Microplastics seems to span the range from 5mm down to 10nm but this seems too broad to me if you are talking safety. 5mm is roughly 20 thousandths of an inch and that's fairly macroscopic with a very small surface area to volume. Even 2 thousandths is visible and not that small, around the size of a salt grain you find in a restaurant dispenser. As you get smaller, the surface area to volume rises, as does the reactivity making very fine particles dangerous. This is why macroscopic titanium dioxide is common in food, but nanoparticles of it are actually toxic and pose health risks, and similarity why if you hold a lighter to a brick of metal nothing happens but if you do the same to metal powder suspended in air, or a fluffy fine steel wool, it burns profusely. I would be far more worried about the particles close to 10nm as the large ones look quite chemically inert, that's why they take so long to break down.
This isn't the same as simple burning and furthermore, by your own words, creates a small positive release of carbon into the atmosphere. Only after carefully controlling the byproducts could you hope to eventually after some time become carbon negative. Personally, during a disaster or time of great need, I don't have the faith that the byproducts will be properly cared for and disposed of.
There is a non negligible risk of voting early by mail, it is more certain to vote in person. Add on commutes and the difficulty for some to reach polling stations and the fact that there are in fact long lines at a substantial number of polling places and you fine more democratic countries give the protections as outlined above. Hell, during the 2016 primary I had a one hour wait, lines were out the door and around the block and it was total chaos inside.
It's only neutral if the carbon in biomass buffer stays the same, only negative if the buffer increases carbon masss. Sure, burn up half the buffer and leave 200 billion tons of carbon in the air, how much damage could it do? It's not like you could pass an unstable equilibrium point and start massive hydrate releases into the atmosphere...
One thing to point out, young trees consume more carbon dioxide than older trees. As long as you are replanting in their place, that is fine. One thing to consider though is the effects of forestry mono-culture on the rest of the local wildlife. That part seems to get ignored here...
So you took a forest with x tons of carbon mass and reduced it to.3X releasing.7x into the air. While the absorption rate may be higher for young trees you just burned a massive part of that buffer that would be there without intervention. You do this and it's positive carbon to the atmosphere. Only after the buffer stabilizes to its new smaller size would it then be neutral with that buffer artificially put into the atmosphere. Sounds like a very odd justification to me.
Burning wood is not really carbon neutral. Around 450 billion tons of carbon are locked up in plant biomass. After something like a tree dies naturally, this can take a decade to fully go back into the air and much of the carbon is left in the rotted remains the the biomass involved in consuming it furthering the delay. This is essentially temporary storage over an average set time, a buffer. By burning this mass you shorten the living life and/or lifetime of the decay while converting a far larger percentage of its carbon to CO2 and leaving a smaller amount of material in this buffer. By converting this buffer that existed before man made activity to atmospheric CO2 it is obviously not carbon neutral. Thus the practice of burning natural plant material depletes this storage and puts more carbon in the air than if you did not burn or harvest and burn it. It would be carbon neutral if you artificially grew the material in a carbon negative manner equivelant to the release burning generates, but that isn't what happens.
To be fair the main stream media has the consistent problem across the board of being an information entertainment service that never badmouths or negatively reports on subsidiary companies or advertisers. Top that off with 6 companies own it all and the lack of diversity and integrity forces knowledgeable people to other alternate platforms.
How about we start with a mandatory by law 2 hours off work paid on voting days when part or all of your shift intersects voting hours? We can follow up with making a reasonable number of polling places within reasonable reach of the local population accessible by public transit and prohibiting gerrymandering by appointing independent governing boards and straightforward districting. Even the requirement for an identical name on all government records is BS; is a clerical error on one of the 318 government documents on me get me out of paying taxes? Right now a large portion of voters are disenfranchised or about to be disenfranchised due to one of those reasons.
All engineers are capable of efficiency, minimalism, and optimizing cost to performance, those are core competencies of engineering. However if you want a good engineer to pump out a piece of crap product that has brand lock in, planned obsolescence, and just plain terrible quality to price, you need management.
I wish I had mod points, this is so true. If you let the engineers design it it typically gets overbuilt in every way, typically including being easy to repair.
