becasue the countries the would rise up would be all enviro friendly and not use petroleum
How should be a country like Argentinia, Brazil, North Korea or any other be in a different shape, economic and energy wise if the USA had not existed the previous decades?
You make no sense.
You notice Chinas population kept going up over the lat 40 years? it was 600 million in 1960, and now it's 1.3 billion.
It was enforced draconically. I wonder how you can not know that. Even with only one child per family obviously over 40 years you get a dramatic increase.
"Or just some stupid fag? "
He is a stupid fag
Perhaps you should google?
There are two axises: strong versus weak and dynamic versus static.
You are mixing up strong with static
Perhaps you mean static typed verus dynamic typed?
Every means of power production has the exact same loss in transmissions!
So the argumemt makes no sense! and no, 6% - 7% is jot really significant, considering that the nuclear plant next door has the same loss.
Solar power installation cost is now somewhere in the range of 70 euro - cent per kW, that is roughly 55 dollar cents.
Even without subsidiezing it is pretty on par with coal,power now, in production.
Transmission losses are not significant
So what exactly are you? A moron? A complete dick? Or just some stupid fag? Or simply a racist?
Nothing we could have done in the last 100 years would have made a bit of difference with respect to what you mention.
We could have spend the amount of money we put into nuclear power into solar power. Solar thermal plants don't require a certain technology level. Instead of subsidizing nuclear and using coal for load following we had now a working low cost (energy for free) society.
Well, except possibly for doing something to reduce eastern population booms by a few billion people.
And for what effect? Considering that whole China had a lower CO2 footprint than the USA till 2012.
Frankly, nuking the USA and killing every one there has exactly the same effect as killing 1.5 billion chinese, NOW. But killing the whole of USA 50 years ago would change the current situation dramatically.
The couple hundred million people in the west with the economic latitude to pursue the type of stuff laid out in TFA won't make a bit of change,
Completely wrong, as the couple of western civilizations together produce 75% of the green house gases.
Well, I guess you don't know such simple facts or you would not write such nonsense.
You want any of this to change? Stop having so many babies in places that can't afford them. But you do know that China has a single child policy since nearly 40 years, you do or not? You do know that the population in Africa is constant since decades? Well, I assume you don't know anything that is happening outside of your fantasy world
Batteries my hold not much, but certainly they are efficient!
What is a "nullable hypothesis"?
There won't be any as you obviously only argue for arguing sake
So you still believe that 'ordinary' SQL is turing complete?
But as you obviously keep insulting me
Depends on your country and energy usage pattern.
The peak in Germany is not at between 5 and 8 at evening/night.
Also you are somehow fixated in your mind on solar PV, hence your demand for batteries. The future will favour solar thermal solutions much more, which can run overnight via heat reservoirs.
And as mentioned before: evening and night time is prime time for wind. It does not matter that solar PV plants decline then in power production. Result: the imagined demand for (better) batteries is overrated. Especially as long as we in Germany are far from being able to fulfill demand/load on the grid with renewables alone.
However when we have days where renewables will deliver more than100% of the load, and we can not sell the excess production, THEN we have to think if it is worthwhile to store the excess energy somehow.
You mix up personal installations, where you use your own power, and perhaps like to have some of that at night, with large scale installations by/for energy companies.
What is your problem?
Standard SQL (1986/1999) is not turing complete.
The articles you linked are not about standard SQL but about modern derivates, no idea if they 'just yesterday' became an agreed standard (which is not adopted yet, and from which is unclear which vendor will when implement what of it). And I don't care. I'm not particular interested in using SQL for solving programming problems.
Your initial statement was provably false, and you're simply unable to admit your error.
No, it was not!
Google: is SQL turing complete
So simple, 100ds of articles showing you that I'm right.
But good luck with your insulting attitude, you might need that luck.
Wind power actually is very reliable if you chose a place fitting it
Wind energy is cost wise on par with coal in Germany right now. Long term wind and tidal energy will be the cheapest. There are no real alternative.