you're confusing coal with graphite or something else composed of elemental carbon.
Nope, just oversimplified. That's why I said 'essentially'. You're not getting energy on average burning the other stuff. Even natural gas isn't 100% CH4.
I was simply trying to explain why you have less CO2 emissions when you burn gas instead of coal.
It seems Germany is leading the way in showing, by example, that every bit of American futzing about solar power and unions is, to put it down hard, a load of cultish crap designed to make rich people much richer.
Couldn't one say the same about solar in Germany? After all, Germany is paying 36.25 cents per kWh, the USA is paying 8-17.
and now they've shown you can run 50% of an industrial economy off the power of the sun
Actually they've shown that you can reach 50% during a sunny national holiday when most of the industrial equipment is turned off. Going by annual energy production they're more at 5%.
Hawaii would actually be a bit better, but they have their own problems relating to having so much solar installed it's a threat to grid stability.
And I say this as a guy who was seriously looking at putting panels on my roof. In Alaska.
but how does gas significantly reduce carbon emmissions?
An energy source doesn't need to be 'carbon free' to reduce CO2 emissions. Coal is essentially pure carbon, while natural gas is a carbon fixed to four hydrogens. Burning Coal yields pure CO2(in theory), burning CH4 gives you CO2 and H2O
Burning coal:
C + O2 -> CO2. Approximately 2,249 lbs per MWh.
CH4 + 2 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O Approximately 1,135 lbs of CO2 per MWh, or half that of Coal.
In all cases, energy efficiency improvement investment is signfiicantly undervalued in terms of carbon reduction return.
I'm not so sure about this part. I still constantly see 'save energy'! reminders that assume I still run incandescents, set the AC to 60F and the heat to 80F, have single pane windows and no insulation while running a HVAC system from the '70s.
While there are still those types out there, I think they're in a distinct minority at this point. At least in my area so many of the appliances in the store are energy star rated that I think NOT having the rating is a kiss of death. Instead, I think the big energy wasters now are more institutional. I still see people who don't have to pay for the electricity using their own money attempting to light the sky, for example.
But I definitely agree with you on the nuclear power. Especially if we can get our heads out of our asses and put in co-generation systems - 6pm on a cold December is also a good point for great demand for heat.
The most interesting part about Germany's Solar deployment is that they have almost no utility scale deployments. Almost every deployed panel is on the roof of a building of a privately owned residence or business.
Probably has to do with the form Germany's subsidies takes.
we'd have more power than we could ever use. Germany is proof of that.
Yeah, like we'd ever use more than 640k of memory... If the power is there we'll use it. To make aluminum, power our new EVs, etc...
Still, we have a pretty good example in Hawaii. Due to most of their electricity being oil generated and predominately sunny(but not too hot) weather relatively close to the equator they've actually managed to get to the point where they could have a day where they bust 100% at this point. It's reached the point that you need permission from the electricity company to get a hookup.
Still, let's do some figuring. Leaving Business and Industrial customers out of it for now.
The average US household uses 10,837 kWh a year, or 903 kWh/month.
A 300 watt solar panel takes up about 21 square feet and costs $263, though final install cost will be $1.50-$2/watt.
Each panel can be expected to produce about 789 kWh/year, ideally placed. Competing against 10 cent electricity, payoff would be about 8 years. Note: I'm using average cases here. I almost bought solar panels for my house, given that I have a nice south-facing roof. On the other hand, I live in Alaska. Even with our relatively expensive electricity I couldn't make it make sense due to substantially LOWER power production than I'm figuring and higher costs(even doing most of the work myself).
Anyways, getting back on topic, that means that each homeowner would need to install 14 panels, on average, to cover their energy needs, assuming they have a retired Model-S battery or something to provide stability.
Some interesting calculations I've made in the past:
Every dollar they earn is one less taxpayer dollar they receive.
Your ratio is poor. I prefer more like 4:1, even when I was mean I supported 2:1 - This results in a gradual weaning off of benefits, which actually encourages people to work.
If I get $10k in benefits a year, and get a part time job making $10k, reducing my benefits to $7500 means that the government is still $2.5k ahead, but I'm now $7.5k ahead, which makes it so I want to work as I see the benefits.
I get a 'decent' job making $40k* and the benefits finally go away, but at that point I'm not only above the poverty line I'm paying taxes. Whatever, somewhere between 4:1 and 2:1 should work well. You might need to make it progressive - IE the first $1000 is free, etc...
*Let's be nice and say that the $40k includes benefits so it's more like $30k/year, and the $10k included stuff like medical
Africa will probably be the next, last bastion for poor and oppressed labor.
I think India still has a few 'last gasps' for cheap labor, after that it's down to really small countries. But I agree, and consider this people:
China: 1.35B people
India: 1.24B
Africa: 1.07B
The ENTIRE continent, short of a population boom that puts any previous baby booms to shame, isn't going to be able to take on the demand for 'cheap labor' when China and India start looking to outsource for cheaper labor like the rest of the world did. And that's without addressing the stability issues Africa has. China at least had predictability and businesses didn't have to worry about gunmen holding the factories/supplies/finished product hostage.
As such, I figure 'insourcing' is going to be the 'next big thing' for a while. Domestic appliance manufacturers are already discovering that by outsourcing production they also outsourced their production knowledge, and while they were fine for a generation, they lost the ability to design appliances that could be manufactured effectively. By bringing stuff back in house and really nailing the automation they're actually making higher quality appliances using less labor at lower cost.
Actually it leads to more efficient use of space through price rationing.
In other words, pay to play. It's still not more efficient.
They have no more right to enforce their will than any of the rest of us.
It's their land, their parking spots. They get to set the terms of usage for them. That they should really jack the rates up and introduce alternatives and policies to encourage effective alternatives* is only a related issue.
*I'm picturing things like elevated slideways between buildings, subways and such that increase the effective distance a walker can cover.
I think that it's the FAA sees a potential end-run around it's traditional domain- after all if you allow drones for disaster reconnaissance, how long before UPS and Fedex are campaigning for unmanned transport jets, followed by even traditional airliners wanting to get rid of their pilots? Without pilots, there go the air traffic controllers.
Meanwhile they lack the ability under the law to do much more than just push a blanket ban on drones, many of which don't even need traditional airports.
If efficiency is really the goal, then the city of SF should raise the fee for parking to a market rate. But I suspect that certain interest groups would oppose that...
Viewing the city of SF as a sort of non-profit business/charity, I actually agree with you. Utilize the income to provide some mix of additional parking and alternatives so people don't have to drive.
IE the rental fee for your parking spot includes a subsidy for the bus/subway/train/slideway that helps to ensure that there's actually a spot available for you to find. Oh, and generous reduced-rate garages on the outskirts of the city so people are encouraged to transfer OUT of their car before the city center.
I wonder what you think of occupy movement and all the other protests, which are especially common in San Francisco?
Complicated. Keep in mind that the situations varied by different locations. Still, on average I believe that they enjoy more protection simply by being explicitly political/non-monetary in nature. For that matter they probably had those locations more highly populated/used than normal.
Where I start drawing the line is where they start causing damage.
Since the buyer also has the app installed, he/she will have incentive to leave sooner, during prime time, to make the money back.
It also gives incentive to be a professional parking-keeper if the rates are high enough. Drive around looking for a spot. Take it, immediately list & sell. Move on and find another. Hell, it could probably be done on foot or scooter.
Do you honestly think congress actually cared?
Members therein, certainly. All of them? Nope.
Otherwise you're looking at it way too narrowly -
Is he in the US (because if he's in the US we can nab him with the FBI/federal marshal's service) or an allied state(that will pick him up for us)
Would killing him threaten their own? I'd say the question was whether capturing him threaten their own. In this case YES.
do I have an excuse? Bringing up spin-doctors is unfair in this case. The dude had a whole youtube library calling for death to the USA.
In this case all three branches essentially consented to the killing. Congress by passing the authorization of force without putting a 'unless they're a US Citizen' clause in it. The Executive branch because, yes, the president became involved, the DoD is part of it, etc... The Judicial branch, while it didn't try him, certainly had their hand in the analysis memo authorizing it.
