Meanwhile China is becoming entirely energy independent and electrifying their economy. I don't understand how the US doesn't see that they won't be top dog forever especially in this multipolar age.
The US government is undoubtedly aware that renewables are the future.
I assume they're still cooking up a backup plan to the petrodollar system and it will be business as usual until they have one.
Expect the US to double down with weird gestures like this and to find ways to remind the world that oil is relevant for some time.
Yes that is a split A/C, which is also a form of heat pump, that's not really what people refer to as heat pumps by default in Europe. A heat pump is normally an air-to-water system here, which drives either radiators or heated floors. Heating with an A/C is practically unknown in most of Europe and definitely not the desired choice for most people here (even though it would make sense).
And you’d still need five or six split systems to properly heat a home. Kitchen, dining, bathroom, three or four bedrooms. I’ve never seen a split system in a bathroom, but I’ve definitely seen freezing cold bathrooms, or bathrooms with a radiant heater on the wall or heat lamps on the ceiling, which occasionally get left on all day and destroy electricity bills. Ducted systems almost always extend to the bathroom, a…
Ortogonal to the discussion, but I think in an odd way, Australia is one of the most similar countries to Spain in this aspect. Very limited to no natural gas proliferation, electric heating, if any, but houses made rather cheaply but somehow still ending very expensive. I've seen houses near Melbourne resembling a tin hut costing AU1.5M. According to weatherspark, some Spanish locations have their climate counterparts in Australia, e.g. Perth is most similar to Malaga.
Didn't the Roman Empire last nearly 1,500 years in one form or another?
No 27 BC – AD 476 the Roman Empire the one that everyone thinks about at maximum strength lasted 503 years basically Augustus Caesar to AD 476. The eastern empire was but a shadow of the Roman empire ruled from Rome.
If that were true Hillary Clinton would have been president.
She won the popular vote by a mile, he won the electoral vote. Some would say she should have been.
Nobody with cursory knowledge of the US voting system would though.
Edit: to the downvotes, our system doesn't care about popular vote, and neither do the most democratic/left left leaning states, who don't care to use proportional voting.
I want to know whether Trump has legal authority to this money for this purpose. If it was money directed by Congress for clean energy, then no.
“who’s going to stop me?”
The courts, eventually-probably. What this does to the business environment and future endeavours regarding clean energy, however, is an exercise left to the reader
I'm confused then. Cancelling the lease early is unrelated to the decision to build the turbines or not?
No, it's merely a separate decision. Given that they have decided to cancel the lease, for good reasons or bad, the question then is what they do with the lease payments. I am pretty sure that you would not be happy if your landlord wanted to evict you and also wanted you to keep paying rent.
When and why was the decision to cancel, and how was the money already allocated not part of that though?
I can't say I've ever signed a lease where the terms of payment or deposit return weren't extremely clear and part of my decision to move in.
Yes. Their whole job is defending the republic and in the easiest to win election they succumbed to the ego of a bumbling old man and failed to lead on anything at all. Those fools couldn't sell bottled water in a desert. You absolutely can blame the goalie for failing to defend the goal.
Sounds like blaming the abolitionists for slavery. Or blaming the police for murder since they didn't prevent it. Every terrible thing Trump does is really somebody else's fault.
Yes if firefighters sit watching a fire burn whining about it, they are indeed to blame for not putting out the fire.
I'm tired of people in power whining about being victims.
Just “voting” is not sufficient. In fact, voting for the “wrong” people got us here. This guy won because people voted for him. Twice! How about: please always vote for the person who seems the least likely to fuck up the present and the future for all of us
>30% of people usually just don't vote, even in the presidential elections that happen every 4 years.
It's of primary importance to motivate these folks to vote at all. Getting them to favor for a candidate who isn't batshit crazy is a secondary function.
A person who doesn't vote can't be meaningfully swayed one way or another to begin with.
No, it's merely a separate decision. Given that they have decided to cancel the lease, for good reasons or bad, the question then is what they do with the lease payments. I am pretty sure that you would not be happy if your landlord wanted to evict you and also wanted you to keep paying rent.
When and why was the decision to cancel, and how was the money already allocated not part of that though? I can't say I've ever signed a lease where the terms of payment or deposit return weren't extremely clear and part of my decision to move in.
I posit that "to halt operations" is actually related to "$1.2B deal to pay", in TFA.
In similar manner to how "Hacker" and "News" are fantastically separate utterances, but when we're talking on Hacker News it's pretty regularly a package deal, not an exercise in Levenshtein distance from "Hacker" to "News".
Parts of the world are literally on fire but the US is redirecting money to halt renewables and towards gas. The demand for energy is higher than ever due to AI data centers, but I guess the next model is more important than a habitable environment.
The statistics for the number of deaths from climate-based disasters is clear: fewer and fewer people are dying the richer the world becomes. In fact the decrease in deaths is very significant: "Annual climate-disaster deaths averaged around 77,000 per year in the 1960s–70s, dropped to about 33,000/year in the 1980s–90s, and fell further to roughly 27,000/year in 2000–2019 even as the number of recorded climate disas…
If you think about this in terms of systems... it's unsustainable. You'll eventually get to a point where the damage you've done requires a flow of wealth/energy that cannot be generated for everyone.
I'm assuming that we can drive our environment to that kind of state, maybe there's an upper limit on how bad the environment can get. I'm not a climate scientist and don't have the curiosity to look into if there's a limit to climate change.