> Most uses of fossil fuels are very inefficient. For instance, when you step on the accelerator in your car, only around 30% of the energy in the fuel you use actually is being used to propel you forward. The majority of the energy is wasted as heat. In a power plant that's more like 70% being captured and going towards the goal (electricity generation).
Yes, but there are also future inefficient uses of renewables. E.g. when making iron, you heat the ore (iron oxides) with coke (refined sulfurless coal). The coke will provide extra heat and act as a reduction agent, separating the oxygen atoms from the iron oxides. Now you can do the same thing with hydrogen as the reduction agent to avoid producing CO2 and to avoid using fossil fuels. However, creating renewable hydrogen is atm only 30% efficient, storing and transporting it has losses. Even with possible improvements, that hydrogen will be a very inefficient and costly use of electricity, and at least half of it will always be wasted.
So in terms of total energy usage, making those kinds of industrial processes use hydrogen, we will have to at least double our electricity output. And a lot of that doubling will be wasted because of the inefficiency of electrolysis, as opposed to directly using coal or natural gas.
Uh, can you provide any scientific papers that H2 can be used for Iron smelting?
CO2 is very stable, even at high temperatures. Its hard to strip O2 from it (except photosintesis). Now, H2 itself is very violatile gas. When burn, it creates water. Water is not stable high temperatures. It become vapor and when temperature rise it can even break bond between H2 and O.
Make it possible to turn off PRs from new accounts, accounts with a low PR acceptance rate or accounts that create lots of PRs all at once in unrelated projects. Or mark those kinds of PRs in a visible special way. Or make those kinds of issues and PRs non-public so that maintainers can silently drop them without creating publicity for the slop-spammers.
International law even more so. For national laws, there are enforcement mechanisms. If you break a national law, there is a court deciding on punishment and an executive punishing you according to that decision. With international law, there might be a court, but often there isn't even a court. Sometimes there is the UN general assembly, UN security council or a similar body deciding on a political basis whether some violation might have occured. Usually those kinds of decisions are far from impartial, not even pretending any kind of neutrality or fairness.
So even if some international court or some council arrives at a decision that a violation of international law has occured, where is the executive? There isn't one. There is only the equivalent of old wild west dead-or-alive bounties: The decision is an authorization to go to economic war (like in sanctions or blockades) or shooting war. There might be states interested in doing that, but generally only if they think they can win and profit.
So international law is only ever enforced against powerless states without a coalition supporting them. For any larger power, there is no actual international law.
It's sort of true. I mean, factually true for sure.
Equally, I think international law was a useful reference point for everyone, including the US. My prediction is that US's intoxication with its own power now, and disdain for international law, will lead to a decay of its power, and more challenges that will be costly to fend off.
So while I agree to some extent international law was always a fiction, it's also true that the US will a real price for destroying it.
Sitting backwards is beneficial if looking at accidents.
But sitting backwards is very very uncomfortable if there is any kind of uneven acceleration, bumps, swaying, rolling, curvy tracks or whatever. Humans need to look forward at the horizon to get their visual stimuli aligned with their motion/balance sense in the inner ear. If that alignment isn't there, you will get seasick. Backwards makes this even worse.
Babies don't suffer from this, because closing your eyes helps, and infants don't have as strong a reaction to motions anyways, due to them usually being carried by their parents until walking age. So reverse baby seats only work for babies.
That's a serious overgeneralization. It's true for some people, but trains mostly don't bump and swerve enough for that to be a significant problem. Finnish trains have lots of seats facing backwards and while they're not anywhere as fast as something like a TGV, they're still often going 200+ km/h. People seem to be just fine. I just spent 1 hour 40 minutes yesterday sitting backwards, mostly reading a book, with no ill effects.
> The US wouldn’t attack in an invasion. It would simply start building bases
Greenland is an island full of a vast nothingness, there is enough space for those kinds of bases. Greenland and Denmark have repeatedly said as much, and allowed the US to build any number of bases of any size. Building bases is totally possible, and always was possible, because Greenland and Denmark have always allowed it and would have continued to allow that.
