Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You aren’t the only one.
Yeah, that was tried during the Dark Ages, everyone slightly smarter than the average brute was slayed for various reasons.
We all know how THAT worked out.
Lol was gonna say, if you viewed their stupid ads or didn’t get caught bypassing them, it was free!
Just pick both values, average them out, and you will very likely hit very close to the true figure.
It was a joke, doh.
Forgot one has to carefully explain EVERYTHING in detail on Slashdot.
You realize, of course, that this methodology encourages them to lie bigger, so that they can move the needle in their favor.
Yeah, but they will cancel each other out
I remember seeing a poster in Dulles airport from some think tank laboratory. They openly promised on the poster to provide the customer with the scientific results that they want.
-1, Insightful.
This place these days… Fuck me.
And as a Brit, wtf is the tech angle to this story, msmash? If you just want to work at the NYT, go apply?
Tire particulate, if a big problem, will get regulation passed down to it (like other things, HCFC Refrigerants, harmful pesticides, etc) and will be corrected.
Tire particulate, if a big problem, will get regulation passed down to it (like other things, HCFC Refrigerants, harmful pesticides, etc) and will be corrected.
That may take some new materials science. There are some promising results from adding crosslinking materials to existing tire materials, so there might be some progress on that front. It may make tires more expensive though. Which means that people will blame the regulations that enforce the new materials for prices going up.
Cars are already too expensive for most users.
Cars are already too expensive for most users.
Man, you sound like a broken record. Repeating garbage over and over in multiple posts does not make it right. Cars are still very affordable for most people, at least in the U.S. As I’ve said before, I can buy a reliable, used Toyota, Nissan, or Honda, for $3K-$4K and insurance on it will be low, too. Yes, there is maintenance, but I still don’t see people opting for public transportation or anything else, at least not where I live.
There’s being conservative and then there’s being myopic. It’s time we grew out of cars. It’s not like they’ve been around for all of human history. It’s been about 75 years if you don’t count them as rich men’s toys. Let them go. If you want to drive that badly go find a race track.
There’s being conservative and then there’s being myopic. It’s time we grew out of cars. It’s not like they’ve been around for all of human history. It’s been about 75 years if you don’t count them as rich men’s toys. Let them go. If you want to drive that badly go find a race track.
I’d wager that in the old days, everyone would have liked to have a hor
cool. Can I have a flying car while you’re at it?
cool. Can I have a flying car while you’re at it?
I hardly think that additives that make synthetic rubber less friable fall into the same technological territory as flying cars. This is quite likely very doable, so I’m not sure why this strong reaction implying that it’s somehow difficult or impossible to make tires cleaner.
Who’s gonna pay for all that? It ain’t gonna be cheap. Cars are already too expensive for most users. My last set of tires was $800 bucks. Good quality, but nothing amazing. Just run of the mill 14″ rims and no fancy stuff. I think I overpaid by $100-$150 because I was in a hurry, but that’s still $600-$700 bucks for 4 tires.
Who’s gonna pay for all that? It ain’t gonna be cheap. Cars are already too expensive for most users. My last set of tires was $800 bucks. Good quality, but nothing amazing. Just run of the mill 14″ rims and no fancy stuff. I think I overpaid by $100-$150 because I was in a hurry, but that’s still $600-$700 bucks for 4 tires.
I also pointed out that it would probably be more expensive. Up front at least. I don’t expect it to be vastly more expensive, maybe 10% to 20% or so higher materials cost. In any case, I try to think of tires as consumables that I pay
My grandfather is 93. He has been living with this “horrible” tire particles his entire life. Seems to working just fine since life expectancy is what, 78 for men? I’m not seeing a problem here.
My grandfather is 93. He has been living with this “horrible” tire particles his entire life. Seems to working just fine since life expectancy is what, 78 for men? I’m not seeing a problem here.
My grandfather is 93. He has been living with this “horrible” tire particles his entire life. Seems to working just fine since life expectancy is what, 78 for men? I’m not seeing a problem here.
My mother smoked for much of her life. She did not get lung cancer. Are you going to claim that smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer on the basis of my anecdote?
Smoking doesnâ(TM)t cause lung cancer. It increases your individual odds slightly, per the CDC from 10% to 11 or 12%, it is significant if youâ(TM)re talking about a population, it is insignificant if youâ(TM)re talking about personal odds (driving a car is still more dangerous and nobody is worried about that).
My grandfather is 93. He has been living with this “horrible” tire particles his entire life. Seems to working just fine since life expectancy is what, 78 for men? I’m not seeing a problem here.
My grandfather is 93. He has been living with this “horrible” tire particles his entire life. Seems to working just fine since life expectancy is what, 78 for men? I’m not seeing a problem here.
