Yes that is true in an absolute sense, but I am expounding on how Sweden’s government looks at the math: “We are already green, this lets us and our neighbors also become even more green; but in the process it negatively impacts our ability to maintain sovereignty.”

No government will be willing to give up the security of the citizens it is sworn to protect in order to improve the lives of citizens in other countries not under their umbrella. And they should not be expected to.

Maybe if Russia weren’t such a ugly dystopian bear, this wouldn’t be a problem… They are a clear and present danger far above any other, and Sweden is justified in these decisions. Perhaps the farms will be relocated to shoreline less critical for defense.

Sweden’s domestic energy mix is already extremely light on fossil: https://www.iea.org/countries/sweden
Most of what they use is still transport/industry related oil and little, if any fossil is used on the power grid. These wind farms would have probably been primarily for export, so the climate “loss” on CO2 isn’t that big of a deal for them compared to these legitimate defense concerns.

Me too, I need to order fuel for the ranch bulk tanks too. We have a couple 300gal bulk tanks that usually get filled in the fall and I’ve totally forgotten to so far…

Just after the markets close, Monday is gonna be interesting

Unfortunately not until 2027. They are appointed by the council for 5 year terms. His was renewed 1st January 2022.

more like growth for the past 60 years has been easy to come by via free money injection and giving industry a growth mandate to build up for exports. But their economy and population is now maturing, wages are rising, urban housing demand is no longer voraciously insatiable, services are taking over from sheer industrial output, and the rest of the world has begun to look twice at their “cheap” labor that isn’t actually that cheap comparatively speaking. The CCP’s financial policy has not adapted to this new world in the slightest and they have some very tough reckoning to go through.

The people wanted to do the fucked up shit regardless but need a mental justification to hide behind

If it works, it works. Really any old cheap pcie card will work, if you just need video out of any kind the card type need not be specific. Glad you got it to work.

Get a used SFF office PC low profile card off Ebay. They often have chipset wattages around 25 or so and easily run on slot power only

Something like this: https://www.ebay.com/p/1958445856 (idea only, not endorsing this seller).

Anything of a semi modern format with a pcie interface thata not an outright scam card will be fine for VGA no-driver video output. IME older AMD/ATI cards seem to boot better than oder NVidia cards…

Rapists are bad and I am glad this guy is heading to rot in a dark place. but the Sun does a great job of highlighting in every paragraph and the cover photo that he is non white for transparent reasons. They spend endless hours also posting articles about “woke agenda” bullshit.

Average immigrant hate piece by the sun

Same difference- it’s a solved optimization problem that does not need “machine learning”.

So it uses 20 high power Nvidia GPU’s instead of running on a single 5 watt microcontroller!

Sooooooooo standard tree search that comp science students were doing in the 80s?

On Lemmy these days it’s about 25/75 for satire vs unironic idiot/tankie

Yeah that study is probably “true” but very myopic. I believe I commented on this the last time it was posted.

Sure, total co2/ch4 emissions is likely higher. Liquefying and transporting LNG isn’t energy free, while coal is typically burned closer to where it’s mined. I get that’s probably the tact they’re trying to take, fossil fuel still bad and don’t let LNG get too greenwashed.

HOWEVER. The study and article seems to intentionally completely ignore all the secondary emissions of coal. Tallying “emissions” for a picture of true environmental impact is way way way more than just X tons of co2. Burned coal creates a massive amount of atmospheric ash and particulate that is chock full of heavy metals, literal radioactivity, and sulfur/nox that generates acid rain. The tailings from mining and the fly ash from burning is also incredibly toxic and destroys all groundwater for miles and miles around it. It’s just one huge bad flaming lump of cancer that sanitizes entire ecosystems and reduces life expectancy by multiple decades in places where it is heavily used.

Natural gas generates none of this, with the exception of fracking groundwater problems (which, is admittedly a problem, but still way less concentrated than the previously mentioned). A fuel stock of >95% CH4 with the remainder made up of water and longer chain hydrocarbons emits nothing but CO2 and water vapor. Also, combined cycle gas power plants have some of the highest end to end thermal efficiencies of any power plant ever built, which is another huge plus over coal.

So no, it’s not perfect, and its still “bad”. but it is doing a fucking bang good job of not giving people cancer and getting a dirty 18th century energy source out of our modern society where it does not belong.

If all other things stay the same and SA starts punishing OPEC with production bumps, then yes 50 to 60/bbl is possible in the current balanced market. But these geopolitical risks are unpredictable and military action removing more production than SA could offset with it’s spare capacity would quickly drive it back to 100/bbl.

SA wants OPEC members to believe the 50/bbl threat because OPEC/OPEC+ as a whole have done nothing but overproduce and ignore quotas for years and years, bolstering their own profits while SA tries to take up the slack by cutting. SA is sick and tired of being taken advantage of by their “friends” in the cartel (truely a Leopards Eating Faces moment). Opec members will be more likely to comply with quota demands if there is an imminent market crash.

The US would want members to believe the 100/bbl war premium threat as that will keep reserves high and production on the market, as sellers will want to take immediate advantage of a spot market price spike, which in itself dulls the ultimate effect of said spike and prevents physical shortages that would be severely damaging to the US/OECD countries.

Frankly the entire thing is a giant “¯\_(ツ)_/¯” so make sure your gas tank stays full and we’ll wait and see.

I bet it can. These drones are a new war-of-volumes.
Even if you only have a 1 in 10, hell even a 1 in 20 connection rate of launched drone to hitting designated target. If each drone costs $300 to build and arm using commodity parts, but one hit can take out a high value T90M worth $4.5mil, that battlefield ROI is insanely high.

The more they delete, the more they can resell every few years as “new” while charging ever more exorbitant prices for!