Hey! How are you doing? Quando falamos sobre verbos modais sempre temos aquela insegurança de qual utilizar, em que momento e quando utilizar. Então, o assunto do artigo de hoje é o COULD HAVE x SHOULD HAVE quais suas diferenças, quando e como utilizar esses modal verbs em verbos COULD e SHOULD, são chamados em inglês de modal verbs verbos modais, os verbos modais, e são utilizados como auxiliares de um outro verbo principal em uma formas com "have" são como criamos a estrutura para usá-los no passado. A estrutura éverbo modal + "have" + verbo principal na forma do ParticípioUsamos COULD HAVE para indicar algo que poderia ter acontecido no passado, mas não aconteceu. Ele também pode indicar possibilidade ou habilidade, ou algo que você "poderia ter feito".Já SHOULD HAVE pode ser usado para indicar algo no sentido de dever ou obrigação, que "deveríamos ter feito".The use of COULD HAVE in English - O uso de COULD HAVE em inglêsCOULD em inglês, significa poderia. Em casos muito informais, "could have" pode ser pronunciado como coulda'. So, it's time to look at some examples with "could have"I could have done a better juice. Eu poderia ter feito um suco melhor.It could have been faster. Poderia ter sido mais rápido.You could not/couldn't have done this. Você não poderia ter feito isso.I could not/couldn't have used a worse way to solve this problem. Eu não poderia ter usado um jeito pior para resolver esse problema.What could I have laughed at? Do que eu poderia ter rido?What motive could he have had? Que motivo ele poderia ter tido?The use of SHOULD HAVE in English - O uso de SHOULD HAVE em inglêsO verbo SHOULD em inglês significa deveria. Em casos muito informais, "should have" pode ser pronunciado como shoulda'. Pode ser usado para recomendações, obrigações, sugestões, dicas, opiniões e expectativas. Vejamos em que contextos podemos utilizar "should/should have"I should have left 10 minutes ago. Eu deveria ter saído 10 minutos atrás.You should have quit drinking alcohol. Você deveria ter parado de beber álcool.They shouldn't have told him anything. Eles não deveriam ter dito nada a ele.Should I have talked to my mother? Eu deveria ter falado com a minha mãe?Listen and Practice - Ouça e pratique!Chegou o momento de ouvir os termos aprendidos e praticar o seu listening. Por isso, selecionamos alguns hits em inglês que você pode gostar de ouvirRed Hot Chili Peppers - I Could Have Lied"I could have lied I'm such a foolMy eyes could never never neverKeep their coolShowed her and I told her how"Jim Diamond - I Should Have Known Better"I should have known betterto lie with one as beautiful as you."Sempre que pensamos que algo é complicado, pensamos em desistir. Mas, após um esforço, vemos que nem tudo é tão difícil quanto parece, assim como os verbos modais. Se gostou desse e quer aprender ainda mais, confira essa próxima leitura Inglês informal - Entenda a contração de palavras. Have a nice day and stay safe, bye!Aproveite e faça nosso teste de nível de inglês. Ou baixe nossa apostila que te ensina como aprender inglês de maneira eficiente!Quer realmente aprender outras línguas, como inglês e espanhol? Conheça os nossos cursos que reforçam o aprendizado de inglês e espanhol.

Consider You should do it. You have to do it. Does should show suggestion and have to show compulsion or motivation? asked Jul 22, 2011 at 346 Chankey PathakChankey Pathak8337 gold badges14 silver badges25 bronze badges 1 You are correct... "Should" is suggestive It's most likely also optional "you should use an umbrella when you walk in the rain, or you might get a little bit wet", although if it were tied to a serious consequence then the "required" sentiment would be implied sometimes a wife will give her husband a hint in this manner, but when he hears it he may recognize that it really isn't optional. "Have to" is a requirement It's not optional, and any motivation may be tied to some consequence of not doing what one has to do "you have to breath or you will not survive". answered Jul 22, 2011 at 351 0 Should - it will be good if you do that. Have - it will be bad if you don't do that. I think should implies that the person has more choice in the matter. answered Dec 23, 2016 at 1007

Shouldis a modal verb. After Should you use the base form of the infinitive (= verb without To e.g. Go instead of To Go) Should + Verb (base form of infinitive) e.g. You should go now ( do not say: You should to go now.) SHOULD 1. To give advice, a recommendation or a suggestion This is to say that it is the right thing to do or the correct thing.