Like I've said elsewhere, I'm actually happy that terrorists in foreign locations that happen to be US Citizens weren't held to be 'more valuable' than random non-US terrorists in foreign locations. We probably disagree where the bar should be, but I think the bar should be at the same height.
But not the basic fact of people exchanging money for information.
It falls back to 'holding a public space hostage' the moment the seller stays in his spot any longer than he would have without the application in order to get said money/allow the buyer the spot. I believe that the application amounts to being worthless if the seller doesn't hold the space for the buyer, because in my experience somebody will pull into the spot less than a minute later without any intervention.
This leads to less efficient use of space due to lingering, which is what the city wants to avoid.
I happen to agree with you on the declaration of war. I think that Congress should actually have the balls to declare war if they're going to get the US Military involved into shooting operations. However I think you have a simplistic view of conventional war, much less asynchronous warfare. It's not even the first time we've 'declared' war against non-state actors, the Barbary wars soon after we became an independent state from Britain being examples there.
Second, just being a citizen of a country, or within the country, is NOT sufficient evidence for them to be a target under LOAC(Law of Armed Conflict). They have to be supporting the war effort in some material way, and generally not just by paying taxes.
By this logic could China use a drone to kill an Chinese citizen in the US if they believe he holds a high position in Falun Gong?
You've missed much of the context of my original post on this topic if you believe this to be valid. Though I'll admit that in reality the politics behind these sorts of operations becomes very complex, and there's still a huge amount of 'might makes right'. Like it or not, being an 800 pound gorilla means that you can push the 200 pound ones around, at least until you piss off enough of them that 5-10 of them are willing to make a coordinated effort. It becomes even more complicated when the 800# gorilla has friends between 500-700# who agree(at least behind closed doors) with their actions.
Getting back on point, your logic generally fails in that said member is unlikely to be an imminent threat while in the USA, capture IS feasible - if they can collect enough evidence the USA will hand him back. Anwar al-Awlaki had essentially a private military force on par with the state's military, so that wasn't an option there. Adherence to applicable war principles - we have an authorization for military action, we're not targeting random civilians, there's a military justification for targeting him, etc...
In addition you have politics. In general we try to have permission from whatever country we're bombing(but not at war with) to bomb the specific targets that we attack. However, the USA doesn't have militias and independent forces that are competitive with the US military running around and is unlikely(in the extreme) to grant any such permission. The alternative is to do without it, which risks the full range of state responses, from strongly worded letters to sanctions to outright declarations of war. Yes, if we bomb Country X in pursuit of killing/destroying Al Qaeda we have to worry about them declaring war on us if we don't have permission. Country X also has to weigh the consequences of declaring war on us in response to our violation of their sovereign territory. Other than that, UN Sanctions are also possible, but if a country is willing to keep going in the face of it(and ask North Korea, Cuba, and numerous other states how much they care about UN Sanctions...), it's still an option. Really, country-level politics is a lot more like primitive tribal law than modern law. Might makes right in way too many cases.
It seems to be a dangerous blurring of the line between law enforcement and war.
The terrorists did much of the blurring when they turned into instruments of war themselves by forming what amounts to irregular forces and taking over measurable amounts of territory. They might not be the formally recognized government in those regions, but they are effectively the local government there. We're talking about zones where if the state military tried to go in there there would be real battles with hundreds/thousands killed.
Common mistake, but the important thing to note is that he isn't being punished. He's being killed in the pursuit of war, authorized under article 1, section 8 of the constitution: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
As such "but did his involvement rise to the level of a capital crime? Is there even a death sentence for conspiracy to commit murder?" are two irrelevant questions. As a member of the opposing military faction that the USA is at war with*, there needs be no crime for him to be targeted and killed. That he's in a leadership position simply raises him to a level where 'servicing' him specifically is a military priority with the intent of disrupting command & control**.
*I know that actual declarations of war have been rather sparse for the last 50 years or so, but the actual authorization of military force by congress is there.
**Military speak for: Without orders the lower levels are unlikely to be able to perform coordinated actions which increase efficiency. Ergo, disrupting systems, from destroying communication abilities to the very ability to give orders(IE kill the leaders) is a method for furthering their objectives in the war.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov
