What do you chalk this up to though? In the States, most areas now have much less pollution than they did in the 1970s. (The Mississippi dead-zone is a notable exception)
Perhaps there was a storm before you got there that stirred up the water?
More information from the author of the study...
Turnaround efficiencies are mis-reported for CAES. If you think about pure electricity-in-electricity-out storage, then it is certainly possible to beat 70% even at small scale and at large scale you are likely to get 80% (if you do all the right things with management of heat).
CAES does always involve managing heat but nobody with any sense would store pressurised air hot. Yes air does tend to rise in temperature when you compress it but all of the serious proposals for CAES systems remove the heat from the air before storing the air. For good performance, you store the heat (separately) and use it later on during the air expansion. Apart from the fact that temperatures would weaken or destroy the air containment, they would also mean that you stored a lot less air (by mass) in the same containment. The pressurised air containment is the most expensive part of most CAES systems so you want to work this as hard as you can.
His point is whether the FitBit can differientiate someone taking their FitBit off vs "death".
The answer is probably "no", but in this case it would be easy to tell since the police would know if the FitBit was found on the body.
Just curious, what are the other two places?
And then the world's wealth would very quickly all flow to countries like China that would still have sane economic and labor policies. Then the countries that implemented basic income schemes would have no money to pay out the basic income - either that or their currency would become worthless.
And also to limit competition.
By your logic, the moon landing should have never been attempted since there was no proof of it being done before.
"If landing on the moon is possible, then why haven't we done it before?"
It's "possible" because its not dependent on discovering new laws of physics. It's a matter of engineering.
Yep - same business model of a gym.
Einstein once insisted that nuclear power was impossible - and he wasn't the only atomic scientist to state it. It wasn't an engineering problem that needed to be solved, but a scientific one.
Ends up that the discovery of the neutron was the solution.
Stripping of the atmosphere by solar wind is a very slow process for Mars. Your analogy is certainly solid, but in this case, the hole would be tiny.
He issued an instruction for that passenger to leave - the passenger disobeyed that order, so was at fault.
Ah, the being "arrested for resisting arrest" gambit. Surely, you have to see how this is circular logic.
Honest request - could you show the results of backporting to NPV?
Yes, I am conservatively some 50x more productive than my junior peers. A big part of that comes from knowing what to ask the customer up front, knowing what won't work, and knowing when to just build the damned birdhouse the customer requested rather than a 400 unit Gehry-inspired avian housing complex "just in case" the customer wants to upgrade in the future.
I'm not challenging you, but could a lot of that 50x be a result of accumulated domain knowledge or product specific knowledge?
Would you be 50x more productive than junior peers if you moved to new company in a different industry?
The definition of the meter is arbitrary. It has been redefined three times; the most recent definition was backed into.
No amount of genius can overcome a preoccupation with detail.
