This whole flap arose over some studies from Harvard medical school where the population being studied were told their identity would be protected. Some Republican Congressmen when holding a hearing about proposed EPA regulations based on the study asked for specific information that could lead to the identification of individual participants and the researchers refused to provide it. Apparently the collective statistics provided by the study were not good enough for them.

So what's more important, the desires of Congress or the privacy of the individuals who participated in the study?

Speaking of blowing, could we attach a wind turbine to his fake credentials?

Wood in itself is long term carbon storage, but European forests aren't, even without burning them. Maybe jungles are different, but this isn't Brazil.

Firstly because France is largely nuclear, which has historically been very cheap on a large scale, so a comparison to France would be tough for many countries, and secondly because it's a long-term project. The fact that it's not as cheap now doesn't mean it will stay so. But you can't build new infrastructure on a whim. For example, PV module cost is steadily going down. So when they get, say, three times cheaper in the next two decades (UMG cells, packaging improvement, manufacturing improvement...), if people at that point in time suddenly start putting them onto their roofs like crazy without some infrastructure investments done now, what's going to happen? Something nasty, I'd bet.

Only 20% extra price hardly seems like "completely non-viable" to me if you consider how technological things could change in the next two decades.

I agree. Wannabe certainly sounds to me like he was never commissioned or in any way successful. Heinlein wasn't a wannabe naval officer, he *was* a commissioned naval officer.

You could say he was a wannabe captain or admiral, perhaps, but "wannabe" implies he didn't have it in him to be either of those things and there is no evidence that he lacked the ability to have an otherwise long and successful career, especially on the eve of WWII. Being forced out for a legitimate medical reason does not indicate that he was a failed officer in the way that the term implies.

So yeah, not a very good way to put it. "Frustrated" in his attempt to have a full naval career, is what I might say if I actually believed that his frustrations were being acted out in his fiction. Which I don't.

Oh god.. not this kind of crap. You know this solves and explains exactly *nothing* that we have already observed right.

Which would be pretty fantastic!

Bad statistics is bad statistics. Suck it up or get the statistics right. I don't care what side is spinning what. I am always going to call deliberately misleading statistics out. Yea when its deliberate, is because their is an axe to grind. Regardless if that axe "drugs are awesome" or "beer is evil" or "all hurricanes are SUVs fault". It is done far too often in the scientific community by people that should know better.

Yea its old but i have been sick.

I think Germany is also going for power-to-gas. (And they better had some regular pumped storage built in the years to come, since they're seriously lagging behind.)

That's why the Kock brothers oppose these things - they hate competition.

You say that, but someone already thought of that.

Wow, way to not link to a study, but rather a Smithsonian blog talking about a Wordpress blog talking about a study. You clearly love your primary sources!

FYI, the study is just one of many. The study itself cites others, including:

20,000 birds/yr (Sovacool, 2012)
10,000–40,000 birds/yr (Erickson et al., 2001 and Manville, 2005)
20,000–40,000 birds/yr (Erickson et al., 2005)
440,000 (Manville, 2009)
573,000 (Smallwood, 2013).

The latter two include lattice towers, which are largely being decommissioned as unsafe to birds.

But hey, having varied numbers clearly means that if you can find a blog linking to another blog linking to a study that shows high numbers (among many different studies), then clearly the GP is "plain wrong", right?

And yes, even if we go with your choice study's mean of 234,012 annual bird deaths, that's still orders of magnitude less than many other types of human activities.

I have serious fears that we're facing an unduly high risk of a major wind spill here. :(

The number of grammatical cases is irrelevant. Question: What's the difference between a grammatical case without stem changes and a postposition (opposite of a preposition? Answer: A space.

  That which is challenging, apart from stem changes, is the same thing that is challenging with helper words in general: when to use what with what. Picture a person learning English and trying to remember what to use with what. "I was scolding her.... over it? for it? about it? to it? around it?" "We were unhappy.... over it? for it? about it? to it? around it?" "She was dedicated.... over it? for it? about it? to it? around it?" And so forth. It's the same for people trying to learn which declension case to use in which context. But if the declensions are just suffixes without stem changes, then they're no different from postpositions. And often stem changes where they occur follow pretty predictable rules, often for pronunciation reasons.