Comment Re:Huge increase in total travel time (Score 1, Funny) 332
Tell that to the grass under the solar panel you just installed.
Tell that to the grass under the solar panel you just installed.
3 hours of driving at 60 mph on the highway (which is dangerous IMO) and 30 minute fillup. More likely 70-75 mph, 2 hours of driving + finding a station? and then 30 minutes of fillup. 25% more travel time on a long trip. I don't know who has that kind of time on the road. Timing over lunch a great idea... what about at 3pm, not so convenient then is it. I think they have a lot of work to do
Cornell
Neither did the John Galt Line
They're manufacturing insanity in America now? That explains a lot.
AKA. QE3
TIL some of the earliest automobiles were electric
The Electric Vehicle Company was founded as a holding company of battery-powered electric automobile manufacturers made up of several car companies assembled by Isaac L. Rice beginning in 1897. It was taken over in 1899 by William C. Whitney and P. A. B. Widener's, thus forming the so-called "Lead Cab Trust," which hoped to develop a monopoly by placing electric cabs on the streets of major American cities.
The firm actually made and sold about two thousand electric cars (based on the Electrobat and Riker Electric cabs) as taxis to several American cities, but fell into hard times in 1900 after facing competition from gas-powered cars and legal problems stemming from monopolistic practices, as well as scandal surrounding the poor performance of its vehicles.
Oh how far we've come.
Move to technologies that don't run the risks of poisoning huge swaths of their nation's limited land.
Like windmill farms, giant dams, and solar panel fields.
There are four regions offshore North America with known seeps. Two of these, the Gulf of Mexico and southern California, have a combined annual oil seep rate of 160,000 tonnes, derived by adding 140,000 tonnes, estimated from the Gulf of Mexico, and the estimate of 20,000 tonnes from Southern California.
source: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10388&page=192
Spills of that magnitude at one location might be rare but they still occur and looking at time in a geologic timescale they're simply not that big of a deal. Man has simply decided that it needs to feed of the seafood in that area, and swim on those beaches so a spill is something to complain about. A meteor impact wiping out 80% of all species on the planet you could deem damaging to the ecosystem, it's still a natural occurence, life still finds a way and the world still turns.
The pictures of dead fish sure prompt a lot of people to get upset I'm sure but it does not make this event even remotely unprecedented in nature.
I'm posting about the actual long-term effects to the environment certain people claim this is going to cause. Nature has mechanisms to deal with spills of this magnitude without any intervention from us. It could just have easily happened naturally.
Here's a simple citation easily google'd
This is for the
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/01/000127082228.htm
This could easily have been a natural occurrence, at anytime nature could again just decide to expel tons of deep ocean oil, but because now people have $$$$ involved and it could be blamned on someone (sued) then it's all the news with the environmentalists. Anyone who actually has studied some Geology knows this was not a big deal for the environment... and please.. we need to talk in scales of centuries.. not months.
Maybe you should read their actual lawsuit.
Citation that they are obeying the license that the source site uses?
Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood
