With something like the posted picture, the thing I can't help but think is "but what about the guys who achieve everything they want?"
There's normal guys with normal wives who have normal families out there. People with one income and a house and a car. It's rarer than it used to be, but the honorary boomer does exist.
There's normal guys with normal wives who have normal families out there. People with one income and a house and a car. It's rarer than it used to be, but the honorary boomer does exist.
Problem is that we live in reality, and have to solve problems in reality. If you need to spend a bunch of money to actually solve the problem then that's the actual cost.
Nuclear is really inexpensive except you need to deal with materials that can be turned into weapons of mass destruction and there's a risk of big disasters that can permanently make a chunk of a country uninhabitable and can hurt people in a massive region so there's a massive regulatory burden. So it's not really inexpensive.
Coal is really inexpensive except you need to deal with getting ahold of industrial scale coal to burn and they're massively polluting in both local and global ways so there's a massive regulatory burden and the regulation doesn't even cover those externalities. So it's not really inexpensive.
Solar is at its cheapest for one hour a day about 1/3 of the year, and people need power all through the day and night and all through the year, and you need to both massively overbuild your plants to meet electrical needs in the limited time you're generating each day and you need massive energy storage to deal with the majority of the time that you're not getting the energy. So it's not really inexpensive (might be useful for some applications, however! Some places really need an energy boost when it's brightest and hottest).
You used the word "Convenience" which implies that it's optional, the word convenience often is implied to be optional, but sometimes convenience is mandatory and life or death. Like a hospital is ideal if you get hurt, but if you're in the woods far from civilization and get hurt, a first aid kit is convenient and if you don't have something convenient you might die because you're in the woods -- you can't carry a hospital with you! In the same way, if we want to stop most emissions we'll need to deal with home heating. Home heating is mandatory. If you can't heat your home in winter in many places then everyone dies, and that isn't hyperbole. If people can't heat their homes with electric, then they're likely to use fossil fuels such as natural gas or fuel oil. Therefore, if we care about carbon emissions, we should care about actually inexpensive electricity.
All this is borne out by the data that around the world, on virtually every continent, in many different countries, hydroelectric electricity leads to some of the lowest electricity rates for individuals. That's backed up by the data showing some of the lowest electricity costs on earth are the highest hydroelectric usage. Even within the same country, proportion of hydroelectric power is directly predictive of the electricity costs for consumers. In Canada, the price of electricity is directly inversely correlated with the amount of hydroelectric generation in use, with British Columbia, Quebec and Manitoba having the lowest rates in the country and using all renewables driven primarily by hydroelectric, followed by provinces like Ontario that use some hydroelectric, trailed by provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan that rely mostly on fossil fuels. Norway had a period where electricity prices for consumers were below zero for an hour recently and has the lowest electricity prices on earth compared to incomes. Continuing on with reality here, 73% of Norway's homes are heated with electricity according to statistics Norway from 2014 (Proving my previous thesis once again that inexpensive carbon-neutral electricity helps eliminate fossil fuels used for home heating) There's also regions in China and south America with high levels of hydroelectric production.
Of course you do have to be careful with hydroelectric, it isn't the best bet everywhere. To give a great example, Ethiopia is building a massive dam, and it's likely to cause a war because it will reduce the water flow through the Nile river having large effects on Egypt. Therefore you need to make sure if you're using hydroelectric you balance the environmental, social, and geopolitical consequences of building hydroelectric facilities. In places where it's practical and reasonably low impact, however, it's the top choice where you can do it because unlike most alternatives, it has a century-long track record of success.
tl;dr: Jeff has one line denials and unsubstantiated excuses. I've got a globe and a century of data. And a wall of text.
Nuclear is really inexpensive except you need to deal with materials that can be turned into weapons of mass destruction and there's a risk of big disasters that can permanently make a chunk of a country uninhabitable and can hurt people in a massive region so there's a massive regulatory burden. So it's not really inexpensive.
Coal is really inexpensive except you need to deal with getting ahold of industrial scale coal to burn and they're massively polluting in both local and global ways so there's a massive regulatory burden and the regulation doesn't even cover those externalities. So it's not really inexpensive.
Solar is at its cheapest for one hour a day about 1/3 of the year, and people need power all through the day and night and all through the year, and you need to both massively overbuild your plants to meet electrical needs in the limited time you're generating each day and you need massive energy storage to deal with the majority of the time that you're not getting the energy. So it's not really inexpensive (might be useful for some applications, however! Some places really need an energy boost when it's brightest and hottest).
You used the word "Convenience" which implies that it's optional, the word convenience often is implied to be optional, but sometimes convenience is mandatory and life or death. Like a hospital is ideal if you get hurt, but if you're in the woods far from civilization and get hurt, a first aid kit is convenient and if you don't have something convenient you might die because you're in the woods -- you can't carry a hospital with you! In the same way, if we want to stop most emissions we'll need to deal with home heating. Home heating is mandatory. If you can't heat your home in winter in many places then everyone dies, and that isn't hyperbole. If people can't heat their homes with electric, then they're likely to use fossil fuels such as natural gas or fuel oil. Therefore, if we care about carbon emissions, we should care about actually inexpensive electricity.