Whatevery team SHOULD do at the Deadline. July 30th, 2022. Teams are ramping up to make moves as Tuesday's Trade Deadline approaches. Blockbuster deals, sure to remake the playoff race, will be made. Nearly every clubhouse will have new faces or say goodbye to others. For up-to-the-minute trade news, rumors and analysis, tune in to MLB

These past modal verbs are all used hypothetically, to talk about things that didn't really happen in the past. Could have + past participle 1 Could have + past participle means that something was possible in the past, or you had the ability to do something in the past, but that you didn't do it. See also modals of ability. I could have stayed up late, but I decided to go to bed early. They could have won the race, but they didn't try hard enough. Julie could have bought the book, but she borrowed it from the library instead. He could have studied harder, but he was too lazy and that's why he failed the exam. Couldn't have + past participle means that something wasn't possible in the past, even if you had wanted to do it. I couldn't have arrived any earlier. There was a terrible traffic jam = it was impossible for me to have arrived any earlier. He couldn't have passed the exam, even if he had studied harder. It's a really, really difficult exam. 2 We use could have + past participle when we want to make a guess about something that happened in the past. See also modals of probability. In this case, we don't know if what we're saying is true or not true. We're just talking about our opinion of what maybe happened. Why is John late? He could have got stuck in traffic. He could have forgotten that we were meeting today. He could have overslept. We can also choose to use might have + past participle to mean the same thing He might have got stuck in traffic. He might have forgotten that we were meeting today. He might have overslept. Should have + past participle 1 Should have + past participle can mean something that would have been a good idea, but that you didn't do it. It's like giving advice about the past when you say it to someone else, or regretting what you did or didn't do when you're talking about yourself. Shouldn't have + past participle means that something wasn't a good idea, but you did it anyway. I should have studied harder! = I didn't study very hard and so I failed the exam. I'm sorry about this now. I should have gone to bed early = I didn't go to bed early and now I'm tired. I shouldn't have eaten so much cake! = I did eat a lot of cake and now I don't feel good. You should have called me when you arrived = you didn't call me and I was worried. I wish that you had called me. John should have left early, then he wouldn't have missed the plane = but he didn't leave early and so he did miss the plane. 2 We can also use should have + past participle to talk about something that, if everything is normal and okay, we think has already happened. But we're not certain that everything is fine, so we use 'should have' and not the present perfect or past simple. It's often used with 'by now'. His plane should have arrived by now = if everything is fine, the plane has arrived. John should have finished work by now = if everything is normal, John has finished work. We can also use this to talk about something that would have happened if everything was fine, but hasn't happened. Lucy should have arrived by now, but she hasn't. Would have + past participle 1 Part of the third conditional. If I had had enough money, I would have bought a car but I didn't have enough money, so I didn't buy a car. 2 Because 'would' and will can also be used to show if you want to do something or not volition, we can also use would have + past participle to talk about something you wanted to do but didn't. This is very similar to the third conditional, but we don't need an 'if clause'. I would have gone to the party, but I was really busy. = I wanted to go to the party, but I didn't because I was busy. If I hadn't been so busy, I would have gone to the party. I would have called you, but I didn't know your number. = I wanted to call you but I didn't know your number, so I didn't call you. A Nobody volunteered to help us with the fair B I would have helped you. I didn't know you needed help. = If I had known that you needed help, I would have helped you. Try an exercise about these past modals here.

