There is a direct, dedicated high voltage DC link between the Benmore power station to Wellington. It doesn't power anything else in the South Island.
According to this map from the New Zeland power authority the HVDC lines are connected to a station in Haywards. Wellington is connected to the grid by two 220kV circuits and two 110kV circuits. These lines connect to the grid and not directly to the HVDC line.
The Benmore Dam is connected to Hayward by the HVDC line and it is also connected to the southern grid by five circuits. So no, you can not say that the dam does not power anything else in the Southern Island.
Another hole in your information is that you contend that the HVDC line is being upgraded to handle 1GW. If it can handle one GW and is only connected to the Benmore Dam then shouldn't the generation capacity of the Benmore Dam be 1 GW? The capacity of the Benmore Dam is 540MW. Where does the other 460MW come from?
You might want to take a close look at the New Zeland Power grid before commenting.
I get it from the article about their first long distance flight. They flew mostly during the day. Notice the flight was May to July during the longer days of the year. They also spent a significant time gaining altitude using thermals and local lift conditions to conserve battery power. Evidence if this is quote from the Africa trip article.
On its final leg from Toulouse to Payerne, Solar Impulse traveled 615 km (382 miles) in 13 hours 29 minutes at an average speed of 63 km/h (39 mph) and at an average altitude of 3,596 meters (11,800 ft).
If the average speed was 63 km/h and it flew for 13.5 hours it should have gone 850km. Since the distance is only 615 km, where did the other 235 km go? That is almost 28% of the movement. They went to spiraling in thermals and searching for other form of lift to conserve power. It's real average speed if measured as progress toward its destination is closer to 45 km/h.It's real average speed if measured as progress toward its destination is closer to 45 km/h.
Take a look at the sailplane distance record. That pilot went faster and much further with no motor at all. Sorry but Solar Impulse is not an electric powered aircraft. It is a high performance sailplane with a very expensive electric motor to help it get from lift condition to lift condition.
Did I say anything about throwing away perfectly good equipment? No. Please stop putting words in my mouth to support a weak position. I said that the cost recovery of the energy savings of a new power supply is not the only consideration and conservation of electricity should be a factor.
Take a forward view instead of always looking back. You will eventually want a new computer. During that purchase you will have a choice between a power supply that uses x amount of energy and another power supply that uses less than x for the same output but costs more. What I am saying is that when you buy the new computer that you spend a bit more to help reduce the load on the grid and therefore decrease the need for new electricity plants.
You also seem to misunderstand the concept of energy grid. You are can not prove that all the electricity you use is produced at the dam you keep referring to. All electricity generation plans in NZ are interconnected through the grid. The electricity you use could be coming from any of them at any time. Since 33% of the electricity in NZ is generated through fossil fuels, 33% of the energy you us is generated through fossil fuels. The only way this would not be true is if you could identify which electron charge was produced by the fossil fuel plants and block them. Sorry but I know of no technology that would do that.
he Wellington grid connection peaks at 170MW, the average power use in Wellington is 756MW. The HVDC link from the hydro power in the South Island was only capable of 700MW. It's being upgraded and can now provide 1GW.
Grid connections have nothing to do with electricity generation which is what I am talking about. What I am concerned with is how power is injected into the grid not how much the grid can carry. There is one relevant side note though that you seemed to miss. Why is the increase in the size of the connection needed? Perhaps to carry more electricity due to higher demand on the North Island. Demand which might be less if the people on the North Island purchased more efficient devices when buying new ones.
If it was all about cutting the fossil fuel % then why isn't the Aluminium smelter shut down? It uses 15% of the entire countries electricity.
Because the aluminum is a needed resource in the economy and requires electricity to produce and is therefore an efficient use of electricity. That is different than using electricity because people do not want to spend money on better power supplies in their new computers and is therefore an inefficient use of electricity.Just because one industry uses a lot of electricity is no reason to waste it.
Thank you for sharing that you live in the Wellington area. According to this map there are two coal/electric plants closer to Wellington than the plants on the South Island. Considering that electricity is used from the closest plants much more than 33% of you power is coming from fossil fuels. You do not choose where your power comes from; it is supplied from the closest available and the closest available to Wellington is fossil fuel powered.
Thank you for finally revealing where you live. Here is the graph of electricity generated in New Zeland. Notice that 33% of NZ electricity comes from fossil fuels? So that "excess [that} comes from the National Grid" was probably produced by burning fossil fuels. So no, you energy is not as clean as you think.
