Renewables is the only realistic path to energy independence. Today's global situation should show the absolute necessity of that, even if you dont give a sh*t about the environment.
Had we done more 10 years ago we would have been better of. The second best time to start is now.
(We used to build it at a fraction of the cost and less than half of the time that we do with our modern fuckups and fuel can come from just about anywhere if need be. It might be a lot more expensive than the stuff kazachstan and still be a fraction of the cost.)
I think ideally we would've done both to press the cost of nuclear down and given the fact that the renewables rollout turned out to be a lot lot more expensive than proponents claimed it would be whilst still tying us up into gass to cover winter.
It does not. That is not economically mined. Last big hard coal producer in EU - Poland, has extraction cost x2 or x3 of the mountain top removal mining in US. This sector is shrinking rapidly. Poland coal production came back to ~1915 levels (taking into account current PL territory). This sector would be closed already if not for massive subsidies.
Last year, China's coal use decreased, while China installed 300x more renewables than nuclear. Coal and nuclear aren't cost competitive with renewables, either in a free market or a technocratic top-down economy. Coal and gas still maintain a valid niche of firming intermittency. But that niche is temporary and shrinking.
The free market installs a tiny amount of coal, and a lot of renewable energy. Whether you believe this means "coal is/isn't cost competitive with renewables in a free market" is a debate about word definitions that I'm not terribly interested in.
China, like Brussels, is trying to reduce coal for similar reasons. They don't like the air pollution health hazard (fully believable), and they say they don't like global warming (somewhat believable).
When reading an article written by Bjorn Lomborg, you should also do the effort to read the cited sources. This is not an ad hominem attack, just an observation. Do it and you will see.
How is the ToS relevant when the company is already bankrupt (IANAL)? Slack can cancel the customer-relationship with the bankrupt company, but that's it, no?
The world is large. There is still infinite room left on earth closer than space.
The reason the DC want to be placed in proximity to people is to get access to the infrastructure, electricity grid and roads. I think the next natural step is to just put the DC further away from existing infrastructure and pay for the connect, not move to space.
The concern isn't at all about physical space, DCs are compact, it's about limitations of the infrastructure you're talking about. Turbines currently have a multi-year backlog. The interconnection queue for new generation is an even longer backlog in many grid regions. And there's a general populist backlash against them.
Funny story is that a very important reason why Norway ended up with the oil policies it did is a Iraq-born immigrant named Farouk Al-Kasim.
He was a geologist with a Norwegian wife, moving to Norwegy since their kid had cerebral palsy. In a testament to how desperate Norway was for competence in petroleum, he could pretty much just walk in to the ministry of industry and get a job, and ended up writing the nation’s blueprint for how it would organise its fledgling oil industry. Without him things could have gone very very different, and he has been awarded Royal Norwegian Order of Saint Olav Knight 1st Class for his importance.
Note that it's usual that companies gets tax on surplus, not income. So we are already 'punishing' the efficient ones, we are just doing it in a relatively neutral way.
In systems with progressive income tax, the total tax income from a company with 1 employee making X$ is more than if the company had 2 employees making X/2$, so essentially 'punishing' using highly skilled labour over more less skilled ones.
There are no perfect taxes, and current tax systems have adapted from a lot of practical concerns. Some of those is that's it's easier to tax money as they are moving around vs when they are sitting still (wealth or property tax), and it's easier to tax people than abstract entities like companies, since people have a harder time moving. And for the same reason, it's easier to tax the middle class than the owner class, since the richer you are the easier it is to move yourself and those you care about to wherever taxes are low these days.
All these practical concerns have made it such one of the most common ways for the state to get a share of the productivity of its society, is from income tax. But this is not a 'economic law' that if must be like that. If more and more of the productivity and wealth creation in society is produced such that there is little employment income involved, we will have to find other ways to tax it.
Tja, IAMNAH, but my impression is that there is much more diversity to history than that. Not all groups attempted to expand, and among those who did there are many who swallowed up close by groups without violence (rather through 'cultural victory' so to say). It might even be the norm historically.
Yeah, you got it! After 30 years on the internet I should know by now whats understandable for others and what's not (I honestly just realized that English speakers don't say 'tja'), but alas.
We have a sound we usually spell “yeah”, which can also be an informal “yes” but can also server roughly the role of a “Well, “. The same spelling is sometimes employed for a cheer that might otherwise be spelled “yay” and sounds very different, though.
I can think of at least one regionalism or dialect that has something that I bet sounds similar to yours, that might even be used the same way yours is: “valley girl”.
The real tell was the spelling. We don’t usually use “T” to harden a phoneme at the start of a word—we do later, though, as in “itch”—and we don’t use “J” that way. “Ch” is probably the closest we’ve got to what you were going for with “j”. If a native English speaker were trying to reproduce the sound you’re going for in text, they’d not have spelled it that way unless trying to make it appear foreign.
Going from "I'm not a historian" to "it might even be the norm historically" made me chuckle.
It wasn't the norm historically. Depends on what period of history you're talking about, but indeed not all groups attempted to expand, though it'd be equally true that most of these were because the group was not able to.
In terms of assimilation, it happened often that a cultural victory would still lead to military confrontation (before the fall of the Roman empire, many of their neighbours were, or considered themselves, romanised yet still either fought against Roman expansion or attempted to take territory from them for example). For as long as we have history, all the times I know of where a "group" assimilated into another group willingly, it was because the other group was militarily much more powerful and saw any peace as temporary: for example, Armenian kings giving away their kingdoms to Byzantium, to avoid uphill battles of resistance and to make sure their dynasty remained in power. And those times were very rare in history.
Of course, this might have been more common in pre-history (99% of our existence), but then again we have a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Had we done more 10 years ago we would have been better of. The second best time to start is now.
reply