You are proposing to move the coal from the mines to near the oil fields then the electricity from the oil fields to where it is needed. That is a lot of moving to sequester some CO2.
As for Southern California the coal would need to be shipped quite far. California only produces 5% of it's electricity from coal I agree that sequestration is a temporary measure but temporary can be a long time.
When most superdelegates declared support for Clinton Sanders shouted that superdelegates should not override the popular vote. Now that he has soundly lost the popular vote he is stating the exact opposite. And people say Sanders is not a politician.
The QC35 has the following issues. 1. Are headphones that are incompatable with helmets. 2. Not waterproof or rugedized in any way. 3. Are Bluetooth and therefore easily jammed. 4. There are no specs on how well they cancel very loud noises.
The QC35 are just expensive noise cancelling headphones and nothing like the earbuds described.
I always love the "I could buy one for less" comments. Sure I could buy a Saturday Night Special for less than a Glock but I would get better performance out of and be much more comfortable depending on the Glock. Here is a selection of ear buds that go up to $2,400. These also didn't have to go through the military approval process.
Those under 14 would get the same money as it is universal. They need to live just as much as an adult. Therefore the numbers really areas follows.
20,800 * 23 million = $478 Billion. $478 Billion / the current budget of $146 = 3.27. So much more than double. The current welfare payments are 35 per cent of Budget expenditure. Therefore UBI would be.35*3.27 = 1.2 time the current budget. If you add the remaining 65% back you come up with 1.85 time the current budget. That would mean that Australia would have to bring in 85% more tax money to support UBI. I doubt that will ever happen.
Australia has about 23 million people. If you pay each of them $2000/month that is $552 billion a year.The $3 billion currently spent on welfare is a drop in the bucket compared too that.
How would you get the electricity from Manitoba to BC? The grid capacity between those two points does not exist and the distance would cause significant losses.
Did you take a course in coming up with straw man arguments? Yeah, a beaver dam that covers a few acres, provides habitat for fish and water for wildlife is the same as a dam that floods hundreds of acres of valley bottom. You make me laugh.
If you want a fair comparison you should add the following costs; 1. The transmission lines to get the electricity to where it is used. Dams have a tendency to be far from population centres. 2. Maintenance on the generators and transmission lines. 3. Environmental costs from flooding large areas of river valleys.
I am not talking about maintenance of the turbines. I am taking about the reservoirs becoming silted up and unusable. It takes a long time but it eventually happens.
1. Considering that we are building the Site C dam it seems that there is probably a need for more electricity that we can already generate. 2. 30 years is a very short time. I am talking about a hundred years. Over that time millions of tons of silt are deposited and would be unfeasible to "dig out". It takes a long time for a dam to become silted up but when it does it is irreversible. 3. I am also taking about elk and caribou that we already have few of. Then there are the bear and wolves that eat the deer. Then there is the issue of interrupting migration paths. Hunting does not wipe out entire populations in an area while dams do. A dam is basically an ecological disaster for the area.
1. We don't have more hydroelectricity than we can use. We are still building and are running out of places to build. 2. It does not qualify as renewable as the basins behind the dams become silted up and eventually become useless. It takes a while but it is not renewable. 3. Hydroelectric dams have major impact on land, fish, and wildlife. Most deer winter in valley bottoms. If that area is flooded the deer die.
Hydroelectric seems great until one looks at the damage dams cause.
Slashdot Mirror
You are proposing to move the coal from the mines to near the oil fields then the electricity from the oil fields to where it is needed. That is a lot of moving to sequester some CO2.
As for Southern California the coal would need to be shipped quite far. California only produces 5% of it's electricity from coal
I agree that sequestration is a temporary measure but temporary can be a long time.
If the oil wells are hundreds, if not thousands, of miles from where the oil is burned are you going to transport the C02 back to the well head?
Do you mean like these numbers?
Clinton popular vote 15,729,913
Sanders popular vote 12,009,562
Clinton go a 30% higher popular vote than Sanders.
Democratic delegates are assigned proportionally so very closely follow the popular vote.
Clinton got 30% higher popular vote than Sanders.
When most superdelegates declared support for Clinton Sanders shouted that superdelegates should not override the popular vote. Now that he has soundly lost the popular vote he is stating the exact opposite. And people say Sanders is not a politician.
