Daily ramblings

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by ETB4U, Dec 14, 2016.


I leik this thread;

  1. Boobs

    12 vote(s)
  2. Balls

    8 vote(s)
  3. Butt

    16 vote(s)
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. No. Regulations and penalties are. Carbon credits are a way to allow companies to still pollute while the people promoting the legislation make money from it.
  2. #577 Vanilla Ice, Sep 22, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2017
    We know climate change is bad, and we have the technology to stop it. But the fact is, if you have a 75-year mortgage on a $10B coal-fired power plant, you're not going to be so inclined to shut the doors after the first 15. It makes perfect sense that you're going to fight tooth-and-nail to try to fight it. Stopping climate change is going to be very expensive and painful, and every state will ultimately choose if they prefer market or non-market forces to make that happen. By non-market forces, I mean things like nationalizing electricity generation and regulating fuel types in vehicles and the like.

    Ontario went this route; through the provincially-owned Ontario Power Generation (which produces about half of Ontario's electricity) and several strict binding laws, it set an aggressive hard timeline for the phase-out of coal. In turn, Ontario has some of the highest electricity prices in the developed world, and it may well lead to the collapse of the Wynne government.

    Other jurisdictions, such as Alberta, have gone a more market-centric route by trying to internalize the total cost of emissions, and allowing the market to deal with the resulting consequences. Many of these practices are revenue-neutral. For instance, a revenue-neutral carbon tax means that all the revenue you collect from emissions taxes are re-distributed out in grants for research, development, and capital spending on carbon-mitigating technology. In Alberta's case, the large emitters (mainly integrated oil and gas companies) are also received the lion's share of these grants to develop carbon capture technology or update existing infrastructure to modern standards or so on. In fact, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (pretty much the last people you'd expect to be green advocates) are staunch supporters of Alberta's carbon tax system.

    Alberta also operates a carbon-credit system. This is also revenue-neutral, as carbon credits are not 'sold' by the state to the people, but are credited towards a unit of industrial output (eg: you have a certain carbon allowance per kW-h of electricity). As companies are allowed to trade these credits, a large emitter like a coal plant has to buy a large number of credits from a low emitter, like a wind farm. This makes wind cheaper and coal more expensive (both to the producer and the consumer), and limits the total carbon output of the economy, without any possible accusation of the Province trying to line its own coffers. As a result, despite Alberta being host to the largest petroleum deposit outside of Saudi Arabia, it is also host to the most aggressive expansion of wind energy in North America, with some of the lowest taxes (even by US standards), and modest electricity prices.
    SEABEE and HippoCrushEverything like this.
  3. We have the technology, as in alternatives to fuel or new technology to capture carbon emissions, as an example?
  4. Both, yes. Given unlimited capital spending, we have sufficient technological readiness to essentially eliminate carbon emissions. However, it is not economically viable and making the economic case is the difficult part at present, as exemplified by carbon taxes and carbon credits.
  5. its an interesting debate for sure, but I don't see how we can't have one without the other.

    Its simple, you pollute, you clean.
  6. If only it were so easy. Externalized costs (or externalized value) are practically the whole reason tax systems exist. When societal value/cost vary tremendously from individual value/cost, what the hell are you supposed to do? If you just hit people with regulations saying you have to cleanup everything you make dirty, you force societal cost to match production costs, but that doesn't mean that you'll force societal value to match consumer value. You have four different dollar values you have to somehow line up, and petroleum is a tough one given how important it is to modern industrial society.
  7. I know it sounded idealistic but what is the alternative, considering the point we’ve reached.

    I just cant see how everything will automatically fix itself without drastic measures
  8. Hemlock Grove is a weird/good show. On the last season.
  9. Rosh Hashana happened last week, so happy new year or something.
  10. This is true. Babies grow almost too quickly. I remember when 2 months ago my daughter was this tiny pitiful tube that could only cry. Now she's like a quasi-mobile steak with facial recognition and an array of different expressions.

    She has many things to tell:

    ETB4U likes this.
  11. So cute, discovering daddy’s chest
  12. great hands hippo
    whats your secret to smoothness
  13. I'm writing my first serious grant proposal. Part of it required a literature review. The space available for the literature review was 2500 characters (about half a page). The space for the reference list was unlimited. My half-page lit review had a three page reference list (~4-5 citations per sentence). I really hope the anonymous reviewers are familiar with the field or this will be utter nonsense.
  14. Fun fact: this means that reference numbers accounted for approximately 5% of the entire body text.
  15. It is kinda of crazy to demand a review and limit it to half a page. A brief introduction into the theme would be a reasonable request, but a proper review should be all-encompassing and very in depth. I imagine this was just a poor choice of words by the grant-giving people.
  16. #591 Vanilla Ice, Sep 26, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2017
    This application is for a program grant, not a project grant (I'm requesting enough money to support about 16 student-years), and so all impressions (as well as those of the researchers whose successful applications I've been able to peruse) seem to expect a fairly comprehensive review. They seem to just want them to be very, very dense.
  17. Congrats to MTL's rules, Uber might GTFO. (they enforce 35h training for the taxi drivers in MTL)
  18. That's crazy.

    I'm writing a review right now to be part of my PhD and to hopefully become an independent publication. I'm now close to 20,000 words, 71 pages, 22 tables, 8 figures, and 30 pages of references. And I'm only 75% complete, and having doubts that I'm not being very thorough.

    I don't know if I could seriously present an in-depth review of a subject in half a page. Maybe engineering and neurosciences are fundamentally different in this regard. Or maybe, now that I think about it, I succumbed to my supervisors demand that this review should be both "exhaustive and exhausting".
  19. In fluid dynamics, review articles are usually around 30 pages when typeset, including references, and are often under 20. Even with an awful and ugly double-spaced format, my PhD thesis only had ~15 pages of references. One of the things might be its age; neuroscience is relatively new, whereas fluid dynamics is often called the 'last open branch of classical mechanics.' Fluid mechanics is extremely established, and has been for a few centuries, so research moves slowly. Often in review articles you may find a few singular dense sentences that by itself cites 3-6 other review articles with the air of 'this concept should be obvious and I'm only even mentioning it for the sake of completeness'. These are still considered thorough, but you spend a hell of a lot less time on something written prior to WWII than after it.

    There's also depth-versus-breadth. Context is minimum and assumed, and you only need to establish why your research program is a funding necessity.
  20. Citing at least one paper in every decade from 1880 to present? Das ist nümberwang.
  21. In other news, I was in university for a very long time.

  22. ...is that what passes for art in canada
  23. It definitely doesn't. It doesn't even pass for art in my apartment. But I don't have an income until January, so that's what keeps the wall from looking empty.
  24. Just wanted to point out how sexy the SR-71 is still. Carry on.
  25. My router is on the fourth floor of a brick building half a block away from where I'm posting this, in a coffee shop down the road... Well done, Asus.
    ETB4U likes this.

Share This Page