Last year, the Biden administration set an ambitious new goal for the USA to deploy 30 gigawatts GW of offshore wind capacity by the year 2030, increasing US offshore capacity more than seven hundred times over. The UK already has 15 GW of offshore wind, more than 300 times as much as the USA and our experience should be a terrible warning to UK’s electricity prices are the highest since records began in 1920 and are now amongst the highest in all Europe. One reason for this is obvious slightly less than half our electricity comes from gas-burning Combined Cycle Gas Turbines CCGTs and gas now costs £90 per megawatt-hour MWh, nearly five times higher than normal. CCGTs are cheap to build around £650m per GW and operate. In normal times they would generate electricity at a total cost of £40 per MWh. That’s now risen to nearly £150/MWh, thanks to Vladimir Putin and his impact on the gas that’s not the whole story. The other reason why British electricity is so expensive is because we have so much wind power particularly, so much offshore wind power. Bad though the current situation is, we would be an even worse state if we had built even more offshore wind, as the British government plans an example, the offshore wind farms Hornsea Two and Moray East were completed in 2022 with capital costs of £ billion per GW and £ more than four times the cost of CCGT capacity. They’re expensive to maintain, which is not surprising since offshore windfarms have all their many generators mounted at the top of 200-metre tall masts far away from land. Estimates of maintenance costs are as high as £200m per GW installed, per annum. The nominal cost of offshore wind generation is £170/MWh – noticeably higher than that for CCGTs, even in these dire times of high gas other factor to bear in mind is that not only is wind capacity extremely expensive to build, wind farms do not deliver anything like their rated capacity over time. This is bad news for the customer, because the higher the capacity factor – that is, the higher the percentage of the rated capacity the powerplant actually delivers over time – the cheaper the energy. In 2022 the UK’s onshore and offshore windfarms operated with a capacity factor of 33 per cent. In 2021 it was only 29 per It gets worse. Like most other renewable generation technologies, wind power is unpredictably intermittent and highly variable. Also, since wind turbines are not synchronously connected to the grid, they provide no “grid inertia” – more on that shortly. Wind turbines cannot be asked to deliver energy when it is required, and their output changes rapidly. These failings must be mitigated and costed, and users have to pay for these costs on top of the price of the 2021 the UK annual grid balancing costs reached £ billion, £150 per household. For context, back in 1995 when we didn’t have much wind power the balancing cost for the grid was a mere £250 million per annum. A large, and growing, contribution to these costs is constraint management, as when a wind farm producing electricity which isn’t wanted – perhaps when it is windy in the middle of the night – is paid not to put that electricity into the problems and costs don’t stop there. Our transmission grid system was originally designed to link generation centres close to sources of fuel coal, gas and load centres such as cities. Now our generation sites are moving further away from load Our grid transmission system has to be expanded to connect the new renewable generators, which is bad enough when they are on a remote hilltop and worse still when they are out at sea. The National Grid estimates that on current plans this work will cost £46 billion – £1,533 per household – to there’s grid inertia. The British grid is termed an island grid, which means that we are solely responsible for controlling the grid frequency between tight limits so that things plugged into the grid will work as expected. Frequency control becomes easier as the inertia of the grid system increases. Grid system inertia is a key measure of how resilient the system is in response to transient changes. Inertia is the sum of the energy stored within the rotating mass of the machines generators and motors connected directly to the system. Low system inertia increases the risk of rapid system changes, which may then lead to disconnection of load or generation and then system instability. Apart from tree-burning biomass stations and hydro generation, renewables plants bring no inertia to the grid as the proportion of renewables rises, system inertia falls and the risk of major problems such as blackouts have attempted to reduce the issue of intermittency by expanding our connections to the European electricity grid – the hope being that the wind will be blowing somewhere else even if it is not blowing here – but we’re still exposed to periods when wind generation across the whole of Europe falls near to nothing. And these connections do not help with inertia and stability either because few of the connections to the continent are synchronous In 1995 the problem of grid frequency stability required provision of rapidly responding generators capable of changing their combined output at a rate of GW per second in order to deal with fluctuations. With the arrival of so much unpredictable wind power, that figure has now increased almost tenfold to GW per second!Extra services like very rapid response gas generators, required in order to make it possible to connect renewables to the grid, add between £30/MWh and £50/MWh to renewables’ cost. Thus the true cost to the customer of offshore wind generators is actually between £200/MWh and £220/MWh, much more than CCGTs even in these times of ruinously high gas out CCGT production will therefore increase domestic electricity prices it seems that CCGTs will be phased out much sooner than planned. The government has proposed an expansion to 60 GW of offshore wind by 2030 capital expenditure £122 billion and solar to 70 GW by 2035 capital expenditure to 2030 £30 billion.This is extremely unwise we still have no way of storing electricity at scale and the planned transitions of home heating and transport to electrical power are progressing weakly and may yet stall completely. Creating such a large solar generation fleet raises the nightmare scenario of early summer mornings, with little demand and the vast majority of generation being solar with zero inertia massive grid collapses would be all but a certainty. Vast amounts of energy will be generated only to be expensively constrained off and probably wasted, and the scenario of unmet demand – with attendant blackouts – will become UK grid is simply not able to cope with the proposed amounts of we simply cannot afford all this. If we add the costs of an even more extended National Grid, this programme of wind and solar generation expansion will cost £232 billion – more than £8,000 per household this decade – all to be paid for by the suffering energy user. It should be emphasised that these figures do not include the costs of the huge energy storage industry which will also be necessary, whatever that may turn out to be hydrogen or ammonia or something even more dangerous and expensive. Heat pumps and switching to electric vehicles could lift total costs above £1 Americans should look at the British renewables disaster and give thanks that today they have hardly any offshore wind. And they might, looking at the UK, recoil with horror from the plans of the Biden administration especially as most US offshore wind will need to be floating offshore wind rather than built on the seabed, and so even more either nation would like to reduce carbon emissions and/or reduce its dependence on fossil fuels supplied by unsavoury overseas regimes, an immediate measure would be to build new, modern, high efficiency CCGT plant which would immediately cut the need for gas and reduce emissions without requiring vast, expensive alterations to the grid and special measures so that they don’t cause it to collapse. We should also begin building new nuclear plant with some genuine urgency, as that is the only genuine, affordable, practical way to seriously cut emissions and achieve secure energy Capell Aris PhD has spent his career in the electricity generation sector. He is a former Fellow of the Institute of Engineering and Technology