It might be a good idea to look a little further than the end of your nose. Sure 30KWh sounds like a small number but multiply that by a couple million computers and you get quite a few giggawatt hours. Maybe some of those coal and natural gas plants can be taken off line more often. It is not just about you it is about everyone conserving to make a difference.
Are you saying now that since you have your power needs met there needs to be no new construction to deal with the power needs of the increasing population? Electricity demand is increasing therefore new plants are being built. If demand increases less then fewer plants will be built.
Again tell me where you live and I will disprove your theory that no new generation plants are being built.
Breitling Orbiter is a balloon that uses altitude changes initiated by burning propane or releasing gas to change altitude and reach different flows of wind. It is completely different than a sailplane gaining altitude so it can use that potential energy to glide to a new source of lift. You are comparing apples to oranges. Breitling Orbiter carried it's own thermal lift in the form of fuel; Solar Challenge doesn't and will fail over large bodies of water where there is no natural lift.
A electric, solar no less, plane traveling around the globe nonstop will be a fantastic achievement!
Agreed, the point is that these people have not even flown 15 hours nonstop. Notice that they keep referring to 20 hour legs with two pilots? Add that to the fact that it is a single pilot aircraft means that they land at least once a leg. They have also never flown across a large body of water. Saying that this technology will make a nonstop flight around the world is like showing a dragster and saying it can be used to get from LA to New York really fast.
The main obstacle is that there is very little, if any, lift over oceans. Lift is caused by differences in the land surface, materials, mountains etc. There are no stable differences on the ocean surface and therefore no lift. The circumference of the earth is about 2200km. Divide that by the 45km/h speed and you get 19 days. That is a lot of supplies including oxygen, which will be needed above 10000ft, to be carried on a light sailplane. Noter they flew at an average of 11,800 ft on their first trek.
Another point is that sailplanes already do better than this aircraft under similar conditions. This pilot already went three times the distance of one of their legs in a sailplane with no motor at all.
They have a long way to go before any of their long distance goals will be reached.
The roughly 6,000 km (3,728 mile) trip commenced on May 24 and consisted of a total of eight legs averaging 800 km (497 miles) before reaching its conclusion with a landing back where it all began in Payerne, Switzerland at 8:30 pm on July 24, local time.
So they averaged 100 km a day. I am pretty sure someone on a bicycle could do much better for a lot less money.
No they didn't. They flew mostly during the day. Notice the flight was May to July during the longer days of the year. They also spent a significant time gaining altitude using thermals and local lift conditions to conserve battery power. Evidence if this is quote from the Africa trip article.
On its final leg from Toulouse to Payerne, Solar Impulse traveled 615 km (382 miles) in 13 hours 29 minutes at an average speed of 63 km/h (39 mph) and at an average altitude of 3,596 meters (11,800 ft).
If the average speed was 63 km/h and it flew for 13.5 hours it should have gone 850km. Since the distance is only 615 km, where did the other 235 km go? That is almost 28% of the movement. They went to spiraling in thermals and searching for other form of lift to conserve power. It's real average speed if measured as progress toward its destination is closer to 45 km/h. Sorry but Solar Impulse is not an electric powered aircraft. It is a high performance sailplane with a very expensive electric motor to help it get from lift condition to lift condition. It's real average speed if measured as progress toward its destination is closer to 45 km/h.
If you want to impress me do it in November-December in the Northern Hemisphere and fly in a straight line.
Are you saying that it is OK to pollute and release greenhouse gases as long as it is a few hundred miles from your home? Perhaps if people used equipment that was 10% more efficient than today the increase would only be 45% rather than 50% and 10% of the new electricity generation plants would not need to be built.
What area do you live in and I will check your facts as you seem not to be interested in that. I doubt very much that no new electricity production facilities are being built to service demand in your area. More will be built but fewer will be needed if our devices are more energy efficient.
Are you saying that we have enough electricity production right now to meet our electricity demands forever? Sorry by a dam does not produce infinite power. In BC the electricity demand is forecast to increase 50% over the next 20 years. There is not enough current capacity to cover that increase. Therefore more production plants will have to be built.That means more dams and wind powered plants. That means more pollution and greenhouse gases going into the materials to build those plants. As more demand is added to the demand grid there is a point at which new electricity generation plants will need to be added. If we decrease demand there will be fewer new plants needed.
