Why are they comparing cost to lease? I guess does that include the lower maintenance cost of EVs somewhat?
Oh I get what you're getting at now. Yeah if sequestering is limited, you should be using as little as you can. But for applications like rockets, it's much more effective to sequestere CO2 than to try to make something like an electric water rocket.
By levelized cost of just the energy. Taking into account energy storage at different renewable mixes makes it a little worse for intermittent source. All that to say, nuclear can still be useful and cheaper in some situations.
If they're actually sequestering the carbon fully, like injecting it back underground, then it's equivalent to not emitting in the first place. I think the issue is that the offsetting methods companies are using are not actually sequestering carbon. Like promising to not cut down trees or burying logs insufficiency underground.
I guess they're relaxing the policy, since they've hinted previously that they viewed attacks on Russian territory to be a threat to the existence of Russia and would use nukes in response. But they didn't.
Even in the books he downed a distant nazgul solo.
And the lions would quickly get too cold by having way too much surface area.
Scientific accuracy is no fun for shrinking and growing things.
Plastic recycling specifically in the US has previously used empty ships going back to Asia to ship 'recycling' there. Nominally, they would sort it to be recycled. But since it's only economical to recycle a few sorts of plastic, most of it is burned. This has terrible health effects for the country, hence why several countries blocked the US from shipping it to them.
More info from climate town https://youtu.be/PJnJ8mK3Q3g
If the carbon is properly sequestered after capture, and the energy use is accounted for in emissions, wouldn't net zero be just as good as zero? It's almost always going to be way more expensive to take the carbon back out of the atmosphere than to not emit it in the first place, so I'd think you'd get mostly the same effect.
I guess they're relaxing the policy, since they've hinged previously that they viewed attacks on Russian territory to be a threat to the existence of Russia and would use nukes in response. But they didn't.
Why are the offering those incentives? Because of lower servicing costs?