Slashdot Mirror

That sounds to me like a problem that can be solved with good engineering and proper design, just like many of the other environmental problems. I have spent something like a minute thinking about it.......

Engineers have been thinking about the problem for decades and haven't solved it. What are the chances you solved it with little thought?

Try closer to a millenium... and they have solved it, in more or less exactly the way jandersen suggested.

Engineers have been aware of the [silting] problem for centuries. A dam built in Spain in 1394 is still operating because it was built with a gate at its base so sediment can be flushed out. Some modern dams, including the giant Three Gorges Dam in China, incorporate similar systems. But American engineers, while ingenious at storing and moving water, essentially ignored sediment.

Source: http://www.hcn.org/issues/43.6...

More than famous potatoes...

http://www.hcn.org/wotr/boise-...

Outdoor town also with skiing close by, climbing, mountain biking, Sawtooths, etc.

https://www.hcn.org/articles/16990/print_view

And excellent use of "And I will ignore any evidence you may provide". Classic.

I agree with crontabminusell - if the hunters are using their trucks and other equipment to harass law-abiding citizens, then those items should be confiscated and/or destroyed.

Oh, wait - it already happens!!

http://www.hcn.org/issues/108/3404/print_view

Stories like that aren't unique to the United States, either.

http://gozonews.com/41716/hunter-fined-e4600-firearms-taxidermy-tools-and-vehicle-confiscated/

Lawbreakers are lawbreakers. In THIS particular story, it is Peta that is the lawbreaker, in that they are harassing hunters and fishermen who are engaging in lawful activity. It would be perfectly acceptable if a hunter were to shoot down the drone, then detain the Peta freaks at gunpoint until law enforcement could arrive to make an arrest. The game warden and/or police can confiscate Peta's vehicles and remaining equipment, and the judge can inform Peta that all their stuff is forfeit, because the equipment was used for unlawful purposes, ie, terrorizing honest, law abiding citizens.

Now granted, over 90% of fracking fluid is water and sand, but that 1% is still a hell of a lot when you pump millions of gallons per site.

The only thing that matters for toxicity is final concentration when it reaches people, not absolute quantity.

1. Look at this. http://www.hcn.org/issues/43.3/unpacking-health-hazards-in-frackings-chemical-cocktail/graphic.

That graphic only tells me one thing: the people who created it are either profound liars or totally incompetent. Sodium chloride, boric acid, and "non-crystalline silica" are simply not toxic by any reasonable definition.

2. The Sabatier process makes methane, and uses hydrogen. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here, because that's just carbon neutral, not actually green.

Carbon neutral is as "green" as it gets (provided you even think that CO2 emissions are a bad thing).

In case you haven't noticed, banking is a cartel. Stop living in dreamland. If one bank raises it's rates the other banks will do the same universally because they can and it's profitable. In reality if a bank gives out too many bad loans, it is bailed out by the state. You should know all too well about that seeing as we and the rest of the West are sitting in a recession as a result of that right now.

So you are saying that it is OK to waste tax payer money on anything because, heck, the government is so corrupt that if it didn't waste it banks would waste it on bad loans anyway. That argument is both stupid and incorrect. Although there is a certain degree of corruption, it is still far from 100%. We're still far better off not having the government waste money on bad investments.

It's all well having businesses like the AC Propulsion that do engine conversion but actually making real EVs that are normal enough to be embraced by the general public is not something that has been done before.

Yes, and for good reason: there is no way of making it economical.

Did you even read what I wrote? I already explained why the Tesla was priced out of most people's range, the tech needs to come down in size, but to do that it needs to be made first

Well, that is assuming that the tech can come down in size, and that it results in cars people actually want. You believe this to be true, but many people don't.

5. Erm, are you trying to suggest that you still own the money in the gov't pocket.. because you don't. It may be 'your' money as far as it having belonged to you once, but it doesn't anymore.

I'm suggesting that as a citizen, I want politicians that spend the tax dollars I pay on useful stuff, instead of enriching their buddies in industry.

If you're suggesting that Tesla etc. are centrally planned companies, then I regret to inform you that Elon Musk still owns around 33% of the business and has already
paid back the state.

Central planning is if the government picks winners and losers; it doesn't matter whether its bets work out sometimes.

Of course, in the case of Tesla, its bets haven't worked out, and Musk has not paid back the government and never will, since each of his vehicles are still subsidized with up to $15000 each, plus other indirect subsidies.

A world run by yourself would bee full of slaves and slave masters because wealth naturally grows and has to take from the poorer. Market disruption is the only thing that keeps us from being slaves and slave masters, it also keeps the market from being completely inefficient and run by monopoly.

Market disruption? Are you kidding? You think a government subsidized Tesla is going to result in

Okay, lets stop 'going back and forth for the sake of going back and forth'. I will explain in totality because it seems like you simply don't get what fracking is properly and are attempting to attack my credibility to justify yourself. It is very VERY logical that is it harmful to human health in the same way that smoking is. I.E putting dangerous chemicals into the human body.

1. Look at this. http://www.hcn.org/issues/43.3/unpacking-health-hazards-in-frackings-chemical-cocktail/graphic.

Now granted, over 90% of fracking fluid is water and sand, but that 1% is still a hell of a lot when you pump millions of gallons per site.10,000 gallons of chemicals per mil of fluid remember. And most of that fluid will be absorbed by porous rock whereas I very much doubt kerosene distillate and many of these chemicals have that luxury.
More info about how it gets from the site to the water supply, lawsuits etc:
http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fracking+lawsuit
http://www.dangersoffracking.com/

2. The Sabatier process makes methane, and uses hydrogen. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here, because that's just carbon neutral, not actually green. When you consider that most of that CO2 is not going to be collected from the atmosphere (due to the cost of doing that) then you realize it's just the same as hydrocarbons pollution-wise. If you're talking about doing that in reverse, that is just a form of electrolysis and has the same problems I mentioned before. Namely, it's not green, it just shifts the blame from the car to the pump.

