That would require him considering women as human beings rather than objects to fuck. He isn't capable of that.

Sometimes that choice is the right one. Not all parents are good parents. Some are downright toxic.

33% is more than enough to power the world without blanketing every inch in solar panels.

Love new technology, always have, but these kinds of advances pale in comparison to JUST PUTTING PANELS ON.

My house is a tiny, tiny (60sq m.... yes 60) house. My smart meter tells me - I pull at absolute max 10KW at any one time (and that rarely and briefly). I pull 8.5KWh / day, on average, over the last 4 years. My house is entirely electric so that's everything - that's heating, lighting, my computers, cooking, appliances, etc. etc. etc.

My roof space is ~30sq m (I have some extra panels on an outdoor shed, my front is NOT covered entirely in panels, I have about 8-10KW of panels). I can satisfy the above by covering my roof space at a less-than-ideal facing, tilted at a less-than-ideal angle, at a less-than-ideal latitude (the UK), and with less-than-ideal panels, having a battery pack consisting of less-than-ideal batteries.

In the summer, I'm constantly in excess (hell, I'm still in excess now and it's nearly October). In winter *sometimes* I have to fall back to grid (but my heating is entirely heatpumps, and they pull a maximum of 800W each, but more like 250W once the temperature is where it should be).

Oh and the above - is an entirely homemade system. I cut and crimped every cable, I lifted, railed and fixed every panel, I joined all the batteries together myself, I fused and RCD'd and MCB'd the entire thing. I operate them as entirely separate to my grid power system (though the new micro-inverters are about to change that as they've been approved in my country now).

If I can do that, so can much of the world, especially with professional deployment, and so SHOULD those portions of the world where it's viable be made to do this.

Training these models is incredibly expensive. In fact it's so expensive that there is no viable economic model to do so. As such, their options are either to drastically slow down the amount of new models trained or to go bankrupt. This is just a nice whitewashing of that. It remains to be seen if even using their models can be profitable, but we know that with the cost of training the next one they can't be.

China is burning and mining more coal than the rest of the world put together.

Its emitting about 12 billion metric tons of CO2 annually. That is a bit under one third of the global total.

It is financing and building coal fired generation plants all over the world.

The US is emitting 5 billion metric tons of CO2 annually.

That is less than half what the Chinese are emitting.

Wake up!

"The results are a wake-up call, and its imperative that they be included in the next generation of climate policies," he added. "Failure to do so will make meeting the worlds climate goals less and less likely."

The world has no climate goals nor any policies either. You have the COPs, which most of the high emitting and fastest growing emitters attend with the sole purpose of preventing them from reaching any agreement on stopping growing or reducing. In which they have been very successful over the years.

Then you have some Western countries adopting what they try and position as national action plans. However these plans never address the total of even national emissions - the only thing they propose is to build wind and solar generation of electricity, which is a minority of emissions. The proposals also, while they are sold as net zero, in fact do not go near eliminating even all local emissions from power generation.

And even if they did, the countries doing this only account for a tiny percentage of total global emissions.

I read these pieces containing comments like the one quoted at the head of this comment and shake my head. These people are living in a dream world - the world in which sending tens of thousands of people to the COPs every couple of years to decide nothing is supposed to be making some difference to the worlds climate and weather.

In the real world the furthest advanced on thee national plan of moving to an electric society powered by wind and solar is the UK, and its failing. They are incurring huge costs to bring the generated wind power from the north coast of Scotland to where demand is, in the south and Midlands. They have no plans for dealing with intermittency of the resulting supply other than gas plants. The cost estimates for the transmission are rising ominously. People are not buying heat pumps anyway. Their latest effort to deal with the so called migration is to allow for the electricity companies to do rolling blackouts. Its beoming an election issue and net zero will not survive the next couple of elections.

As I keep saying, people need to wake up. If its really true that human emissions are going to bring about a climate crisis, get ready, because its coming. There is no realistic prospect of the world reducing its emissions. China etc are growing their economies as fast as they can, and letting the emissions go where they may. The UK is demonstrating that the plan of moving to wind and solar, and to EVs and heat pumps, will not happen and is anyway not affordable, and even were it to be afforded and done, it would only drop global emissions by a fraction of 1% - an amount China makes up by a couple months of growth.