The QC35 has the following issues.
1. Are headphones that are incompatable with helmets.
2. Not waterproof or rugedized in any way.
3. Are Bluetooth and therefore easily jammed.
4. There are no specs on how well they cancel very loud noises.
The QC35 are just expensive noise cancelling headphones and nothing like the earbuds described.
I always love the "I could buy one for less" comments. Sure I could buy a Saturday Night Special for less than a Glock but I would get better performance out of and be much more comfortable depending on the Glock.
Here is a selection of ear buds that go up to $2,400. These also didn't have to go through the military approval process.
You might want to read the actual dictionary definition.
The creative energy that had made it the center of European literature before the war was dampened.
I don't think creative energy can get wet/
Those under 14 would get the same money as it is universal. They need to live just as much as an adult. Therefore the numbers really areas follows.
20,800 * 23 million = $478 Billion. .35*3.27 = 1.2 time the current budget. If you add the remaining 65% back you come up with 1.85 time the current budget. That would mean that Australia would have to bring in 85% more tax money to support UBI. I doubt that will ever happen.
$478 Billion / the current budget of $146 = 3.27. So much more than double.
The current welfare payments are 35 per cent of Budget expenditure. Therefore UBI would be
Australia has about 23 million people. If you pay each of them $2000/month that is $552 billion a year.The $3 billion currently spent on welfare is a drop in the bucket compared too that.
How would you get the electricity from Manitoba to BC? The grid capacity between those two points does not exist and the distance would cause significant losses.
That is exactly the problem.
Whereas nuclear plants are built downtown in city centers?
There is a big difference between 50 miles and 1,000 miles,
Nuke plants don't need maintenance, apparently.
Never said that. Just said that it needs to be in the comparison.
No environmental costs with nukes. You can use the waste for fertilizer.
See above.
It is not a labour issue. It is a consumption issue. Transporting electricity from remote locations to population centres is a significant expense.
Did you take a course in coming up with straw man arguments? Yeah, a beaver dam that covers a few acres, provides habitat for fish and water for wildlife is the same as a dam that floods hundreds of acres of valley bottom. You make me laugh.
If you want a fair comparison you should add the following costs;
1. The transmission lines to get the electricity to where it is used. Dams have a tendency to be far from population centres.
2. Maintenance on the generators and transmission lines.
3. Environmental costs from flooding large areas of river valleys.
In fact the area around Fory McMurray needs to burn every so often to survive.
Natural Resources Canada says that in the boreal forest fire “is as crucial to forest renewal as the sun and rain.”
I am not talking about maintenance of the turbines. I am taking about the reservoirs becoming silted up and unusable. It takes a long time but it eventually happens.
1. Considering that we are building the Site C dam it seems that there is probably a need for more electricity that we can already generate.
2. 30 years is a very short time. I am talking about a hundred years. Over that time millions of tons of silt are deposited and would be unfeasible to "dig out". It takes a long time for a dam to become silted up but when it does it is irreversible.
3. I am also taking about elk and caribou that we already have few of. Then there are the bear and wolves that eat the deer. Then there is the issue of interrupting migration paths. Hunting does not wipe out entire populations in an area while dams do. A dam is basically an ecological disaster for the area.
$8.3 Billion is not cheap. While it will last for 100 years it will become silted up and is not renewable.
1. We don't have more hydroelectricity than we can use. We are still building and are running out of places to build.
2. It does not qualify as renewable as the basins behind the dams become silted up and eventually become useless. It takes a while but it is not renewable.
3. Hydroelectric dams have major impact on land, fish, and wildlife. Most deer winter in valley bottoms. If that area is flooded the deer die.
Hydroelectric seems great until one looks at the damage dams cause.
Here is definitive proof that cell phones do not cause brain cancer. There is no correlation therefore no causation.
Tesla delivered their first production Model X in September 2015. Cumulative sales totaled 2,612 units through March 2016.
Measles outbreak in a 98% vaccinated population:
Did you look at the date on that report? 1987. Vaccines and regiments have changed in the last 30 years.
It is nearly impossible to legally link an infection to a single source. In most cases it could come from several people.