In other news, black lung disease doesn’t exist because only about 20% of coal miners with 25 years experience will die of it
We’ve talked about this in another thread. That last mile delivery still requires roads everywhere, requires cars everywhere.
We’ve talked about this in another thread. That last mile delivery still requires roads everywhere, requires cars everywhere.
And we’ve talked about this in another thread. Walkable cities do not imply cities without roads, and no you don’t need cars everywhere. Cities with proper design work perfectly fine (including for commercial delivers) with only a tiny fraction of the car use. Easily >95% of car trips can be substituted with good city planning. And yes you’ll still need to go to the hardware store at some point to buy a ladder, do you do that twice daily? No.
Everything in government costs exactly as much money as they’re able to get away with. No exceptions. If they can milk $1T out of an effort? Perfect, they will. $10T? Even better. If someone claims it’ll cost $0.1T? Not once the funding is approved. The value of overages, slipped estimates, and supplemental budgetary requests is too high to ignore.
Imagine…a report full of errors that even a schoolboy would be embarrassed about. Then imagine getting coverage of your report in the Sun, Times, Daily Mail, Daily Express and Spectator. Sound impossible?
Imagine…a report full of errors that even a schoolboy would be embarrassed about. Then imagine getting coverage of your report in the Sun, Times, Daily Mail, Daily Express and Spectator. Sound impossible?
Sounds like a daily issue.
Then imagine getting coverage of your report in the Sun, Times, Daily Mail, Daily Express and Spectator. Sound impossible?
Not at all with that list of papers. They’ll print anything that backs up their (right-wing) agenda. Their view on Net Zero is that it’s not freedom to do whatever you want, so is wrong.
Both sides have a vested interest in blowing smoke up the collective ass of the people. One side wants to get reelected. One side wants to stay in business. Neither side can accurately predict what the cost will be. The only thing you can be sure of is the people will ultimately get screwed in the form of higher taxes and higher costs.
Both sides have a vested interest in blowing smoke up the collective ass of the people. One side wants to get reelected. One side wants to stay in business. Neither side can accurately predict what the cost will be. The only thing you can be sure of is the people will ultimately get screwed in the form of higher taxes and higher costs.
Both sides have a vested interest in blowing smoke up the collective ass of the people. One side wants to get reelected. One side wants to stay in business. Neither side can accurately predict what the cost will be. The only thing you can be sure of is the people will ultimately get screwed in the form of higher taxes and higher costs.
Wow – both you and the AC who posted two minutes after you expressed the same rational, realistic sentiment; and both of you were modded down. What you said doesn’t seem off-topic, trollish, or baiting. Maybe someone with mod points is just having a bad day.
Unfortunately, it’s all too common that both sides of politics will forget many important variables to further their argument, which leads to both sides always being inaccurate.
Unfortunately, it’s all too common that both sides of politics will forget many important variables to further their argument, which leads to both sides always being inaccurate.
That’s intentional.
The UK generates 1% of the world’s CO2.
https://www.worldometers.info/… [worldometers.info]
According to this, 553 steel plants using the BF-BOF process generate 9% of the world’s CO2:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/gu… [carbonbrief.org]
According to this, it costs $1.4Bish to convert BF-BOF to a low carbon electric arc furnace:
Switching to an electric arc furnace is no trivial exercise; it costs between US$1.1 to 1.7 billion according to the world’s second-largest steelmaker
Switching to an electric arc furnace is no trivial exercise; it costs between US$1.1 to 1.7 billion according to the world’s second-largest steelmaker
https://newatlas.com/environme… [newatlas.com]
So to cut the world’s CO2 output by 1%, you could convert (553 / 9 x 1.06) 65 steel mills from BD-BOF to electric arc, at a total cost of $1.4B x 65
=$91B or £74.6B
In theory (and it obviously won’t happen), the UK could pay out the £75B for the conversions instead of making its own £1T+ net zero plans.
Why has this been modded down to -1? It’s interesting and informative. The summary seems “tongue-in-cheek” rather than being critical of anyone.
Why has this been modded down to -1? It’s interesting and informative. The summary seems “tongue-in-cheek” rather than being critical of anyone.
It seems that somebody with mod points is butt-hurt. I see a lot of that here lately.
The ‘who watches the watchers’ problem was never solved. M2 never worked right, it was unappealing to make those decisions. If you are going to gamify something, you should make it appealing at all levels.
Because climate change politics isn’t about actually fixing a problem but wealth transfer and control.
Most politics is about wealth transfer and control, and it really sped up starting with Reagan, it’s why the wealthy have increased their wealth way faster then the average person and why the wealthy have so much control now.