Perhaps you should do a little research into how much electricity production construction is going on in your area. British Columbia gets almost all it's electricity from hydro power and right now 12 new hydro projects are being built to meet demand.
How was the steel and concrete for the dam created? How was the wire to bring the electricity from the dam created? How was the steel used to make the turbines created? Even though the energy source for the production of the electricity does not produce pollution and greenhouse gases the equipment need to convert the energy and transport the electricity does. With lower electricity usage we would not need as many generating facilities and transmission lines and therefore less pollution and greenhouse gases from creating them.
If people use less power through more efficient devices there needs to be less power produced. Less power production means less pollution and less greenhouse gases. Environmental issues may be a contributing factor in the selection of a more efficient power supply.
Actually the fires are burning in areas that were cleared and are therefore no longer rainforest. They have cut down enough trees to change the climate. Look at the video. The sky is blue and no rain. It does not rain every day on the cleared land.
The links posted are not relevant to the article as they are about deforestation, an issue, but the article is about fires on already deforested lands. That is a different issue
All true but here are a couple of differences; 1. The fires are not in the rainforest but on land that was cleared and therefore no longer rainforest. 2. The article states "big fires". That could mean a number of different things. It could be hot fires as you describe bush fires which will kill everything. It could also mean a low intensity fire that covers a large area and only burns grasses leaving small trees to thrive.
That is true but the cleared land is no longer a rain forest and should no be expected to react like a rain forest. There are no studies on the effect of fires on cleared land that was formerly rainforest. The article is based on the assumption that, since burning in a rainforest is bad (a proven fact), burning in land that was formerly rain forest is also bad. That has yet be be proven. It might be bad and it might be good; there is no data to prove either hypothesis.
That comment was in the context of intentionally creating large fires to clear virgin forest to create pasture. I agree that that is a bad practice. The rest of the article is about fires on already cleared and abandoned land. That is a different issue and has little to do with the initial clearing. Here is a quote stating what the subject of the article really is;
By showing that abandoned farmland is more susceptible to destructive fires, the team hopes that local governments will put more emphasis on repurposing old land rather than clearing the new.
Gold is basically fixed in quantity. Mining has little effect on the overall supply.
I believe this graph show that the statement is patently untrue. Since all other statements are based on this falsehood they are also untrue. You might want to check your facts first before posting.
One of the things that have causes wildfire problems in the developed world is the perception that fire is bad and all fires must be put out. This has led to build up of fuel and hotter fires. Left alone forests will burn; usually started by lightning strikes. The thing is that the larger trees survive just fine. Their bark protects them and the fire clears out the brush and returns the nutrients to the soil. There are even trees that need fire to grow. The cone of a lodgepole pine needs the heat of a fire to open and release their seeds. If enough brush build up the fire gets hot enough to burn through the bark and the trees die.
All the article states is that there are a large number of big fires. So what? All that means is that a large area is charred at one time. Charring is not necessarily bad; it clean out smaller and weaker plants to allow room for larger plants to grow. Those are good things when trying to grow a forest. It also cuts back undergrowth so that animals have freedom to move among the trees.The questions that need to be asked are as follows; 1. Is there an erosion issue? 2. Are the fires killing the small trees that could eventually become the forest? 3. Are fires keeping the brush and grasses down so the trees can get a start?
Perhaps the fires are a good thing in that they might allow larger plants to dominate and grow the forest faster. It appears no studies have been done on the effects of the fire; just that fires are happening.
A.50 Caliber SLAP round will penetrate 34 mm at 500 meters. I doubt very much that 25 mm of steel will stop a 20mm AP round when it won't stop a.50 cal.
The article boils down to "I can't keep track of the difference between normal execution code and error handling code therefore my solution is to put error handling code somewhere else so I don't have to look at it". The proposed "solution" just puts another layer of obfuscation into the code and can be done today with procedures. The proposal is not a step forward.
I work mainly by contract and many people work hourly. If we do not show up for work we don't get paid. We have no sick days or vacation days. The people who are working paycheck to paycheck and barely making ends meet are going to be in big trouble if their take home pay is cut 22% because they had to take a week off work
Slashdot Mirror
So you can say "Get off the cord ; I cant't hear the music"?
There is a direct, dedicated high voltage DC link between the Benmore power station to Wellington. It doesn't power anything else in the South Island.
