Electric cars do charge when braking. Obviously the energy recuperated is less then waht was needed to drive that fast in the first place. Using driving wind would just increase the energy needed to drive that speed and would be net negative.
joostjakob
joined 1 year ago
NDA, not BJP, got 293 seats
I mean traditional-farm animals, so animals at a traditional farm. Sorry, not a native speaker.
Oh I know. My point is that traditional farm animals basically don't exist, in the same way that manually harvested grain doesn't really exist anymore
Yes, possible in theory. Quite hard to find in practice
In case anyone takes that seriously: farmed animals mostly eat industrial agricultural food. And they need 10 kilo of food for every kilo of meat. So you're basically killing ten times as many farmland animals when eating meat compared to earing plants directly.
Not really, many many more people are B12 insufficient than there are vegans/vegetarians. And much of what B12 you get is because supplements are given...to the animals. See e.g. https://baltimorepostexaminer.com/carnivores-need-vitamin-b12-supplements/2013/10/30
And here I am with 35 days, which we're expected to take.
Preventable, but they still happened, even with the crazy security at plants. But what you're saying is like "we've only had small earthquakes so far, so there are likely to be no big ones". When it's really absolutely the other way around.
Also "to spite", not "in spite of"
The danger of nuclear isn't so much on the daily stats of what actually went wrong, but in the tiny risk of having huge problems. The worst case scenario for a Chernobyl style disaster is actually losing huge parts of Europe. Even in well run plants, if enough things go wrong at the same time, it could still mean losing the nearest city. These "black swan" events are hard for humans to think clearly about, as we are not used to working with incredibly small chances (like deciding to plan for a 1000 year storm or not).
That's a short but touching poem.