(and the wind farm will take up almost 400 times as much acreage as a nuclear or coal generating plant will)

There's also the energy required to get those kilns up to those temperatures, which will typically also involve burning energy-dense fuels.

Also worth noting that a wind turbine farm requires about 200 tons of Type I portland cement (that's 2 rail cars worth) to make the 750 cubic yards of concrete used to form the foundation for a single 2MW turbine.

According to EPA, between 900 and 1100 kg (1984 and 2425 lbs) of CO2 is emitted for every 1000 kg (2205 lbs) of portland cement produced in the U.S. This depends on the fuel type, raw ingredients used and the energy efficiency of the cement plant.

According to the most recent survey of Portland Cement Association (PCA) members, an average of 927 kg (2044 lb) of CO2 are emitted for every 1000 kg (2205 lb) of portland cement produced in the U.S.

So it's almost a 1:1 ratio.

In more relatable terms, the amount of CO2 emitted JUST from making the cement for the foundation is equivalent to that emitted from the coal-fired electrical consumption of a home for 35 years. That doesn't count the emissions from the 60 trucks required to haul that cement to the site, either. Figure that windmill has a 20-year lifespan. Or even optimistically, 30.

Per TWh of actual output (based on 20% availability for wind and a 30 year lifespan):
1400 tons of steel (2600 tons of CO2)
2000 tons of cement (2000 tons of CO2)

By comparison, the same output from a nuclear plant (EPR 3rd gen PWR, 80% annual availability, 60 year lifespan) requires:
about 60 tons of steel (110 tons of CO2)
about 60 tons of cement (60 tons of CO2)

Radioactive waste, you say? Coal fly ash contains about half a ton of uranium and about 1.5 tons of Thorium per TWh generated.

Youâ(TM)re forgetting how wide Disneyâ(TM)s content empire is. Itâ(TM)s not just princesses and superheroes, itâ(TM)s everything under ABC, ESPN, National Geographic, and 20th Century Fox/Fox Television. Plus with their control of Hulu, they also get streaming rights to all of NBCUniversal.

Disney also controls Hulu and has an agreement with Comcast to carry all NBCUniversal content on it. Combine with all the live sports that Disney has access to, and it looks pretty grim for Netflix which may well be relegated to a niche player status.

What would laying off wireline and other legacy installers have to do with the Time Warner acquisition? What would it have to do with anything other than, I dunno, LEGACY TELCO STUFF IS DYING.

Ars is not giving us a straight story - they say on one hand that video will be throttled to 10Mbps, and on the other that it will be throttled to 480p on phones and 720p on tablets.

For starters, they won't know what resolution the video is if it's coming across HTTPS (which more and more is). And if they're just going on bandwidth and capping it at 10Mbps, that's not going to have a huge effect, because you can get a solid 1080 HD stream in 5Mbps using H.264, and you can get a pretty decent 4K stream under 10Mbps with h.265.

Here's a pretty good summary by someone I've known for several decades, who practically invented the organic "business", and was a grower for WFM up until this year:

"I've had a couple of days to digest Amazon's hostile takeover of Whole Foods, and despite what organic boosters and corporate shills may say, this takeover is probably a very good marker for the end of an era.

As an agronomist and farmer I have always attempted to build organic certification as a marketing tool for the most agronomically-responsible growers, equally dedicated to land-care and to superior-quality food for the people eating the food we produce. In the early days the processors were *allies*, looking to expand markets for farmers.

Back in 1986 the first corporate player, and a small one at that, attempted to co-opt the term "organic" for his own shady marketing. I was able to scare him off with a couple of 25$ lawyer's "cease and desist" letters, but like the first cockroach, I knew there were more.

By 1993 the battle was fully engaged. Corporate players in the organic market -- at this point nearly all of them independent and small -- pushed for government standardization and control of organic certification, Here's the key thing ... those standards were to be a ceiling, as well as a floor. Nobody would be allowed to market one sort of organic certification as any better than any other. No higher standards allowed.

It took until 2003 to put it all in place, and it is little surprise that the rampant buyouts and corporate concentration in processed organic foods began at that point. Some fifteen years later essentially *zero* independent organic processors remain.

What's more, back 20 years ago total organic sales (USA) were about 8 Billion dollars, of which organic farmers garnered about half. These days organic sales are nearly 50 billion dollars, of which organic farmers (and there are a lot more of them now) receive perhaps 6 Billion dollars.
The corporate profits from the word "organic" are astounding. The consumers are wishful suckers. I have inspected many hundreds of processing operations for certification, and have a tremendously good idea of what a small percentage of the consumer price is related to ingredients. I'm talking low single digits of retail price. The rest of the markup is captured by corporate players.

Whole Foods hung on for a long time as an independent player, but were blind-sided by a couple of slick New York hedge-fund sharks who quietly bought up enough shares to exert effective control. Typically that's 10 percent of shares. Founder John Mackey last week publicly called the two of them "bastards", but it was too late.

There are many possible places this all can go, none of them good. As but one example, Amazon has just patented a system [Slashdot covered this 2 days ago ] which will not only track any individual customer's movement in their stores, and not only link to that customer's personal demographics, but will also force all that customer's internet activity to go through the store's wifi and blocking -- key part of the patent -- any attempts to comparison shop using any device whatever.

I devoted my entire career to building an agronomically-sound organic industry, particularly at the level of the well-managed family farm. I lost. The organic premium was intended to compensate *growers* for the extra effort required to care properly for the land. These days the entire market value of the word "organic" is being liquidated and monetized by a handful of huge corporations.

With a very few exceptions -- Organic Valley dairy products chief amongst them -- it is now quite simply a waste of your money to purchase organic anything, especially if it's a processed food. You pay dollars more and the farmer sees a couple of cents.

Do not be suckered in by an organic label any longer, except when you buy direct from farmers you know and trust."

In retail, if you can get above 3%, you're having a decent year. If you hit 5%, you're having a FANTASTIC year.

Interestingly enough, that's about what the margins in the oil business are as well. Razor-thin, but they do ridiculous volume.

And the "Pills and Powders" section of Whole Foods (as in any "natural" grocery) is about the only profitable aisle in the store.

They overpaid for a company that was already in trouble. The hedge fund stockholders pulled the same move with WFM that Bass Pro did with Cabela's, which is effectively a sophisticated Pump & Dump scam - run the stock price down, pick up more shares, make it an attractive takeover target, find a willing buyer, and as soon as the stock shoots up, unload at a huge profit, and leave everyone else holding the bag.

They've already laid off thousands of workers in the last couple of years, and not backfilled many more who left voluntarily. WFM was in serious trouble, and Amazon may have overpaid for it.

... Is the biggest fscking scam/joke of any layoff process. That's about as useful as getting a free year of "Credit monitoring" when yet another company is sloppy with your credit card data.

Actually, the AR-15 was a 5.56mm version of the 7.62mm AR-10, not the other way around.

Still typically comes in at or above a buck a round. Not cheap stuff.

I own an early 1940s-vintage version of this rifle, and it's a solid piece of gear.