Where are you, a big city or a small town? In the US or elsewhere?
It may be hit or miss, but depending on where you are, there may be people willing to help without expecting monetary compensation. Charities, e.g. by religious groups, or mutual aid groups (the latter especially in big cities).
I wish you all the best, no person deserves to be abandoned like that.
Whoever wrote this has an extremely outdated technical understanding of renewables and energy storage... or wants to push this outdated understanding out of an economic interest/agenda.
Yes, a stable AC grid needs inertia, which was historically only provided by the generators in gas, coal and nuclear power plants. Yes, inverter-connected systems like batteries and PV plants don't provide inertia naturally. But there are control algorithms out there which would enable these systems to provide inertia just as well... And they could be going into large-scale rollout at least on new batteries and wind power plants within months if it was required by grid codes or incentivized by a market.
I agree that, whatever exactly happened initially, led to a disconnect of the mostly photovoltaic generation in Spain (not yet outfitted with such synthetic inertia algorithms) and the central European grid where more natural inertia was available. The high local PV surplus no longer exported to Europe led to an enormous increase in the grid frequency. The PV plants disconnected which led to a just as quick decrease of frequency and an automatic disconnect of loads - boom, the grid is dead. So far, their analysis was also what I presented to my students on Tuesday. But drawing the conclusion that renewables are bad just reveals either incompetence or an insidious agenda.
Exactly, that sentence also seemed just wrong to me. Everything else is great.
I'm not an egoist anarchist, but the other answer to your question is wrong and I don't want it to be standing there without correction. Egoism in an anarchist context goes back to "The Ego and His own" by Max Stirner, a German philosopher. He was not an anarchist, but has been and is still very influential on the movement.
Here's his works on the anarchist library: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author/max-stirner
I haven't read it myself yet, but read some short summaries. Afaik he wants everyone to acknowledge that we're basically working in our own self-interest all of the time BUT that this requires cooperation and that helping others without immediate material benefit can be part of our self-interest, e.g. because it makes us feel good or because it builds relationships that might be beneficial later.
Uff... Red Scare war wohl damals schon erfolgreich.
Ich meinte aber tatsächlich eine Quelle dafür, dass Ebert das Mist fand. Ich habe dann aber den Wikipedia-Artikel zum 9.11.1918 durchgelesen. Schwer, dabei nicht zu kotzen.
Ist halt totaler Käse, weil die deutschen Kommunisten keine Bolschewisten waren. Liebknecht und Luxemburg hatten andere Vorstellungen, die viel mehr an der ursprünglichen SPD orientiert waren.
Hast du irgendwelche empfehlenswerten Texte von den beiden, außer den "organisatorischen Fragen zur russischen Sozialdemokratie" und dem unfertigen Text zur Oktoberrevolution aus dem Gefängnis?
Echt, da würde ich gern mehr drüber lesen. Hast du irgendwelche halbwegs einfach zugänglichen Quellen dazu?
Absolut lächerlich anzunehmen, es gäbe Aliens die evolutionär bei der gleichen Skelettstruktur wie zweibeinige Landwirbeltiere gelandet wären.
Nicht wirklich. Ich will nun wirklich keine Ufologen verteidigen, aber schau mal nach konvergenter Evolution. Wenn die Bedingungen auf der Heimatwelt anderer Spezies ähnlich waren, sind auch ähnliche Entwicklungen nicht ganz abwegig.
I would like to avoid adding a lot of examples to keep it short and to the point. Otherwise no one reads it.
Would it be possible to have the CoC short but with links to explicitely non-exhaustive examples for what is meant by each point?
Dankeschön :)
but I rarely hear anyone talking about banning planes.
Then do it, but in your own post.
I mean that literally, it would be good to ban private planes and cut down usage of other airplanes drastically. However using that to discredit people talking about other drivers of climate change is just plain whataboutism and sabotaging the movement.
Politicians take inadequate measures because they do what the population wants to be reelected on the next term.
That's the only thing you're getting wrong here, but it's a very crucial point. Even in the best democracies on earth, political power does not come from the people as a whole, it is not distributed equally. It's kind of difficult to prove or quantify but this study succeeded for the US: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
They showed that it's organized groups who actually influence politics. It's obvious that lobbyists of corporations and industry associations will be among them, but it also includes unions, climate lobby groups, etc. But corporate lobby groups often have similar interests whereas most non-corporate groups only talk about very few issues, making them less visible (the paper suggests that they'll be impactful if they all speak out in favor of the same things). Furthermore, who is actually part of such groups? It'll be the well-off people who don't have to work two or three jobs to survive. Now it's common knowledge that the US is far from being the best democracy on earth, but I have a feeling that the EU where some of the better democracies are located works very similarly.
Therefore it's neither correct nor fair or helpful to blame everyone. The elites need to be held accountable, or even better, be abolished.
I'd love to upvote, but come on, that "Master of puppets" devilish Netanyahu just screams "antisemitic clishés". We don't need shit like that to criticize genocide and zionist propaganda.