I'm not sure where you are getting your data, but we went from 1045 million short tons for electricity in 2006 to 664 in 2016, a reduction of 1/3 and we had a corresponding rise in natural gas for electrical generation which offsets some of these losses. The CO2 per kwh has not dropped by much in the last decade. Secondly, the Tesla battery is sold at a loss and is not anywhere near 100 usd/kwh yet. They are on track for the cells to hit that price this year and maybe packs by 2020. The only thing keeping the costs down are the fact Tesla uses and advanced smart battery architecture with long lifespan cells and carefully controls the temperature and charge cycles at all times making them viable for use as storage after they are no longer useful in cars. Sorry if the facts aren't as rosy as you like them to be, but that's reality.
It dosent help that in many regions of the world the electric grid is powered substantially by fossil fuels. If we are talking CO2, electric car mileage is only as clean as the electricity you use, powering it from a coal plant doesn't generate much or perhaps any CO2 savings. Throw in the fact 5 to 40 tons of CO2 go into manufacturing traditional vehicles, and electrics tend to be even higher, and the actual CO2 savings isn't as much as most people want it to be. You can still save in emissions, but where I live the power is so dirty I'd get 35-45mpg (depends on time of day) equivelant unless I went solar so I'd need to drive that electric for a heck of a long time to break even.
I don't think people are frightened so much as refuse to pay or simply cannot pay double price on a very expensive item. Improve battery technology so that instead of just the battery costing the same as an entire econobox car, it's only 500-2000 USD and it will be hard to find people who still want gas powered cars.
These cars are produced today therefore the estimates for emissions are spot on for production. Second the improvements in the grid often take place on the decades scale, not necessarily in time to make a large change to vehicles bought today. Third the batteries that electric cars use go bad with time, in addition to charge/discharge cycle use. Maybe the pack lasts 8 years before getting to 80% capacity, maybe 12, but somewhere along the line in roughly 10-15 ish years full electrics will need a new battery costing between 6k and 30k USD before subsidies. People aren't going to be limping along on a vastly reduced range that was low to begin with and tolerate it. Throwing such a huge chunk of money all at once into a decade old car will cause them to be sent to the trash heap instead of a longer lifespan due to fewer moving parts, this is already happening with electrics sold 8-15 years ago. We need advancements in battery technology to help prevent the pileup of perfectly fine older electric cars needing a battery that costs as much as a new gas powered economy vehicle as well as to bring down the costs of new electric vehicles. Electrics can save substantial CO2 emissions but as has been the case since their invention, the battery is the largest problem.
As an undergrad I worked on a darpa project where it paid 1m USD for a custom distributed network radio architecture that involved repurposing a failed thermometer radio chip with barely any modifications outside of some custom firmware on a pic microcontroller. Considering it never even worked right, it was something a decent grad student could have done in about four weeks for 1k. I'm not sure how to board the gravy train myself, but it's definitely possible with the right connections.
If people in the long tail don't have enough resources to have at least an acceptable standard of living, unrest appears, and they will revolt and coordinate long enough to remove those at the peak; a position which then will be occupied by a new batch of privileged.
Robotics, weak AI, and automation (including millitary hardware) are falling under control of the 0.01% and are on track to completely eliminate this pesky problem within 100 years or so. Then for the first time ever there will be no need for plebs and no problem putting down uprisings the vast majority participate in.
FFS the linked article didn't mention the original paper, thank goodness they even mentioned the authors. After tracking down the authors publications, I have located the original paper on arxiv. It's interesting to read, and seems to lend more thought experiment evidence to the many world interpretation.
Easy to work on adds to the cost of losing sales in repairs at proprietary process dealerships. It also tends to make the designs larger and bulkier in general. In the 60s before computer modeling, some difficulties in repair were more excusable, but with modern CAD I'm assuming they specifically make the spaces so that standard tools won't fit, require fairy thin arms and fingers to fit in yet with the strength of a professional weight lifter, and place sharp corners even Legolas couldn't dodge cutting himself up on when servicing parts.
Except a single e-book is probably 100 years of analyitics, and with a wired connection 95% of the time only 5% will ever need to use it. Maybe there would be other reasons as well for 100% such as drm.
The source is "Newer TVs are probably moving to cellular modems...". I posted from my mobile before coffee again and didn't check so I guess I deserve the karma. My reasoning is base analyitics are very very low bandwidth and the SoC capabilities grow every day along with the market to bypass attempts to block its internet access.