According to this map from the New Zeland power authority the HVDC lines are connected to a station in Haywards. Wellington is connected to the grid by two 220kV circuits and two 110kV circuits. These lines connect to the grid and not directly to the HVDC line.
The Benmore Dam is connected to Hayward by the HVDC line and it is also connected to the southern grid by five circuits. So no, you can not say that the dam does not power anything else in the Southern Island.
Another hole in your information is that you contend that the HVDC line is being upgraded to handle 1GW. If it can handle one GW and is only connected to the Benmore Dam then shouldn't the generation capacity of the Benmore Dam be 1 GW? The capacity of the Benmore Dam is 540MW. Where does the other 460MW come from?
You might want to take a close look at the New Zeland Power grid before commenting.
I get it from the article about their first long distance flight. They flew mostly during the day. Notice the flight was May to July during the longer days of the year. They also spent a significant time gaining altitude using thermals and local lift conditions to conserve battery power. Evidence if this is quote from the Africa trip article.
On its final leg from Toulouse to Payerne, Solar Impulse traveled 615 km (382 miles) in 13 hours 29 minutes at an average speed of 63 km/h (39 mph) and at an average altitude of 3,596 meters (11,800 ft).
If the average speed was 63 km/h and it flew for 13.5 hours it should have gone 850km. Since the distance is only 615 km, where did the other 235 km go? That is almost 28% of the movement. They went to spiraling in thermals and searching for other form of lift to conserve power. It's real average speed if measured as progress toward its destination is closer to 45 km/h.It's real average speed if measured as progress toward its destination is closer to 45 km/h.
Take a look at the sailplane distance record. That pilot went faster and much further with no motor at all. Sorry but Solar Impulse is not an electric powered aircraft. It is a high performance sailplane with a very expensive electric motor to help it get from lift condition to lift condition.
Did I say anything about throwing away perfectly good equipment? No. Please stop putting words in my mouth to support a weak position. I said that the cost recovery of the energy savings of a new power supply is not the only consideration and conservation of electricity should be a factor.
Take a forward view instead of always looking back. You will eventually want a new computer. During that purchase you will have a choice between a power supply that uses x amount of energy and another power supply that uses less than x for the same output but costs more. What I am saying is that when you buy the new computer that you spend a bit more to help reduce the load on the grid and therefore decrease the need for new electricity plants.
You also seem to misunderstand the concept of energy grid. You are can not prove that all the electricity you use is produced at the dam you keep referring to. All electricity generation plans in NZ are interconnected through the grid. The electricity you use could be coming from any of them at any time. Since 33% of the electricity in NZ is generated through fossil fuels, 33% of the energy you us is generated through fossil fuels. The only way this would not be true is if you could identify which electron charge was produced by the fossil fuel plants and block them. Sorry but I know of no technology that would do that.
he Wellington grid connection peaks at 170MW, the average power use in Wellington is 756MW. The HVDC link from the hydro power in the South Island was only capable of 700MW. It's being upgraded and can now provide 1GW.
Grid connections have nothing to do with electricity generation which is what I am talking about. What I am concerned with is how power is injected into the grid not how much the grid can carry. There is one relevant side note though that you seemed to miss. Why is the increase in the size of the connection needed? Perhaps to carry more electricity due to higher demand on the North Island. Demand which might be less if the people on the North Island purchased more efficient devices when buying new ones.
If it was all about cutting the fossil fuel % then why isn't the Aluminium smelter shut down? It uses 15% of the entire countries electricity.
Because the aluminum is a needed resource in the economy and requires electricity to produce and is therefore an efficient use of electricity. That is different than using electricity because people do not want to spend money on better power supplies in their new computers and is therefore an inefficient use of electricity.Just because one industry uses a lot of electricity is no reason to waste it.
Thank you for sharing that you live in the Wellington area. According to this map there are two coal/electric plants closer to Wellington than the plants on the South Island. Considering that electricity is used from the closest plants much more than 33% of you power is coming from fossil fuels. You do not choose where your power comes from; it is supplied from the closest available and the closest available to Wellington is fossil fuel powered.
Thank you for finally revealing where you live. Here is the graph of electricity generated in New Zeland. Notice that 33% of NZ electricity comes from fossil fuels? So that "excess [that} comes from the National Grid" was probably produced by burning fossil fuels. So no, you energy is not as clean as you think.