All this is borne out by the data that around the world, on virtually every continent, in many different countries, hydroelectric electricity leads to some of the lowest electricity rates for individuals. That's backed up by the data showing some of the lowest electricity costs on earth are the highest hydroelectric usage. Even within the same country, proportion of hydroelectric power is directly predictive of the electricity costs for consumers. In Canada, the price of electricity is directly inversely correlated with the amount of hydroelectric generation in use, with British Columbia, Quebec and Manitoba having the lowest rates in the country and using all renewables driven primarily by hydroelectric, followed by provinces like Ontario that use some hydroelectric, trailed by provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan that rely mostly on fossil fuels. Norway had a period where electricity prices for consumers were below zero for an hour recently and has the lowest electricity prices on earth compared to incomes. Continuing on with reality here, 73% of Norway's homes are heated with electricity according to statistics Norway from 2014 (Proving my previous thesis once again that inexpensive carbon-neutral electricity helps eliminate fossil fuels used for home heating) There's also regions in China and south America with high levels of hydroelectric production.
Of course you do have to be careful with hydroelectric, it isn't the best bet everywhere. To give a great example, Ethiopia is building a massive dam, and it's likely to cause a war because it will reduce the water flow through the Nile river having large effects on Egypt. Therefore you need to make sure if you're using hydroelectric you balance the environmental, social, and geopolitical consequences of building hydroelectric facilities. In places where it's practical and reasonably low impact, however, it's the top choice where you can do it because unlike most alternatives, it has a century-long track record of success.
tl;dr: Jeff has one line denials and unsubstantiated excuses. I've got a globe and a century of data. And a wall of text.
"Solar is the cheapest source of electricity"
that's false. It's fake. It's a lie. It's a non-truth.
If it was true, then the places with solar would have the cheapest electricity on earth, and that's not true at all. The places with the cheapest electricity on earth are all hydroelectric.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM-e46xdcUo
that's false. It's fake. It's a lie. It's a non-truth.
If it was true, then the places with solar would have the cheapest electricity on earth, and that's not true at all. The places with the cheapest electricity on earth are all hydroelectric.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM-e46xdcUo
https://merveilles.town/users/pixx/statuses/111042789202412162
Soapbox handles replies differently than some other activitypub software so a bunch of replies don't look like replies on other software.
Soapbox handles replies differently than some other activitypub software so a bunch of replies don't look like replies on other software.
The idea that millennials in particular wouldn't understand this is mind-blowing. They got to see the fact that graphs don't keep moving in the same direction in the year 2000, and the year 2003, and the year 2008, and most recently in the year 2020. It's like, how many times do you need to see the same thing happen before you learn that graphs don't move in the same direction forever?
I have these recurring dreams where I buy cars. I've bought big trucks (like cargo trucks), I've bought sports cars, I've bought vans, and none of them are legal to drive or insured. I have recurring dreams where I'm figuring out what to do about all these vehicles everywhere. I just got out of a trip to a place I supposedly used to live in dream world where I had to promise the current occupants I'd get rid of those big cargo trucks I left parked in our yard. And it's like "I think there's a scrap yard that'll tow them for free and give me a couple hundred for the trouble..."
Freud probably didn't have anything to say about used cars in dreams, but I think they represent subconscious concerns about responsibilities I'm taking on quietly that represent substantial effort or resources, but as long as they sit in the garage they're taking up a spot in my life but they aren't actively costing me anything but if I put the work and money in then I'll have one of a number of opportunities like having a variety of paid off used cars ready to drive.
Freud probably didn't have anything to say about used cars in dreams, but I think they represent subconscious concerns about responsibilities I'm taking on quietly that represent substantial effort or resources, but as long as they sit in the garage they're taking up a spot in my life but they aren't actively costing me anything but if I put the work and money in then I'll have one of a number of opportunities like having a variety of paid off used cars ready to drive.
Given how Ireland and in particular sinn fein are like these days, I have to assume the New IRA fights for migrants rights.
Obviously you can't have a bunch of empty shampoo bottles around, so you'd throw out the $400 bottle of shampoo when it was empty after a week. (I know that seems awfully expensive, but don't worry -- we've gotten $15/hr minimum wage in the future!)
I feel like in the idiocracy universe, three in one shampoo conditioner body wash would have just expanded to become the worst version of everything and the thing that everyone uses for everything.
"Shampoo. Conditioner. Body wash. Breakfast. Lunch. Dinner. Toothpaste. Mouthwash. Toothbrush. Knife. Fork. Spoon. Antifreeze for your car. Gunpowder. Lubricant. Fire starter. Screwdriver set. Adjustable Wrench. Sex toy. Gps. MRI machine..."
"Shampoo. Conditioner. Body wash. Breakfast. Lunch. Dinner. Toothpaste. Mouthwash. Toothbrush. Knife. Fork. Spoon. Antifreeze for your car. Gunpowder. Lubricant. Fire starter. Screwdriver set. Adjustable Wrench. Sex toy. Gps. MRI machine..."
It sounds boring and effective, which is exactly the sort of thing that won't get done because it won't make anyone rich and won't get anyone clout for doing something exciting but ineffective.
Everyone should've chosen an alternative browser and an alternative search engine long ago.
It's time for the era of big tech to end.
It's time for the era of big tech to end.
"It wasn't compulsory, it's just if you don't then we're going to make your life impossible to live."
I'd ask how they can sleep at night, but it's on a mattress filled with money from drug companies.
I'd ask how they can sleep at night, but it's on a mattress filled with money from drug companies.
I, for one, am proud that we've proven we can be "just as productive" working from home!