Yea while $ viability is true, it's better to think of as
1) using some potentially useful products as fuel to burning off things you don't want and
2) the buffer to keep non-steady inflows in a suitable ready condition for steady-state processing. (When real world steady-state is less than ideal.)
Number 2 is really what dominates the equation, as shutting in gas sources or even just turning off pipelines is incredibly more complicated than just an 'off' switch.
And turning back on is even more complicated. In the case of wells, once you shut in, turning back on may never result in the same level of production as before.
There are large storage facilities for natural gas (underground, often in depleted gas fields or solution mined from salt formations) that buffer changes in consumption. These enable pipelines to operate efficiently even when demand is going up and down with the seasons.
This is more preemptive I suspect- 'they' have been reclassifying different species trying to get a bona-fide Gulf endangered one to use against exploration and production. Especially that one whale subspecies.
> Is hardly the same as objecting to activities that distress pretty much all animals in the vicinity long term.
A big thing which distresses pretty much all animals in the vicinity is "shipping".
One other specific animal harm that wind farm get blamed for is bird deaths. Know what is responsible for more bird deaths? Skyscrapers.
The only way to not harm the environment (with current science) is a choice which is unsustainable, because the choice requires everyone everywhere to not only agree now but forever, and "forever" is really hard because anyone defecting from "degrowth" is necessarily stronger for that defection.
So yes, objecting to wind turbines on these grounds is absolutely concern trolling.
This common sense mindset would invalidate so many 'safety' laws and I'm all for it.
Studies make so many invalid assumptions (and usually don't even state them) to force the data / statistics to fit clean a/b or null testing.
But to put a dent in the status quo, we really need a greenlight to just dump however many kids in the back again, no matter the number of kids or seatbelts.
And before anyone gut reacts to this- ask yourself why doing that with schoolbuses still isn't a problem?
Probably for the same reason government trucks aren't required to have emissions controls on them, at the end of the day the King will do whatever they like and reason backwards why it applies to the subjects but not the crown.
Yea couldn't install gps, then realized the package manager only had maybe 10% of what most gli.net routers have because of the 'special' chip in this one.
Still a great travel router, but had to buy a BerylAX for what I wanted to do with the usb gps.
Deadweight or no-weight engine is a relatively negligible problem in terms of the weight-balance envelope.
Cut fuel & hydraulic lines near that engine (that affect the other engines/ apus) (or less likely structural or aerodynamic problems) is what's going to shift this from "engine failure" recoverable problem to a global nonrecoverable one.
Was always weird to me how "the French and Indian War" had Indian involvement almost over emphasized to pretend like it wasn't the extension of a European war...
While all the other American conflicts with tons of Indian involvement (both sides, esp civil war) had it downplayed.
One of my first realizations of slant put on history.
My comment wasn't intended as a "correction", just adding that historians seem to refer to this war by a different name these days. At least in the textbooks I learned from, it was discussed in the context of the Seven Years War.
The French and Indian war began 2 years before the war in Europe. So in a way it was the other way around (of course there were much more important factors than what was effectively an ongoing proxy war in faraway colonies)
But if something is wrong, yea you can bet they will be burning off with big flares.
reply