A) 30,000 square miles. B) I did read up, as typical you just say stuff without doing so. C) No, according to easily found articles, one I already linked to, I don't produce anything close to what a typical reservoir does. Again, you just say stuff with no clue.
A) They destroyed forests and animal habitat when they were built. (I guess you realized your mining point was stupid and unsubstantive)
B) If vegetation didn't hold carbon, we wouldn't have coal today.
C) Methane is a big concern of climate scientists, so go argue with them. You can ignore it here if you like, but don't go off spouting about cow farts and such when that topic comes up, nor methane releases from fracking.
I wasn't vilifying Hydro, just point out some facts that many probably don't think about. Your points are on the list of things that offset the trade-offs I presented. And if you are fine with the plants and animals living in approx 30,000 square miles being affected, that's fine. I've seem many hear complain about much smaller areas, so that was meant for them.
Oh, and you are dead wrong on the your methane also, but nice attempt with the 'might'. its almost as if you dont know that normal land with mammals
living on it also produce methane, and that lake bottoms are notoriously anaerobic..
You didn't even try to check, did you? Here is one source of many.
A) Don't just make stuff up. Hydro surface area globally is approx 30,000 sq miles. Nothing you mention even comes close to that.
B) Forests hold a set amount of CO2 at any given time, but that is released and no longer held. Forests are important for CO2 control. What worse is that what would be CO2 release is now release as methane from decay.
C) Methane is considered one of the most potent greenhouse gasses. Much more than CO2
Also, decay of plant material under hyrdo reseviors and active aquatic microbial digestion is a source of added methane emmissions. Studies show these emissions may be quite high.
No headlines make these emissions sound "quite high" relative to every other energy source they're in-line with solar and wind. They aren't perfect, but they aren't worse than fossil fuels by a factor of 10.
Actually we don't have the data yet to make those claims. Also, if you just look at electrical generation sources you get a different balance as much fossil fuel burning is for transportation and other.
Question: Which energy technology has displaced the most people from their homes and villages, has rendered the most land uninhabitable by humans as well as all native plants and animals, and has killed thousands of square miles of animal and plant life?
Answer: Hydro of course. Everyone's favorite renewable. The source so many countries credit for high renewable percentages.
Other interestig tidbits: Deforestation due to hydro results is reduced carbon sequestration. Also, decay of plant material under hyrdo reseviors and active aquatic microbial digestion is a source of added methane emmissions. Studies show these emissions may be quite high.
I think Hyrdo is a great power source. But nothing comes without trade-offs. I think most here are willing to trade off the things I listed above for the benefits of hydro.
I think the experiment will tell us nothing. Since the amount is not nearly enough to live off of, it will not change who works and who doesn't. If so, some might use that result to claim that UBI does not decrease the desire to work, but that claim will be baseless because of the amount suggested. Furthermore, this UBI is not guaranteed permanently, so nobody in the experimental pool can count on it long term, which would also impact life decisions.
It may allow some to retire early, otherwise I think that everyone who gets free money will like getting it and we'll learn nothing.
I have no problem with non-government unions. I think many have shot themselves in the foot over time. We have right to work states and union states and so we can let the market sort it out. Right to work is slowly winning the battle. Missouri just passed right to work.
I do have a problem with government employee unions. In particular government union political donations, which is basically creates a reward to politicians for enriching the union and their employees at the expense of taxpayers. These unions should be restricted from political donations and lobby limited to communications.
Back around 2000, a company called Wavexpress patented a secure video download and encryption technology. They had a service for a while where you could pay for some videos, store them locally and watch as you pleased (TVTonic). It was more an effort to execute pay per view over what was slow internet service at the time. It was poorly executed and owned by Wave Systems, which was run by and incompetent CEO (Steven Sprague) who some feel was a crook that bled the stock value dry. He made so many unfulfilled promises its unreal he lasted for so many years.
I would not be surprised if those patents were involved.
As far as your other questions, measuring direct contact of one burger wrapper with one person's blood levels isn't how these studies are typically done.
I wasn't suggesting it is. But they certainly can study the amount of these chemicals that migrates into the food under typical circumstances. And yes, since the levels are likely so low its difficult to measure, that should be taken into account before jumping to the 'ban' gun as you suggest. We certainly don't ban everything that has potential health risks.
The most studied of these substances has been linked....
As usual, the key information to know the extent of the potential problem is missing. So, we know that there is a study out there that shows a possible link between one of these substances and health problems.
How much exposure required to show a link? What is the elevation in risk for common intake from packaging? How much of the studied substance is actually in use vs other substances?
There hardly appears to be enough information to make any recommendations.
Somehow, I think Comcast just raised the price of cable by $12.50.. you see they are giving back only $2.50 of the $15 they charge per month for the cable box
That was my first thought. How could they credit you for something that is yours?
Time Warner has a Roku live TV and on demand app. It only works on your home IP, if you connect outside your home, even on another TWC connection, you get a very limited (useless) set of channels.
Slashdot Mirror
A) 30,000 square miles. B) I did read up, as typical you just say stuff without doing so. C) No, according to easily found articles, one I already linked to, I don't produce anything close to what a typical reservoir does. Again, you just say stuff with no clue.
I never said nor hinted that it is comparable to coal. I don't even think I mentioned coal.
