Well in this case, apparently not.
I think that's precisely why Apple is being investigated here, what's mere avoidance in other countries sounds like it may well be evasion in Italy.
that's exactly the case. the judiciary in Italy have given an enormously lax interpretation of abuse of law, to the extent that it is in the sole and retrospective interpretation of the tax authorities to say what the law actually intended years ago. Mind you, that leads to byzantine tax laws, since the legislator has no interest whatsoever to do it right the first time.
As a Washington State resident, there are many counties that are wood only heating. Pierce and Tacoma have large suburbs and are not exactly off the grid living. They are bigger and can force the smaller population to upgrade. The counties like Stevens, Ferry and Okanogan are mostly wood heated homes. I have no real numbers but out of the 39 counties in Washington, I'd say at least 1/2 have majority of wood only heated homes, we still are a big wild state.
My mothers county has many people that are wood only, and if they went around giving $1000 dollar fines for people burning, they would tar and feather and hold a recall election. Those urban counties are gray haired monsters who know each other and would put pressure to any elected official.
Those poor gray haired women are the Majority of voters, tell them they cant heat their homes. Most of these people live in urban areas that dont have fire departments, police or or trash pick up. Tacoma I'd say is much different, its urban sprawl.
I think that in some parts, the stoves would smoke cloudier for some days, and then they would not be seen again.
42
in assassin's creed if you kill 3 civilians then the level ends. i think this is a fair approach. of course in GTA if you kill a civilian then you get his money and his car, although that's not a war crime so much as a regular crime. I don't play the CoD type games so I don't know how they address the issue.
in these games, you can dress up as a petty tyrant or rogue state and get to ignore any UN sponsored regulation, unless you have an hand in designing it.
Where do you find unamed people? I doubt very small babies would make good security folks.
How can they be unnamed?
They are all named Johnson !!
"[...]but as far as the EU is concerned, this is all about a reduction of waste"
I wonder how many times they shuffled between Strasbourg and Bruxelles while they decided that I do not need three 15 EUR chargers.
Isn't it better to stop looking for excuses why not to upgrade the energy (re)distribution infrastructure? Over a large area, there's sun or wind somewhere most of the time, definitely more often than over a small area. Perhaps it's time to stop thinking locally.
Even thinking locally, with an efficient enough panel you'll still get meaningful energy output during a rain storm. It's not total darkness during these conditions, and supplemented with battery backup to even out the load during lean times you should be fine.
That being said, I still prefer ideas like the liquid salt plant outside of Seville. Focus the sun's light with mirrors to a giant thermal battery and use that to power turbines.
want an economic proof that the molten salt storage is a Rube Goldberg ? there are lots of situation, predating the solar craze, where an economic way of storing and releasing energy in bulk would come in handy, and molten salt technologies date back to the late 1950ies. But no one used them, even when "Global warming" was not in the vocabulary and baseload generators were way more efficient at producing low cost energy than peak generators.
in most situation, it's better to use a generator at peak capacity 24/7, make it smaller and use storage, than have a bigger one and hover between 90% and 100%. I surmise that the Seville plant gets most of its efficiency from not using solar cells with all the attendant efficiency losses at the panel and trasmission level and use electrical energy to raise temperature in the salt, which I gather is perfectly possible technically. But that's a non sequitur: it's still a problem of energy availability.
Reflectors aren't weightless, and neither are the extensive heat removal systems that will be required to cool a concentrated solar cell in space. I've never seen a representation of a satellite with anything but unconcentrated cells. Pssst - Although not guaranteed, if they get 44.7% efficiency at 300x normal sunlight... They probably do similarly under 1x sunlight. Claims like the one made don't describe a requirement for that efficiency, they describe an extreme under which the cells can still perform. As in "oooh, we only need one $1000 panel and 297 $10 mirrors, rather than 297 $150 panels"
......And, 297 times the surface, plus the added wiring etc. Only way to measure in a meaningful way is fixed cell, no concentrators, 10+ days during the equinox. Ah, do not forget diesel generators or batteries to guarantee continuous output, will ya?
Can someone explain this to me in idiot? I don't see what the problem is, nor why I should care.
problem:someone made mony using insider information, which is AFAIK a federal crime of felony;
solution: go old school and suspend trading in securities, including bonds and government bonds, from 15 minutes before a potentially market moving news dissemination, to half an hour afterwards.
this was widely used in equity markets before the socalled "liberalizations" came about. Oh, while we're at it, go back to force trading on official markets, of any securities liable to go exchanged in private hands and/or end up in instruments which end up in private hands. No dark pools, no proprietary trading , or other comparable things.
Problem solved.
It is my taxpayer money, and I will gladly pay for that compared to other things. Instead of paying $10,000 to the federal government, I got a bigger refund and only had to pay $7,000 last year because I put some solar panels on my roof and reduced the amount of coal and fracking natural gas I use.
I'll let your money go towards those things like big oil subsidies, corporate bank bailouts, and militarized police.
It's the taxpayers' money. and no one tells them the whole truth. Maybe they can afford it, maybe not. we're not talking about Holliwood actors buying a Tesla to do something for the environment, even if in my fit of rage i'd like to go there wearing a T shirt saying "you just made everything costlier for the rest of us". we're talking about "let them eat cakes"
That's the point, you don't have to use Solar as baseline, especially in the southern half of the country where the demand load is during daylight hours, for air conditioning, not at night, for heat. You use something else for base load, but your demand load during daylight hours dwarfs the amount of power needed for nighttime base load. If the friggin' various governments would get their heads out of their asses, they'd provision for residential solar with the same degree of government assistance that the power utilities get, and they'd force the utilities into fair market prices for the energy they get from residential solar systems. As it stands right now, the residence is compensated at the lowest price per KWh that the power company charges its customers during the middle of the night when power is cheapest, even though it's distributing that power during the peak of demand, getting three or four times that price from customers. And on top of that, they're wanting to add an extra charge to the bills of residences with solar panels, claiming that they're losing revenue because of those solar panels. Screw. them.
Here in Italy, it's the other way around. Solar producers gets the highest rate, if they are hybrid producer/consumer they are paid on Gross, not Net (i.e., I produce 50 Kw and consume 30 Kw, I get the revenue on 50 at the high rate and pay normal rates on the 30 consumed), and therefore the utilities are to all intent and purposes unsubsidised.
Thanks for the info, I thought more or less everywhere the model was similar: consumers subsidise solar power. the total here is 10 Bn. Euros per year, and most of it is paid by small/medium businesses.
I know you're being sarcastic, but it's not just nuclear power plants that generate revenues. Where I live, there's a large wind farm that pays millions a year of other taxpayers' money through council and business taxes: they make my small sleepy town mega-rich and pose zero threat to the environment, save for a few birds that think they can fly through the spinning blades now and then.
There, fixed it for you. and recall that the prim promoters of wind and solar brush the necessity of backup, on-call generation under the taxpayer's carpet as well.
Do not think that I am a dr. Strangelove or something: I am just trained in analysing economic alternatives where my money and livelihood are on the table, and there's no taxpayer whom I can pass the buck to. I'd love to see a comprehensive, "all side effects in" study of such things, but all are more or less ass backwards things:" Since renewable energy is good per se, we'll subsidise it to the tune of [insert number of billion Euros here] each year, and therefore it achieves grid parity".
We are not a loved organization, but we are a respected one. -- John Fisher