Shouldhave: expressing unfulfilled obligation in the past: Structure: should + (not) have + past participle of verb: We use should have to say that someone didn't do something, but it would have been the correct thing to do it. You should have told them the truth. You shouldn't have gone there - it was a mistake. I don't think you should have done it.

“Should of” is grammatically incorrect in English. The correct phrase is “should have”.Why do people say “should of” if it is incorrect?When people say “should have” in English, it is often contracted to “should’ve”. This “ve” sound is very similar to “of”. For this reason, people think “should of” is the correct many English-speaking countries, English grammar is not a subject that people study in school so it is only to be expected that many people do not know this. I never studied English grammar in school and only studied English literature in English class. When to use should haveWe use should have when we talk about I am late, I should have left I am late, I should of left bus is taking ages! I should have taken the bus is taking ages! I should of taken the of/Have, Would of/Have“Could of” and “Would of” also don’t exist and are grammatically incorrect. The mistake is the same as above where the “ve” sound is could have been a could of been a would have gone out but I was would of gone out but I was use “could have” and “would have” to show alternative hypothetical situations in the past.“Could have” shows alternative possibilities“Would have” explains why alternative past situations took place. Shudda Wudda Cudda“Shudda” is a very informal version of “should have”. The reason people say “shudda” is because when people are speaking quickly and the “ve” contraction sounds like an “a”.This also happens with “would have” and “could have” and there have been a few hit songs with these PostsConor is the main writer here at One Minute English and was an English teacher for 10 years. He is interested in helping people with their English skills and learning about using tools at work.

SM8Y1Vo.

yfx8v40nq4.pages.dev/540

yfx8v40nq4.pages.dev/261

yfx8v40nq4.pages.dev/349

yfx8v40nq4.pages.dev/650

yfx8v40nq4.pages.dev/567

yfx8v40nq4.pages.dev/530

yfx8v40nq4.pages.dev/923

yfx8v40nq4.pages.dev/196

yfx8v40nq4.pages.dev/595

yfx8v40nq4.pages.dev/571

yfx8v40nq4.pages.dev/914

yfx8v40nq4.pages.dev/876

yfx8v40nq4.pages.dev/474

yfx8v40nq4.pages.dev/969

yfx8v40nq4.pages.dev/489

should should be should have