. It would require government regulation to ensure the proper pricing is applied. However, your point that it would cost more and you snidely do not wish to pay for it is exactly the point. This new market force will result in an entirely new line of products that are far more environmentally friendly and therefore less expensive than existing products. The key is not to dump high prices on everyone all at once but rather slowly raise them an allow companies to adapt.
The free market isn't perfect but cost optimization is something it does very well.
The poor will always be victims when change is required and nobody considers them. However, discussing caveats when introducing a general concept is just wasting people's time and derailing the discussion with details that aren't foundational.
For immediate and direct monetary subsidies there is a brief report by the Treasury department in 2015: https://www.treasury.gov/open/...
However, the more important and far more expensive is the environmental subsidies. Basically, they've gifted corporations the right to sell products that causes pollution when used without having to clean the pollution up. That gift is by definition a subsidy (check your own link if you want) and therefore it's subsidized pollution. We need to start including the full price of a product in it's sale price.