Almost universally, coal is cheap only because it's subsidized under dubious energy security et al. schemes: besides explicit monetary subsidies, government also helps evict people from the site of your open-cast mine, government makes sure you can sell your energy profitably, government turns a blind eye when you don't meet environmental guidelines, government believes in "Clean Coal" and gives you money for research, ...
Many of the same things are true of other types of energy generation as well, of course.
Not to be overly cynical, but including competitors can make sense from an SEO perspective, because it means people may find your site while searching for a competing distro.
You misunderstood me. For one, I simply assumed that locomotives have big engines for a reason and thus the number can't be calculated for the entire train. For two, when I mentioned the capacity of cars, I meant maximum passenger capacity. I said that because at maximum passenger capacity, cars become a reasonable means of transportation whereas normally, they are ridiculously inefficient.
That article is hardly worth reading though. Salon comments on an inaccuracy in a half sentence of a Biden speech that is the subject of enraged Fox News coverage for other reasons.
Ok, I see. But still, 99% seems a little much, given a billion cows, the vast majority of which kept under conditions defined by humans to increase milk and meat production.
N3m37h's apparent belief that absolutely every other industry besides oil/gas is irrelevant for climate change. Oil/gas is obviously the biggest chunk but agriculture, construction, etc. all need to change too.
Coal use in Germany has actually continued to decrease since the nuclear plants were turned off. Germany just tends to import a bit more energy (mostly hydro from Scandinavia/Austria/Switzerland, wind from Denmark or solar/nuclear from France) from its neighbors because that's cheaper than running gas or coal plants in Germany. (And of course there are also the economic woes which have led to slowing demand for energy.)
"In many cases" in this case means that safe parameters depend on the specific reactor model. Most reactors are made to safely scale output down to a certain degree, within certain timeframes. However, you can't use reactors like you would use gas plants -- powering them up from 0 to 100% output within a half hour. You also can't use them like batteries that can switch between charging and discharging in sub-second increments. Rather, e.g. here in Germany, many reactors (now defunct) could, with some planning, scale between 60-100% within about a week. And e.g. the proposed SMR from Terrapower was supposed to just run full steam but be able to buffer energy as heat, so electricity output could still be modulated (Terrapower's first SMR build was cancelled iirc, because of massive cost overruns). But in any case, that still means the Terrapower SMR would not provide "base load"; it would augment what's needed (you know, if it had actually worked out).
Renewables don't work well together with "base generation". And nuclear only runs remotely profitably (and, in many cases, safely) if it runs continuously at full steam. Nuclear and renewables are a terrible match.
Renewables even out across larger geographical areas (which means grid upgrades are useful) and they can be paired with other flexible on-demand generation: fossil gas, hydrogen, batteries.
The Euro as a currency was introduced in 1999 and at that point was only used for banks/institutions to interact with each other. Euro notes and coins were only introduced in 2002.
Producing more plant-based food is actually a lot more efficient, as animals poop out a significant amount of the calories you feed them. Hence, you'd actually need a lot fewer imports.
Producing animal products in the current amounts is a lose-lose-lose-lose-lose scenario: people work a lot harder to produce unhealthy products from tortured creatures which are bad for the environment, creating additional cost everywhere.
So much of this video hinges on the assumption that if you have greenery on buildings, you can't also have greenery on the ground. Sure, in an ideal world, you can use the fact that greenery on the ground is easier to maintain to guide priorities. In this current less-than-ideal world though, the city owns the road and a private developer owns the building and neither side can really force the other to add greenery.
I am not sure I would necessarily call them a "good company" either.
If we're being honest, the phone project was a delusion from the start—the company is simply way too small to build a phone from components that were never meant to be in phones and have it actually work properly. At this point, can you finally even use the phone to call people via 2G/4G? Have they gotten beyond the sub-24h standby battery life? Have they got the bandwidth to handle the security reviews of the kill switches in their phones?
In the plus side, I appreciate that they invested in implementing adaptive layouts in Gnome. But the Linux space is littered with unsuccessful startups who all left their pawprints in code. Usually then allowing Red Hat and other big players (or, in the desktop space: a community) to build upon that code.
Almost universally, coal is cheap only because it's subsidized under dubious energy security et al. schemes: besides explicit monetary subsidies, government also helps evict people from the site of your open-cast mine, government makes sure you can sell your energy profitably, government turns a blind eye when you don't meet environmental guidelines, government believes in "Clean Coal" and gives you money for research, ...
Many of the same things are true of other types of energy generation as well, of course.