A) They destroyed forests and animal habitat when they were built. (I guess you realized your mining point was stupid and unsubstantive) B) If vegetation didn't hold carbon, we wouldn't have coal today. C) Methane is a big concern of climate scientists, so go argue with them. You can ignore it here if you like, but don't go off spouting about cow farts and such when that topic comes up, nor methane releases from fracking.
I already feel good about Hydro power. I can accept all those impacts.
And then next step is ransomware insurance fraud.
Oh, and you are dead wrong on the your methane also, but nice attempt with the 'might'. its almost as if you dont know that normal land with mammals living on it also produce methane, and that lake bottoms are notoriously anaerobic..
You didn't even try to check, did you? Here is one source of many.
http://www.climatecentral.org/...
A) Don't just make stuff up. Hydro surface area globally is approx 30,000 sq miles. Nothing you mention even comes close to that.
B) Forests hold a set amount of CO2 at any given time, but that is released and no longer held. Forests are important for CO2 control. What worse is that what would be CO2 release is now release as methane from decay.
C) Methane is considered one of the most potent greenhouse gasses. Much more than CO2
Even reservoirs made for other purposes have the same impact. Not sure why you didn't catch on to that.
Also, decay of plant material under hyrdo reseviors and active aquatic microbial digestion is a source of added methane emmissions. Studies show these emissions may be quite high.
No headlines make these emissions sound "quite high" relative to every other energy source they're in-line with solar and wind. They aren't perfect, but they aren't worse than fossil fuels by a factor of 10.
Actually we don't have the data yet to make those claims. Also, if you just look at electrical generation sources you get a different balance as much fossil fuel burning is for transportation and other.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Question: Which energy technology has displaced the most people from their homes and villages, has rendered the most land uninhabitable by humans as well as all native plants and animals, and has killed thousands of square miles of animal and plant life?
Answer: Hydro of course. Everyone's favorite renewable. The source so many countries credit for high renewable percentages.
Other interestig tidbits: Deforestation due to hydro results is reduced carbon sequestration. Also, decay of plant material under hyrdo reseviors and active aquatic microbial digestion is a source of added methane emmissions. Studies show these emissions may be quite high.
I think Hyrdo is a great power source. But nothing comes without trade-offs. I think most here are willing to trade off the things I listed above for the benefits of hydro.
I think the experiment will tell us nothing. Since the amount is not nearly enough to live off of, it will not change who works and who doesn't. If so, some might use that result to claim that UBI does not decrease the desire to work, but that claim will be baseless because of the amount suggested. Furthermore, this UBI is not guaranteed permanently, so nobody in the experimental pool can count on it long term, which would also impact life decisions.
It may allow some to retire early, otherwise I think that everyone who gets free money will like getting it and we'll learn nothing.
They also don't show any Stonehenge like sculptures. Only circles in the ground.
I have no problem with non-government unions. I think many have shot themselves in the foot over time. We have right to work states and union states and so we can let the market sort it out. Right to work is slowly winning the battle. Missouri just passed right to work.
I do have a problem with government employee unions. In particular government union political donations, which is basically creates a reward to politicians for enriching the union and their employees at the expense of taxpayers. These unions should be restricted from political donations and lobby limited to communications.
No worries. We'll just ban nerds from this years Booth Babe Expo.
Its not a flying car if it doesn't drive on the streets. Otherwise we'd be calling helicopters flying cars.. So no, VTOL does not mean flying car.
Back around 2000, a company called Wavexpress patented a secure video download and encryption technology. They had a service for a while where you could pay for some videos, store them locally and watch as you pleased (TVTonic). It was more an effort to execute pay per view over what was slow internet service at the time. It was poorly executed and owned by Wave Systems, which was run by and incompetent CEO (Steven Sprague) who some feel was a crook that bled the stock value dry. He made so many unfulfilled promises its unreal he lasted for so many years.
I would not be surprised if those patents were involved.
As far as your other questions, measuring direct contact of one burger wrapper with one person's blood levels isn't how these studies are typically done.
I wasn't suggesting it is. But they certainly can study the amount of these chemicals that migrates into the food under typical circumstances. And yes, since the levels are likely so low its difficult to measure, that should be taken into account before jumping to the 'ban' gun as you suggest. We certainly don't ban everything that has potential health risks.
The most studied of these substances has been linked....
As usual, the key information to know the extent of the potential problem is missing. So, we know that there is a study out there that shows a possible link between one of these substances and health problems.
How much exposure required to show a link? What is the elevation in risk for common intake from packaging? How much of the studied substance is actually in use vs other substances?
There hardly appears to be enough information to make any recommendations.
And it's in the original article, too. Someone needs a new editor...
Your not supposed to read it. Just cut & paste and stop asking questions.
Somehow, I think Comcast just raised the price of cable by $12.50.. you see they are giving back only $2.50 of the $15 they charge per month for the cable box
That was my first thought. How could they credit you for something that is yours?
Or is this only over Comcast's Internet service?
Time Warner has a Roku live TV and on demand app. It only works on your home IP, if you connect outside your home, even on another TWC connection, you get a very limited (useless) set of channels.
I assume similar limitations for Comcast.
The best fluid for goggles is, of course, beer.
Hundreds of people out of a population over over 300 million.
And most importantly not in your backyard.
We've been spending heavily on solar for well over a decade, and we are still only around 1%.
So the driver is responsible. But since the human isn't driving the self-driving car, the car itself is responsible?
Its your fault for getting in the auto pilot death machine and running over those babies.