The usual suspects will mark this post as trolling, but its not, its just the view any rational person will come to when looking at the facts of this matter. I am not persuaded there is any existential climate crisis from emissions. But suppose there is, there is certainly no rational global plan to lower them, and this is the point people need to start from. If you cannot get the Chinese to commit to lowering their emissions by 80%, which you cannot, then start preparing for whatever you think continuously rising emissions will lead to. Because its coming, and expensive programs which are no more than feelgoodery will not help.

It will strike everyone as very puzzling. After all, everyone on slashdot and Ars Technica knows that wind and solar are far cheaper than nuclear and just as reliable. So why on earth is Google looking into nukes? Why do they not just build a huge wind farm, throw in a few batteries, and get unlimited cheap power?

Because the wind and the sun are free, after all. But instead they seem to be resorting to a ridiculously expensive nuke, and then on top of that, where you have to pay for the fuel, I mean, someone has to dig the stuff up and refine it. Whereas the wind just blows and the sun just shines, so they obviously are cheaper.

They have accountants and lots of MBAa, so they must see this, so the question is why they are going against what their analyses must show them. If it was coal or gas we would know, they were in thrall to the fossil fuel industry. But is there a nuke lobby, and are they not bigger than it anyway.

Help me understand this! Its a great mystery. Unless I have missed something. But what could that be? I mean, it cannot be that wind and solar plus a few batteries are actually more expensive, could it?

Nothing will change until lots of people die (not just from the effects of such, but also things like "the boomer generation fuck off"), and/or the billionaires get hit in the wallet.

Same old story.

As someone who just had FTTP (yep, to the premises) installed in their rural home, the way they did it was thus:

- They went to the local cabinet (which is already fibre-backed to the local exchange many km's away), strung a fibre out of it.
- They got up the telegraph pole in my streets, strung a new fibre off it.
- They used the old copper line that's been there since the 60's to slide the new fibre reel down.
- They put a second hook on my eaves, and hooked the fibre from there, and then wired the fibre direct into my house.
- They didn't remove a damn thing.

Took about 20 minutes, judging by the CCTV.

It would take about the same time just to pull down the copper from my house safely (the above did not require closing or working in the road, for instance), then isolating that from the dozens of others in the road on the pole, then removing that all the way back to the cabinet. Which I know goes underground because when I first moved in a few years ago, the BT guy had to remove that cable from, basically, a huge puddle which was cutting my DSL speed from 75Mbps to 20Mbps (DSL is amazing, though, that it still worked!).

Until everything's fibre, you can't remove those old lines, it's just not practical. And then are you really going to mobilise a bunch of people to remove a small run of copper from every street?

I once did some maths and the IT at the school I work in has something like tens of thousands of km+ of copper wiring that's unused. One room can have 30+ runs of nearly-100m. That's 3km for one room, from where a building was previously wired to have an IT suite, but then changed purpose, etc. We could, in theory, take that pure-copper cable out and recycle it. That one school likely has more copper in it than my entire village.

The fact is that it's just not worth the effort. There are huge thick bundles of it, and while it wouldn't take that long to pull it all out (much easier than putting it in because you can largely just cut and pull the entire bundle), it's not worth doing so in terms of the cost of the raw copper. We know that because honestly much of the time, rather than re-use the old copper runs which we know to be Cat5e, we just run a new Cat6a run alongside them if we do need to wire something. And Cat5e has far more metal in it than old telephone line.

I cut something like 200 cables this summer alone. And I mean I cut the last 2 metres of them because they were in my way in the cabinets. The actual RUN of cable is still in the walls and going all over the building, 50, 60, 70m runs all over the place.

I bet that a single office or school demolition recovers more copper (and steel and other stuff) than an entire village of old telephone lines, and while it may be a factor on the demolition companies finances, it's not a huge one. Scrap metal, which you have to de-sheath, transport, etc. isn't as valuable as people make out. It's why nobody arranges a regular scrap-metal collection at my local council to come and just grab anything of value that they could. No. They do that for paper. They don't do it for metal unless you arrange it with them. There's not much money in it. The only people making money are the guys lobbing some bits of lead, steel and alumium on the back of their van until they have enough to get a couple-of-hundred-quid free personal backhander as part of their work when it's all been moved at the expense of their company's fuel expense account.

