SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the spoiler-alert-its-the-president dept.
Imagine my surprise while surfing articles on ScienceMag.org site when I discover an article not paywalled, (how unusual). It soon became apparent this was probably because it was produced at tax payer expense.
In the paper, just about all the data that matters is laid out early:
CO2 emissions from the energy sector fell by 9.5% from 2008 to 2015, while the economy grew by more than 10%. In this same period, the amount of energy consumed per dollar of real gross domestic product (GDP) fell by almost 11%, the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of energy consumed declined by 8%, and CO2 emitted per dollar of GDP declined by 18%.
Basically the paper points out that costs of renewable energy is falling fast, from affordable only to experimental projects to competitive pricing in the every day world:
Renewable electricity costs also fell dramatically between 2008 and 2015: the cost of electricity fell 41% for wind, 54% for rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) installations, and 64% for utility-scale PV.
Recovery Act investments and recent tax credit extensions have played a crucial role, but technology advances and market forces will continue to drive renewable deployment. The levelized cost of electricity from new renewables like wind and solar in some parts of the United States is already lower than that for new coal generation.
The paper looks all studious and sciency, with footnotes and charts and citations of all sorts of government publications, scholarly papers from universities, blogs and industrial press releases.
And even an admission at the end that several other "researchers" contributed to the researching, drafting, and editing of the article. All at tax payers expense, of course.
The record safely set straight, the government guy walks off into the sunset, to a retirement and a new career in publishing science papers.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by coolgopher on Monday January 16 2017, @03:01AM
Seriously? I can't tell if the actual referenced article (not yet read, naturally) is serious but the submitter objects to it, or if the article itself is somehow snarky. Even if it's the latter, could we pretty please not have as much snark in the summaries?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday January 16 2017, @03:20AM
Open TFA and read the author's name - he's a Nobel prize recipient. My guess: it's not snark, it's an attempt to enhance the surprise factor, like the lead-up to the punch line of a joke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 16 2017, @06:27AM
Snark is a step up from Frojack's normally ambian equivalent "adds nothing using many words" drivel.
(this post==encouragement)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday January 16 2017, @08:51AM
Snark is a step up from Frojack's normally ambian equivalent
I,too, worry about our fellow Soylentil frojack. Usually he is the best of the climate change denier trolls! Often have been the times I have held him up as an example to the lesser talented, such as khallow. But this worries me seriously. Did the petrochemical corps cut back on their pay scale, so the poor posters like frojack will have to resort to posts such as this or walking the streets hawking their radiations? Or is it just that they think that getting one of their own in as sec of state means they no longer need such low level operatives like our dear froj? In any case, the Trump administration bodes ill for all of us here at SoylentNews, shills and all, and I for one mourn this.