If the electricity needed to power the electric heaters and gas separators is procured from renewable sources,
If the electricity needed to power the electric heaters and gas separators is procured from renewable sources,
Thank goodness there is an unlimited supply of cheap, green electricity.</sarcasm>
Converting steel production to electric definitely seems like a good investment in curtailing global warming. There is the question of what the net CO2 is if the electricity for the electric furnaces comes from fossil fuels. It’s quite probable that it’s still a net reduction in CO2, but it might take a lot more plants converted to match the 1% CO2 reduction. Obviously ideally the electricity would come from renewables and we don’t want a chicken and egg problem where we say that there’s no demand for the r
in the Sun, Times, Daily Mail, Daily Express and Spectator.
So two Murdoch owned publications, two that WikiPedia won’t allow to be used for references due to inaccuracies and a magazine that once had Boris Johnson as its editor. Can’t think why they’d be keen to push a deniers rant…
So you want the entire country to spend trillions on your Green Dream. Fine. Just tell us 1) How much CO2 will decrease if we spend the money, and 2) By when we should see the reduction. No hand waving. No cries of alarm. Just give us the deal.
If you can’t do that, stop asking.
Covid emergency spending inadvertently reduced CO2 emissions by 5% in 2020.
There’s your ballpark of what needs to be done.
So wait, you want everyone to stay home for a 5% reduction?
You don’t understand. We need an additional 5% reduction every year, on top of the previous years, to limit climate change to +1.5C. That is the part people usually don’t get their head around.
I do not want a ballpark. I am looking for a precise amount. This is money we are talking about. When you spend it, you are supposed to know exactly what you are getting in return. You don’t go to the grocery store and purchase a “ballpark” amount of milk, you purchase X amount of milk for price Y.
So can you tell me how much X amount of milk will cost next year, in 5 years? Future spending estimates are hard and sometimes it is better to do a comparison, in this case, how much to reduce CO2 vs how much to fix what breaks if we do nothing. Where I am, over a billion dollars on fire fighting this year, about a thousand dollars per tax payer, we suddenly need bigger reservoirs as it doesn’t rain/snow as much as historically, a few billion more, couple of years ago, billions on flood damage the other yea
1) How much CO2 will decrease if we spend the money, and 2) By when we should see the reduction.
1) How much CO2 will decrease if we spend the money, and 2) By when we should see the reduction.
You do realize that, technically, those answers are easily derived from the summary, right? It’s all about “…the cost of reaching net zero emissions by 2050…”, I’m not sure how that doesn’t provide what you need to answer your questions.
This isn’t a semantic exercise. How much CO2 reduction is “net zero emissions”, precisely? Complete the following sentence: it will cost $X to reduce CO2 by Y amount by 2050.
Well, according to the government figures it will cost $1.71tn to reduce CO2 by 100% by 2050. So that’s 1.7tn for X and 100% for Y amount. If you actually want that in tons of CO2 or some other measure, then you just need to look at how much CO2 the UK is releasing right now. Also, to be completely clear, we’re talking about a rate of release into the atmosphere, so it’s really Y amount per unit of time that we’re considering. We’re also looking at averages, where the goal is _net_ zero. So adding some CO2
I’m sorry, are you trying to reply to me or someone else? I didn’t even mention solar power.
I’m curious, what evidence do you have that solar power will produce more CO2 than it saves? Your argument seems to be based on that idea and it seems like some relic from out of the 70’s.
I love how my comment is moderated Troll. Slashdot is completely pwned by the woke mind virus. Just ask a simple question that challenges the narrative and down you go.
Really pathetic.
Then imagine getting coverage of your report in the Sun, Times, Daily Mail, Daily Express and Spectator. Sound impossible?
Then imagine getting coverage of your report in the Sun, Times, Daily Mail, Daily Express and Spectator. Sound impossible?
For people who have never read the Sun, Times, Daily Mail, Daily Express and Spectator I’m sure it sounds impossible. For everyone else you know that they would publish absolutely any shock shit without any data or verification as to whether it is remotely based in reality.
“the Climate Change Committee (CCC), which has said that reaching net zero would require net investments of $1.71tn by 2050.”
So a government committee came up with a figure of $1.7tril and as we all know government is incredibly efficient and on target with projecting expenditures and spending money. There’s absolutely no way that the true cost would be triple the estimate, so closer to $5tril like Civitas claims!
this isn’t a cost. Any meaningful “net zero” strategy will lower the the costs in the future. It’s like buying a new machine to be able to produce something more efficiently in the future.
Good examples are solar and wind power, which have some cost of investment, but once they are built they harness energy virtually for free. Another good example is public transport, yes it costs money to lay down new tracks, but once that’s done, everyone gets _much_ cheaper traffic, both on the individual side (cars are e
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
A Test of iPhone-to-HDMI Adapter That Demands Location/Browsing Data
You Can No Longer Activate New Windows 11 Builds With Windows 7 or 8 Keys
To iterate is human, to recurse, divine. — Robert Heller