Yeah, all you need is 200 years for them to book enough appointments to actually pull the stuff down, and you're golden! (or at least, copper-coloured).

Like an online bookseller turning into a global retail warehouse then renting out their datacenter services, producing talking home assistants, and launching rockets into space?

It has happened under both.

Yes, but the study seems to be comparing two groups where there is no reason to think anything else changed. The British diet didn't change in other ways after 1953, the only real difference was that sugar rationing had ended. At least, that would be the claim.

Nostalgia is all very well, but it was not a very healthy diet, lots of white bread, margarine, overcooked and limited number of vegetables. It was eaten in a more disciplined way - before or after 1953 children would not go to the larder or fridge and help themselves. Meals were eaten at mealtimes, with minimal snacking.

There are not very many people alive now who remember those days, but if you can find one and talk to them you get a picture of life which makes it plausible that the change in sugar rationing was a key variable. Other things mentioned, like activity, yes they were very different from now, but they did not change much in 1953, whereas sugar did.

As always no numbers, and argument on an engineering topic which is at the level of literary criticism.

to make the case you need to take a specific system where there is data available, and show that your argument applies there.

The most accessible in a few clicks is the UK. Go to www.gridwatch.co.uk for graphics. If you want the csv data free get it from www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk. Do the work and you will see that in winter there is peak demand of a bit under 50GW and that solar is basically non-existent from about 22GW faceplate. A function mainly of latitude with a contribution from weather. You will also see that there are in most winters periods of a week or ten days when wind generates less than 3GW from faceplate installed base of about 32GW. So what we have here is peak demand with peak low output from wind and solar.

In summer on the other hand you have peak solar and long days, but summer is not when you get peak demand.

What's the result of all this? Its that if you want to supply 50GW peak you have to have more than 50GW gas generation. But having it, you then only use it for part of the time, because part of the time you have wind and solar peaking. Something else also happens, at peak production, which does not coincide with peak demand and often in summer coincides with low demand, you have to turn off the wind.

The UK, if government plans work out, is going to end up with around 200GW of generating capacity to supply about 60GW of peak demand. And in operational terms, its constructing huge amounts of generating capacity off the north coast of Scotland or similar inhospitable places distant from demand. Then it constructs hugely expensive transmission links to bring this generated power to where its needed. It also builds gas to cover calms and nights.

So the result is, it pays people to install wind, then it pays them not to generate from it. Then it pays others to install gas and generate from it in the timesa when the guys its paying not to generate comply and turn off. The result of this is the highest electricity prices in the industrialized countries - and no, I am not spoon feeding you numbers, llook it up for yourself!. And it is only getting worse. The more wind they install, the more they have to pay to turn off, and however much wind they install the lows are still going to need gas to cover. The same thing applies to solar. It doesn't matter how much you install, at 5pm on a January evening, its going to be producing zero.

What you can see from the UK is that the attempt to move to 'renewables' is an attempt to do the impossible. Its trying to run a country's electricity supply with technologies that are guaranteed to have peaks of production which coincide with lows of demand, and lows of production that coincide with peaks of demand. It is not working, and as the proportion of wind and solar rises its going to get worse.

All this is happening with the background of the program to move to EVs and heat pumps. And they also have the fantasy of a huge data center industry. Right, with expensive and unreliable electricity? Because they have also just empowered the network operator to do rolling blackouts, which they call 'demand management'.

This is what happens when you have people with degrees in literature or media studies or some kind of vague social subjects enthusiastically trying to run the power generation for an industrial economy, and having no idea how to plan and no concept of engineering. They just keep saying that the wind and sun are free - as if that had any bearing. And they keep applauding whenever wind and solar reach a peak of a day or a week or month, not seeing that that is part of the problem and not part of any solution.

Get some numbers and do some work. And read the Royal Society's report on electricity storage, which blows the idea that batteries are the answer into the air.

You would expect the same thing with tournament chess players who spend hours working hard at trying to calculate and visualize move possibilities. The process has something in common with navigation. It does involve pattern recognition also, but there is a strong element of navigation.

An interesting comparison would be with tournament bridge players who calculate but probably don't visualize in the same way. (Can't say for sure as I have only played bridge a few times, years ago.)

The hypothesis would be that spatial navigation effort safeguards, and the prediction would be that chess players will have lower rates of Alzheimers than bridge players.