3. In case you haven't noticed, banking is a cartel. Stop living in dreamland. If one bank raises it's rates the other banks will do the same universally because they can and it's profitable. In reality if a bank gives out too many bad loans, it is bailed out by the state. You should know all too well about that seeing as we and the rest of the West are sitting in a recession as a result of that right now.

4. The iPad didn't need to be subsidized, most of the R+D for the tech was done by Xerox/PARC in the 80s and 90s, it was also lead by a huge giant in an industry next door to it; computing. It's a poor comparison for anything but the point I was making but if you want to beat the strawman I will show it's a pointless comparison. GM, Dodge, Ford and all the other US car companies make some of the most uneconomical cars in the world. Fact. Even Honda looks bad next to it's eastern rivals because of it's Americanization. None of the above companies would seriously make EVs their main business focus. It would be a life threatening decision for them and would frankly require them to make an about turn on lots of their marketing, policies etc etc. There is no truly 'green' US car company that is large enough to fab it's own components and design it's own cars so the DoE had to finance the creation of a new company to carry out aforementioned goals. So it's like the DoE seeing a public need for iPads but there being no Apple and no Xerox PARC. So the DoE makes it's own East India Trading Company to do the work for it.

It's all well having businesses like the AC Propulsion that do engine conversion but actually making real EVs that are normal enough to be embraced by the general public is not something that has been done before. (Look at this list http://ev.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_EV_companies and I bet you can call every car there too quirky for general tastes except the Tesla without talking about their power-train or fuel tech.)

Did you even read what I wrote? I already explained why the Tesla was priced out of most people's range, the tech needs to come down in size, but to do that it need

I know you are joking but cisterns are illegal in many areas.

Here is one of many stories that talk about it.
http://www.hcn.org/issues/40.18/a-good-idea-2013-if-you-can-get-away-with-it

Thanks to years of being "open for business"... probably not starting with, but vastly increasing during the Bush W Administration (and not being brought back under control with Obama admin), the Department of the Interior has been almost thoroughly corrupted and captured.

It's not surprising that they are the target of lawsuit... what's sad is that they aren't sued by regular citizens for abdication of their purpose in search of bribes and kickbacks from Industry.

I wish Google best of luck in turning the stone on this cockroach-infested den of iniquity.

More like, individuals pursuing their own goals will do a better job of allocating resources than a pack of bureaucrats trying to manage the economy.

You know it'd be a lot easier to take these libertarian ideals seriously if our country weren't already funding oil exploration and coal mining out the wazoo with subsidies and land usage grants, and also if the total cost (ie, all externalities included like pollution, deforestation, property value declines) were included on the bill.

The problem is that they aren't. Oil companies own the government (continued even in this supposedly liberal administration), and unless you convince me they're leaving DC, I sure as hell won't support any "getting government off my back" bullshit, because that just leaves a power vacuum for big business.

Big Business is as big (if not bigger) a threat to people's freedom as Big Government.

Because digging a well is obviously much more convenient.
And in many places, digging a well in prohibited. At least Colorado and other parts of the US West. Water rights are a major problem here; Colorado state law doesn't even allow you to collect water which runs off your roof: http://www.hcn.org/issues/40.18/a-good-idea-2013-if-you-can-get-away-with-it

http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id =2991

I wouldn't put too much stock in any "science" from anyone at the Dept. of the Interior. Interior is a haven for folks who all share the same opinions and work towards the same agenda.

This link is to a story from 1993:

http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id =2584

And I remember first hearing of these "robodeer" in the 80's. Best rural legend I heard about them involved a guy who legally shot one to pieces (he spotted the robodeer out in the field, went and got permission to hunt on the land, snuck up on it and blasted away -- the story goes that the DNR agents had set it up to sting people shooting from the road and had put it far enough into the field that he didn't violate any laws).

'Course, maybe it takes the VOA a while to report things....

A few memorable points: Visiting a computer startup in Boston, Washington to NY by train, Canadian Pacific train across Canada, a Californian diner with everyone in baseball caps, a walk across the George Washington Bridge to Hoboken late at night.

One thing I did not get to see was the subterranean cafeteria in the Carlsbad Caverns.

Oddly while I have written a few hi-tech travel reports and a book on the subject, it has never occurred to me to do a report about North America. On my one trip I found the place technically unsophisticated. Perhaps that was because it was a long time ago, or I just went to the wrong places.

ps: At one stage I found myself standing on a desk in the ABC office in NY, poking a hole in the ceiling with a screwdriver to put a computer cable through. I glanced down and got vertigo, as this way half way up the Rockefeller Centre.

Just one?

The Panama Canal.

Lockheed Martin's X-33 single-stage-to-orbit reusable launch vehicle concept.

NASA's Mars Global Surveyor

The NEAR space probe (and it was delivered 9 months ahead of schedule!)

The World Trade Center recovery effort.

The US Navy's Super Hornet (upgrade to the old F/A-18 Hornet Naval strike fighter)

The U2 Spy Plane

Also, I remember hearing from the Discovery Chanel or TLC or Discovery Wings or something that the F-117 Stealth Fighter was developed under budget, but I can't seem to find a reliable link.

Golden Grove Prison at St. Croix in the US Vigrin Islands.

The Grand Staircase-Escalante monument in Utah.

It happens. It's rare percentage wise, but it does happen all the time. With the exception of the last two, which I only found out from google searching for links for the rest, I knew of all of these off of the top of my head, so it's not a big secret or anything. Just think of all the mundane projects that come in under budget too. Government buildings, roadways, etc.