It might be a good idea to look a little further than the end of your nose. Sure 30KWh sounds like a small number but multiply that by a couple million computers and you get quite a few giggawatt hours. Maybe some of those coal and natural gas plants can be taken off line more often. It is not just about you it is about everyone conserving to make a difference.
Are you saying now that since you have your power needs met there needs to be no new construction to deal with the power needs of the increasing population? Electricity demand is increasing therefore new plants are being built. If demand increases less then fewer plants will be built.
Again tell me where you live and I will disprove your theory that no new generation plants are being built.
Breitling Orbiter is a balloon that uses altitude changes initiated by burning propane or releasing gas to change altitude and reach different flows of wind. It is completely different than a sailplane gaining altitude so it can use that potential energy to glide to a new source of lift. You are comparing apples to oranges. Breitling Orbiter carried it's own thermal lift in the form of fuel; Solar Challenge doesn't and will fail over large bodies of water where there is no natural lift.
A electric, solar no less, plane traveling around the globe nonstop will be a fantastic achievement!
Agreed, the point is that these people have not even flown 15 hours nonstop. Notice that they keep referring to 20 hour legs with two pilots? Add that to the fact that it is a single pilot aircraft means that they land at least once a leg. They have also never flown across a large body of water. Saying that this technology will make a nonstop flight around the world is like showing a dragster and saying it can be used to get from LA to New York really fast.
The main obstacle is that there is very little, if any, lift over oceans. Lift is caused by differences in the land surface, materials, mountains etc. There are no stable differences on the ocean surface and therefore no lift.
The circumference of the earth is about 2200km. Divide that by the 45km/h speed and you get 19 days. That is a lot of supplies including oxygen, which will be needed above 10000ft, to be carried on a light sailplane. Noter they flew at an average of 11,800 ft on their first trek.
Another point is that sailplanes already do better than this aircraft under similar conditions. This pilot already went three times the distance of one of their legs in a sailplane with no motor at all.
They have a long way to go before any of their long distance goals will be reached.
Here is a quote about their last flight;
The roughly 6,000 km (3,728 mile) trip commenced on May 24 and consisted of a total of eight legs averaging 800 km (497 miles) before reaching its conclusion with a landing back where it all began in Payerne, Switzerland at 8:30 pm on July 24, local time.
So they averaged 100 km a day. I am pretty sure someone on a bicycle could do much better for a lot less money.
No they didn't. They flew mostly during the day. Notice the flight was May to July during the longer days of the year. They also spent a significant time gaining altitude using thermals and local lift conditions to conserve battery power. Evidence if this is quote from the Africa trip article.
On its final leg from Toulouse to Payerne, Solar Impulse traveled 615 km (382 miles) in 13 hours 29 minutes at an average speed of 63 km/h (39 mph) and at an average altitude of 3,596 meters (11,800 ft).
If the average speed was 63 km/h and it flew for 13.5 hours it should have gone 850km. Since the distance is only 615 km, where did the other 235 km go? That is almost 28% of the movement. They went to spiraling in thermals and searching for other form of lift to conserve power. It's real average speed if measured as progress toward its destination is closer to 45 km/h. Sorry but Solar Impulse is not an electric powered aircraft. It is a high performance sailplane with a very expensive electric motor to help it get from lift condition to lift condition. It's real average speed if measured as progress toward its destination is closer to 45 km/h.
If you want to impress me do it in November-December in the Northern Hemisphere and fly in a straight line.
Are you saying that it is OK to pollute and release greenhouse gases as long as it is a few hundred miles from your home? Perhaps if people used equipment that was 10% more efficient than today the increase would only be 45% rather than 50% and 10% of the new electricity generation plants would not need to be built.
What area do you live in and I will check your facts as you seem not to be interested in that. I doubt very much that no new electricity production facilities are being built to service demand in your area. More will be built but fewer will be needed if our devices are more energy efficient.
Are you saying that we have enough electricity production right now to meet our electricity demands forever? Sorry by a dam does not produce infinite power. In BC the electricity demand is forecast to increase 50% over the next 20 years. There is not enough current capacity to cover that increase. Therefore more production plants will have to be built.That means more dams and wind powered plants. That means more pollution and greenhouse gases going into the materials to build those plants. As more demand is added to the demand grid there is a point at which new electricity generation plants will need to be added. If we decrease demand there will be fewer new plants needed.