Slashdot Mirror
Microplastics seems to span the range from 5mm down to 10nm but this seems too broad to me if you are talking safety. 5mm is roughly 20 thousandths of an inch and that's fairly macroscopic with a very small surface area to volume. Even 2 thousandths is visible and not that small, around the size of a salt grain you find in a restaurant dispenser. As you get smaller, the surface area to volume rises, as does the reactivity making very fine particles dangerous. This is why macroscopic titanium dioxide is common in food, but nanoparticles of it are actually toxic and pose health risks, and similarity why if you hold a lighter to a brick of metal nothing happens but if you do the same to metal powder suspended in air, or a fluffy fine steel wool, it burns profusely. I would be far more worried about the particles close to 10nm as the large ones look quite chemically inert, that's why they take so long to break down.
This isn't the same as simple burning and furthermore, by your own words, creates a small positive release of carbon into the atmosphere. Only after carefully controlling the byproducts could you hope to eventually after some time become carbon negative. Personally, during a disaster or time of great need, I don't have the faith that the byproducts will be properly cared for and disposed of.
All depends on your allowed timeframe. Just like with perpetual motion machines, it all depends on where you close the system.
Lmafo, sequestered is non-atmospheric (negative) and released or atmospheric (positive). There is no debate on this, nor is it pseudoscience.
There is a non negligible risk of voting early by mail, it is more certain to vote in person. Add on commutes and the difficulty for some to reach polling stations and the fact that there are in fact long lines at a substantial number of polling places and you fine more democratic countries give the protections as outlined above. Hell, during the 2016 primary I had a one hour wait, lines were out the door and around the block and it was total chaos inside.
It's only neutral if the carbon in biomass buffer stays the same, only negative if the buffer increases carbon masss. Sure, burn up half the buffer and leave 200 billion tons of carbon in the air, how much damage could it do? It's not like you could pass an unstable equilibrium point and start massive hydrate releases into the atmosphere...
One thing to point out, young trees consume more carbon dioxide than older trees. As long as you are replanting in their place, that is fine. One thing to consider though is the effects of forestry mono-culture on the rest of the local wildlife. That part seems to get ignored here...
So you took a forest with x tons of carbon mass and reduced it to .3X releasing .7x into the air. While the absorption rate may be higher for young trees you just burned a massive part of that buffer that would be there without intervention. You do this and it's positive carbon to the atmosphere. Only after the buffer stabilizes to its new smaller size would it then be neutral with that buffer artificially put into the atmosphere. Sounds like a very odd justification to me.
Considering the backup due to the way polling stations are set up, 4hrs is a better idea.
Burning wood is not really carbon neutral. Around 450 billion tons of carbon are locked up in plant biomass. After something like a tree dies naturally, this can take a decade to fully go back into the air and much of the carbon is left in the rotted remains the the biomass involved in consuming it furthering the delay. This is essentially temporary storage over an average set time, a buffer. By burning this mass you shorten the living life and/or lifetime of the decay while converting a far larger percentage of its carbon to CO2 and leaving a smaller amount of material in this buffer. By converting this buffer that existed before man made activity to atmospheric CO2 it is obviously not carbon neutral. Thus the practice of burning natural plant material depletes this storage and puts more carbon in the air than if you did not burn or harvest and burn it. It would be carbon neutral if you artificially grew the material in a carbon negative manner equivelant to the release burning generates, but that isn't what happens.
To be fair the main stream media has the consistent problem across the board of being an information entertainment service that never badmouths or negatively reports on subsidiary companies or advertisers. Top that off with 6 companies own it all and the lack of diversity and integrity forces knowledgeable people to other alternate platforms.
How about we start with a mandatory by law 2 hours off work paid on voting days when part or all of your shift intersects voting hours? We can follow up with making a reasonable number of polling places within reasonable reach of the local population accessible by public transit and prohibiting gerrymandering by appointing independent governing boards and straightforward districting. Even the requirement for an identical name on all government records is BS; is a clerical error on one of the 318 government documents on me get me out of paying taxes? Right now a large portion of voters are disenfranchised or about to be disenfranchised due to one of those reasons.
All engineers are capable of efficiency, minimalism, and optimizing cost to performance, those are core competencies of engineering. However if you want a good engineer to pump out a piece of crap product that has brand lock in, planned obsolescence, and just plain terrible quality to price, you need management.
I wish I had mod points, this is so true. If you let the engineers design it it typically gets overbuilt in every way, typically including being easy to repair.
I'm not sure where you are getting your data, but we went from 1045 million short tons for electricity in 2006 to 664 in 2016, a reduction of 1/3 and we had a corresponding rise in natural gas for electrical generation which offsets some of these losses. The CO2 per kwh has not dropped by much in the last decade. Secondly, the Tesla battery is sold at a loss and is not anywhere near 100 usd/kwh yet. They are on track for the cells to hit that price this year and maybe packs by 2020. The only thing keeping the costs down are the fact Tesla uses and advanced smart battery architecture with long lifespan cells and carefully controls the temperature and charge cycles at all times making them viable for use as storage after they are no longer useful in cars. Sorry if the facts aren't as rosy as you like them to be, but that's reality.
It dosent help that in many regions of the world the electric grid is powered substantially by fossil fuels. If we are talking CO2, electric car mileage is only as clean as the electricity you use, powering it from a coal plant doesn't generate much or perhaps any CO2 savings. Throw in the fact 5 to 40 tons of CO2 go into manufacturing traditional vehicles, and electrics tend to be even higher, and the actual CO2 savings isn't as much as most people want it to be. You can still save in emissions, but where I live the power is so dirty I'd get 35-45mpg (depends on time of day) equivelant unless I went solar so I'd need to drive that electric for a heck of a long time to break even.
I don't think people are frightened so much as refuse to pay or simply cannot pay double price on a very expensive item. Improve battery technology so that instead of just the battery costing the same as an entire econobox car, it's only 500-2000 USD and it will be hard to find people who still want gas powered cars.
These cars are produced today therefore the estimates for emissions are spot on for production. Second the improvements in the grid often take place on the decades scale, not necessarily in time to make a large change to vehicles bought today. Third the batteries that electric cars use go bad with time, in addition to charge/discharge cycle use. Maybe the pack lasts 8 years before getting to 80% capacity, maybe 12, but somewhere along the line in roughly 10-15 ish years full electrics will need a new battery costing between 6k and 30k USD before subsidies. People aren't going to be limping along on a vastly reduced range that was low to begin with and tolerate it. Throwing such a huge chunk of money all at once into a decade old car will cause them to be sent to the trash heap instead of a longer lifespan due to fewer moving parts, this is already happening with electrics sold 8-15 years ago. We need advancements in battery technology to help prevent the pileup of perfectly fine older electric cars needing a battery that costs as much as a new gas powered economy vehicle as well as to bring down the costs of new electric vehicles. Electrics can save substantial CO2 emissions but as has been the case since their invention, the battery is the largest problem.
As an undergrad I worked on a darpa project where it paid 1m USD for a custom distributed network radio architecture that involved repurposing a failed thermometer radio chip with barely any modifications outside of some custom firmware on a pic microcontroller. Considering it never even worked right, it was something a decent grad student could have done in about four weeks for 1k. I'm not sure how to board the gravy train myself, but it's definitely possible with the right connections.
arpa/darpa has wasted so much money 1.3 million is a rounding error.
If people in the long tail don't have enough resources to have at least an acceptable standard of living, unrest appears, and they will revolt and coordinate long enough to remove those at the peak; a position which then will be occupied by a new batch of privileged.
Robotics, weak AI, and automation (including millitary hardware) are falling under control of the 0.01% and are on track to completely eliminate this pesky problem within 100 years or so. Then for the first time ever there will be no need for plebs and no problem putting down uprisings the vast majority participate in.
FFS the linked article didn't mention the original paper, thank goodness they even mentioned the authors. After tracking down the authors publications, I have located the original paper on arxiv. It's interesting to read, and seems to lend more thought experiment evidence to the many world interpretation.
Easy to work on adds to the cost of losing sales in repairs at proprietary process dealerships. It also tends to make the designs larger and bulkier in general. In the 60s before computer modeling, some difficulties in repair were more excusable, but with modern CAD I'm assuming they specifically make the spaces so that standard tools won't fit, require fairy thin arms and fingers to fit in yet with the strength of a professional weight lifter, and place sharp corners even Legolas couldn't dodge cutting himself up on when servicing parts.
He can't stand actuarial studies, he keeps saying "never tell me the odds".
I saw that documentary Already. I seem to remember they spent 30 million to make 300 million but it wasn't easy.
Except a single e-book is probably 100 years of analyitics, and with a wired connection 95% of the time only 5% will ever need to use it. Maybe there would be other reasons as well for 100% such as drm.
The source is "Newer TVs are probably moving to cellular modems...". I posted from my mobile before coffee again and didn't check so I guess I deserve the karma. My reasoning is base analyitics are very very low bandwidth and the SoC capabilities grow every day along with the market to bypass attempts to block its internet access.