Walls pretty much ruin a beach, so if you have a beach, tourist area a wall is not really desirable. I get the concept of personal or small group type protective devices, but they must be low cost and deployed in an easily accessible manner, and this particular solution doesn't fit that. Then, when you do deploy a solution, you must make sure everyone on the beach knows what to do and how to use them in an organized manner. Not an easy thing to pull off, and made more complicated if you want to a parent with children, etc.
To protect a sea side village, sea walls make more sense. Probably a lower cost than moving a large community.
This provides a solution that allows you to survive with less reaction time. Which may be a good thing.
Only if it is more accessible by many people than the escape paths. Imagine 5 people panicking and fight to get into one of these things. It really makes no sense. Is it even remotely realistic that a country would line its beaches with thousands of these things? Then everyone that does manage to get into one of these gets swept out to sea. Seems like a very poor solution path to me.
Aeronautical engineer Julian Sharpe, founder of Survival Capsule, got the idea for his capsules after the 2004 Indonesian tsunami. He believes fewer people would have died had some sort of escape pod existed
What the Indonesians needed was a warning, not an escape pod. With no warning, the pods are useless. With warning, just get out of the path.
Cue Slashdotters claiming it is either impossible or a really bad thing in 3..2..1..
Well, we don't have the information. Its a really expensive thing. My first question is how long will they last before they degrade significantly?
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
If you reduce the chance, you do prevent it in at least some cases. So, your statement is in fact not accurate, as there is HOPE. I will repeat it, EATING well does prevent cancer in at least some people.
I suppose its just semantics, but if it is really eating poorly that causes risk to increase, then not eating poorly is not really preventing cancer, just not causing it. So, its really not eating bad food that lowers cancer risk.... and of course that implies eating well. Kind of like saying not riding in a car prevents you from getting a serious injury from an accident...technically true but kind of useless when looking for prevention techniques.
Not eating anything will prevent cancer.
Eliminate any exceptions to the CAFE standard for SUVs.
And while they are at it, find a way to get EV owners to pay their share of taxes for road maintenance, now covered largely by the gas tax.
My Camry Hybrid is quieter, smoother, and has over 30 extra HP compared to the 4 cyl Camry.
What HP does it get compared to the 6 cylinder?
It's not people switching back, it's people buying a second car for their household.
The numbers reported are based on trading in their EV for and SUV, a switch, not those that keep one and buy a second vehicle. You could be right, but you have no data to show that they own a second EV at the time of trade in.
But I very much doubt that there's a line of Leaf or Tesla owners trading their EVs for SUVs.
Probably not Tesla, but Leaf owners tend to be younger, and many single. Many get married, have kids, and decide to move to an SUV. Sounds very plausible. I doubt it is fuel cost alone, but rather functionality and changing needs or desires as well.