Perhaps you should do a little research into how much electricity production construction is going on in your area. British Columbia gets almost all it's electricity from hydro power and right now 12 new hydro projects are being built to meet demand.
I knew someone was going to say that.
How was the steel and concrete for the dam created? How was the wire to bring the electricity from the dam created? How was the steel used to make the turbines created? Even though the energy source for the production of the electricity does not produce pollution and greenhouse gases the equipment need to convert the energy and transport the electricity does. With lower electricity usage we would not need as many generating facilities and transmission lines and therefore less pollution and greenhouse gases from creating them.
If people use less power through more efficient devices there needs to be less power produced. Less power production means less pollution and less greenhouse gases. Environmental issues may be a contributing factor in the selection of a more efficient power supply.
When the big trees have been cleared it is no longer a rain forest and should not be treated as such..
Actually the fires are burning in areas that were cleared and are therefore no longer rainforest. They have cut down enough trees to change the climate. Look at the video. The sky is blue and no rain. It does not rain every day on the cleared land.
The links posted are not relevant to the article as they are about deforestation, an issue, but the article is about fires on already deforested lands. That is a different issue
All true but here are a couple of differences;
1. The fires are not in the rainforest but on land that was cleared and therefore no longer rainforest.
2. The article states "big fires". That could mean a number of different things. It could be hot fires as you describe bush fires which will kill everything. It could also mean a low intensity fire that covers a large area and only burns grasses leaving small trees to thrive.
That is true but the cleared land is no longer a rain forest and should no be expected to react like a rain forest. There are no studies on the effect of fires on cleared land that was formerly rainforest. The article is based on the assumption that, since burning in a rainforest is bad (a proven fact), burning in land that was formerly rain forest is also bad. That has yet be be proven. It might be bad and it might be good; there is no data to prove either hypothesis.
Sorry, here is the link. Notice how the amount of gold has changed in the past 150 years and how it is still fluctuating?
That comment was in the context of intentionally creating large fires to clear virgin forest to create pasture. I agree that that is a bad practice. The rest of the article is about fires on already cleared and abandoned land. That is a different issue and has little to do with the initial clearing. Here is a quote stating what the subject of the article really is;
By showing that abandoned farmland is more susceptible to destructive fires, the team hopes that local governments will put more emphasis on repurposing old land rather than clearing the new.
Gold is basically fixed in quantity. Mining has little effect on the overall supply.
I believe this graph show that the statement is patently untrue. Since all other statements are based on this falsehood they are also untrue. You might want to check your facts first before posting.
One of the things that have causes wildfire problems in the developed world is the perception that fire is bad and all fires must be put out. This has led to build up of fuel and hotter fires. Left alone forests will burn; usually started by lightning strikes. The thing is that the larger trees survive just fine. Their bark protects them and the fire clears out the brush and returns the nutrients to the soil. There are even trees that need fire to grow. The cone of a lodgepole pine needs the heat of a fire to open and release their seeds. If enough brush build up the fire gets hot enough to burn through the bark and the trees die.
All the article states is that there are a large number of big fires. So what? All that means is that a large area is charred at one time. Charring is not necessarily bad; it clean out smaller and weaker plants to allow room for larger plants to grow. Those are good things when trying to grow a forest. It also cuts back undergrowth so that animals have freedom to move among the trees.The questions that need to be asked are as follows;
1. Is there an erosion issue?
2. Are the fires killing the small trees that could eventually become the forest?
3. Are fires keeping the brush and grasses down so the trees can get a start?
Perhaps the fires are a good thing in that they might allow larger plants to dominate and grow the forest faster. It appears no studies have been done on the effects of the fire; just that fires are happening.
A .50 Caliber SLAP round will penetrate 34 mm at 500 meters. I doubt very much that 25 mm of steel will stop a 20mm AP round when it won't stop a .50 cal.
The article boils down to "I can't keep track of the difference between normal execution code and error handling code therefore my solution is to put error handling code somewhere else so I don't have to look at it". The proposed "solution" just puts another layer of obfuscation into the code and can be done today with procedures. The proposal is not a step forward.
I work mainly by contract and many people work hourly. If we do not show up for work we don't get paid. We have no sick days or vacation days. The people who are working paycheck to paycheck and barely making ends meet are going to be in big trouble if their take home pay is cut 22% because they had to take a week off work