I mean, they even turned a blind eye towards the US loosing a nuclear reactor and contaminating quite a bit of ice while trying to build tunnels for their ICBMs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Century
> because their extremely high VAT taxes and non-tariff trade barriers always hurt the US worse, and the EU rebates VAT on its own exports
Your post is yet another example of how USians don't understand how VAT works.
There is no VAT rebate on exports, there is a 100% reimbursement of VAT on any export. There is also a 100% reimbursement of VAT on any B2B sale. That way VAT is a tax only on goods that are sold to consumers in the EU, no matter where they came from and no matter where they were manufactured/processed/...
How this works as an example: You mine iron ore, sell a ton for 1000€. Buyer pays 20% VAT. But since it's B2B, buyer can get those 20% back immediately in his monthly VAT declaration. Buyer makes 500kg steel from that iron ore, sells it for 2000€. Buyer of the steel can get those 20% back, since it's B2B. Let's say the buyer makes paperclips from that steel and sells those. Now the buyer of those paperclips is the interesting thing here, because the buyer pays 20% VAT on those paperclips. He might be their end-user (either business or customer) in which case he won't get 20% VAT back. He might be a reseller, in which case he will get the VAT back. End-users don't get their 20% VAT, resellers and processing industry do. It's always only the last step in the chain who really pay VAT, everyone else doesn't.
And any border-crossing is treated as a sale, so the you get the VAT rate (different EU contries have different rates) from the country that the goods are leaving paid out, and you have to pay the VAT rate of the country you are entering on those goods. If you are exporting to non-EU, and there is no VAT in the destination country, you don't pay any, you just get the VAT back from the country you are exporting from. So it is totally symmetrical, totally fair, and totally neutral, independent from whether it is US, EU, Chinese or whatever the origin might be.
And if you think it's complicated, you might be right. But then again, look at the complete and utter mess that US sales taxes are. Every other town might have a different tax rate, system, catalogue of goods every other week. USians shouldn't complain about trade barriers as long as that mess is still in place.
> The EU enabled the Dutch Sandwich and Irish offshoring trade scams which has become a tax haven
That's a fault of Ireland and the Netherlands, the EU is just powerless to stop those practices. Same as the US is powerless to get rid of their own tax haven states like Delaware, Nevada or Wyoming. Just to cite Wikipedia, "Andrew Penney from Rothschild & Co described the US as "effectively the biggest tax haven in the world" and Trident Trust Co., one of the world's biggest providers of offshore trusts, moved dozens of accounts out of Switzerland and Grand Cayman, and into Sioux Falls" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_as_a_tax_haven
> He might be their end-user (either business or customer) in which case he won't get 20% VAT back.
My understanding, dealing with VAT/GST in another country, is that a business customer still gets the VAT back even if they're the end user. If my company (which comprises of 1 person) buys paperclips, or a laptop or whatever for business use, I claim the VAT back. It's only the consumer who pays VAT. If I want to transfer an asset from my business to myself then I have to pay the VAT.
Yes, what I told is a slight simplification. Since any company is usually not an end user and does something with its inventory that will sell to some end user, you can always get your VAT back. The way this works is that you as a company just never pay any VAT in the first place if you have a special VAT tax ID that you have to apply for and give to all your business partners. But that usually only works when not exporting or importing.
There were backup cables. The bridge carried 5 cables, redundancy configuration would have been 3+2 afaik. But only for purposes of maintenance, not to protect against hostile action. For that, one should have taken care to not have all redundancies on the same bridge ;)
And in most environments, you cannot hide the location of those cables. Either they are visible directly, like all overhead power lines. No use in hiding those. And for the underground ones, you could try to hide them. But every backhoe operator will rightfully want a map of those anyways, so the information will come out in some way.
The only environment where hiding this kind of infrastructure would be possible is some state-does-everything soviet-like police state. Where comrade backhoe-operator wouldn't get a map, but he would get accompanied by a secret police supervisor who would tell him where to dig and where not to.
Tried it, works, does exactly what the author wants. And while it is a meditation technique, it skips all the religious nonsense and focuses on the relevant.
Early Buddhist Texts (EBT) are fairly non-religious, e.g. see the Thai forest tradition/BSWA talks
this school of thought even often ignores a fair portion of the abhidama texts ("about dhamma", the meta commentaries) that started to form a number of years after the death of the Buddha
I'm not sure I agree. "GSM" is three syllables, versus four for "grammes per square metre". You can write it correctly using only characters everyone knows how to type quickly on their keyboard, versus either finding a way to get that superscript ² or else typing something like g/m^2 which is uglier and longer. And you can use it comfortably even if you are a complete mathematical ignoramus (you just need to know things like "larger numbers mean heavier paper" and "cheap printer paper is about 80gsm" and so forth) without the risk of turning g/m² into the nonsensical g/m2 or something.
(But arguably what whoever decided on "gsm" should have done was to just use "g", with the "per square metre" left implicit.)
Roughly no one already says GSM. When talking about paper you'll hear people say things like "That's a sheet of 120 gram"
GSM basically only ever appears in print. If someone DOES ask "what does 120 gram mean here?" the clarification is going to be "Oh that's grams per square meter" and not "Oh that's gee es em"
I should mention GSM is also probably an americanism. I'm in the EU and out of the five packs of different kinds of art paper four are labeled in g/m2, and one has no labeled weight at all. None of them are marked in GSM as that abbreviation only works in english, while g/m2 works in all languages.
In the UK, "gee es em" was the usual term I heard at the local paper merchants when I was a regular customer in the late 90s - early 2000s.
Of the four reams of paper/card I have at home, two are labelled in "gsm", one is "g.m⁻²", and one uses both "g/m²" and "gsm" in different places. Weirdly, it seems that the specialist stuff is more likely to use "gsm" than the everyday 80 g/m² A4.
"The person deciding to use nonstandard "GSM" as a unit instead of the proper "g/m²" needs to feel stupid..." ---> This is the sort of HN comment that I can't figure out if it's serious or a joke. I can read it in different voices and come to opposite conclusions haha
The shorthand "gsm" is a completely standard alternative in some industries.
I work in advanced composites. Different weights and weaves of technical fabrics such as carbon fiber, kevlar, fiberglass, etc. are always specified in "gsm". For example, some common fabrics would be a "Carbon Fiber 3K 200gsm Twill" or a "High Modulus 12K 380gsm Carbon Fiber Plain Weave". (the "3K" and "12K" refer to the number of carbon fiber strands in each yarn in the weave, and the "Twill" and "Plain Weave" refer to the pattern in which the yarns are woven into a fabric.)
I'm sure "gsm" came to be commonly used instead of the more scientific "g/m²" or "g/m^2" because no one is doing that kind of math about the materials, and it is a lot easier to type "gsm" vs either of the other two which require at least a Shift for the caret or getting out the superscript font attribute.
Interestingly, sail cloth (for sail boat sails) is measured in ounces per square yard, and is just referred to by the weight with the square yard assumed - like "8oz Nylon mainsail" or "4oz ripstop spinnaker". (Or at least it used to be, my expertise here is more than 30 years out of date now.)
Curious what you're doing that "kilograms per hour" might get used by normal people in everyday conversation. Fast food restaurant or a weight loss clinic?
Agreed but we do have to interact with them. I once tried to sell a car with 140 Mm and got nowhere. I then changed the add to 140_000 km and got a lot more interest.
Yes, but there are also future inefficient uses of renewables. E.g. when making iron, you heat the ore (iron oxides) with coke (refined sulfurless coal). The coke will provide extra heat and act as a reduction agent, separating the oxygen atoms from the iron oxides. Now you can do the same thing with hydrogen as the reduction agent to avoid producing CO2 and to avoid using fossil fuels. However, creating renewable hydrogen is atm only 30% efficient, storing and transporting it has losses. Even with possible improvements, that hydrogen will be a very inefficient and costly use of electricity, and at least half of it will always be wasted.
So in terms of total energy usage, making those kinds of industrial processes use hydrogen, we will have to at least double our electricity output. And a lot of that doubling will be wasted because of the inefficiency of electrolysis, as opposed to directly using coal or natural gas.
reply