What is Digg?63 Comments
- strangewill, on 05/06/2009, -2/+447) Nuclear power is a scary bomb waiting to explode and KILL US ALL.
- jeremyduffy, on 05/06/2009, -8/+21What happened to "Cow farts cause more global warming than cars"? People in congress are actually repeating that crap.
- Gadianton, on 05/06/2009, -4/+16Is it just me or was at least #1 (using wind to replace coal power plants) NOT debunked.
FTA"Unfortunately, it's just not true, according to Factcheck.org. "We calculate that converting wind to enough electricity to replace all U.S. coal-fired plants would require building 3,540 offshore wind farms as big as the world's largest, which is off the coast of Denmark," Factcheck.org reported. "So far the U.S. has built exactly zero offshore wind farms.""
So according to them we could replace the coal, we'd just have to build 3,540 large wind farms... so isn't that actually confirmed?
I've noticed this alot at factcheck. Their "fact checking" more often than not involves legalistic interpretations of the fact to be checked or their "Debunking" is over a technicality. - kaelyiesta, on 05/06/2009, -0/+11On number 2, the point of contention is that one cannot SELL produce unless one goes through a ton of hoops, effectively putting small farms out of business. New regulation would favor the larger farm businesses.
Here is the bill in question: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ...
Maybe there was an email that overstated the problem of the bill, but there is still a true problem to be addressed. It seems like fact check is refuting some moronic take on this bill and dailygreen is using that to infer that there is no problem with the bill in congress whatsoever. I'm just speculating on that, but in any case HR 875 is a big problem. - lamejoketeller, on 05/06/2009, -6/+16Clean Coal is so obviously a lie told by the coal industry in order to keep from being obsolete, I facepalm every time a politician mentions it as a viable option.
- inactive, on 05/06/2009, -6/+14*sigh*
Troll attempts are just getting lazier and lazier. - jbella, on 05/06/2009, -2/+9#1 does not make sense. The myth is supposed to be: "There's enough wind power in the Atlantic to offset all the electricity we now get from coal."
The text below it then claims that it would take 3,540 giant wind turbines to replace all our coal fired power plants, and currently there are zero. Forgive me if I am misunderstanding this, but the claim seems to be that there is enough POTENTIAL wind power to replace all the coal power plants.. not that there are currently enough functioning wind turbines to replace the coal plants. Of course there are not enough turbines to replace the coal generators right now... if there were, then we would not have to coal power plants. So the question seems to be... can we install 3540 wind turbines offshore? If the answer is yes, then it's not a myth. - Rantus, on 06/11/2009, -9/+15Factcheck.org rocks. It's one of the only political sites I read as they get it right all the time. The irony is that it was started by the Annenberg family, who were staunch Reganites, and every "Conservative" I know either doesn't know or won't say that it exists, or they say they won't read it because it's more "Liberal" crap. Hysterical.
- Bowie, on 05/07/2009, -0/+6Here's a myth:
Global warming is caused by man.
(CO2 accounts for 0.038% of the Earth's atmosphere. It's also plant food. If Earth's atmosphere were represented by a typical apple pie you might see on your dinner table, the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere would be equivalent to a slice of apple pie thinner than the aluminum used to make soda cans out of. To say our planet's average mean temperature is going to increase due to minor fluctuations in the amount of a ***** 383 ppm trace gas is retarded.)
Turns out we have a massive ***** fusion reactor in our backyard, called "the sun". It tends to produce alot of radiation, go through phases, even throw off massive chunks of itself periodically... and it's been doing it for about 5 billion years. Oddly enough, life not only exists, but thrives on Earth, seemingly unaffected by millions of years of hippopotamus, coelacanth, and wooly mammoth farts. Millions of species over billions of years, farting away our precious gift. Quit catastrophising.
Earth may be in a warming trend, but who's to say the current temperature is "ideal" ? - Polycarp87, on 05/06/2009, -1/+72. Congress is outlawing your backyard organic garden.
Myth NOT BUSTED. The authors simply say that they doubt the bill will be enforced that way, and do not deny that the bill as written will make these farms/gardens illegal! Giving the government/police state extra power and then relying on their assurances that they won't use it is the first step to totalitarianism.
Hitler said he would only use his emergency powers to quell the "communist uprising", but of course once he had them he used them for much, much more. - theskillwithin, on 05/07/2009, -0/+5What about the myth of global warming?
- kaelyiesta, on 05/06/2009, -1/+6That's what I first thought when I read that. It seems kind of not debunked if the thing being proven is not contrary to what was stated originally.
- lamejoketeller, on 05/06/2009, -6/+11there's an ART to being a troll, and what you're doing is the equivalent of Miley Cyrus.
- csstudent, on 05/06/2009, -0/+5I think you are technically correct. However, to realistically build that number of large wind farms, you need to get past the NIMBY (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion ... plus get all the state and federal permits. Once you get past all of these hurdles, it still takes a long time to build these. Basically, if you were to start today trying to build 3,540 large wind farms, it would be decades before they are all finished.
Plus, if you look at how much is generated by coal in this country and see the wind capacity, you realize how daunting this possibility is.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2 ...
The other big issue with wind farms is the land required. It takes 17 acres of land to generate 1 megawatt of power.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/wind/overview.html. If a typical coal fired plant generates hundreds of megawatts of power, do the math to figure out how much land is needed for a wind farm.
Don't forget - the grand total of all offshore wind farms supplying power to the United States today is .... 0. - Suzilla, on 05/06/2009, -0/+4I lived in Florida during the big "citrus canker eradication" there. Jeb Bush declared a state of emergency that gave the Florida Dept of Agr., state, and local police the authority to come onto private property and conduct searches for citrus treas, making note of those that were determined to have the canker. Furthermore, if a tree was found to have canker, then ALL citrus trees within a 1/4-mile radius were condemned. The government could then come on the property cut down and destroy the trees. This included not just citrus farms, but citrus trees growing on residential lots. AND they were doing this WITHOUT WARRANTS until enough citizens got together and sued the state and won. It was a short-lived victory, though. The state came up with a system for issuing tens of thousands of warrants per day, allowing them to "legally" look for and seize effected trees.
What I'm getting at is this: factcheck.org's being far to flippant in saying this couldn't happen. In fact, it HAS happened, and this law will only make it easier for it to happen again.
Oh, and that canker? Harmless to the trees and to the fruit. It did create blemishes on the skin, making the fruit a little less visually appealing, however, 80-90% of the citrus grown in Florida is used to make juice or sugar, not sold as whole fruit. So, the only people who would see the blemishes are the large-scale buyers, who already know the canker was harmless. - bysubmitted, on 05/06/2009, -2/+6Not the point of the article...
As much as I might be in agreement, the article is saying, "these hyper-green things are really only partially green." - linuxrebel, on 05/06/2009, -0/+4I give them a 3 out of 6. 3 possibly correct 3 definitely poor journalism. Wind, they did manage to prove that we, haven't, replaced coal with wind. Not that we couldn't. Clean coal same thing. They proved that we haven't done it, not that we can't. Which again is the question they supposedly are clarifying. On the supposed myth about outlawing home gardens. This is a popular headline, but if you read the articles following the headline, they all say the same thing, that the feds seek to outlaw the sale of unregulated produce (farmers markets, fruit stands, lemonade stands etc). First thing factcheck.org needs to fact check is itself. (too bad the feds couldn't pay as much attention to the banks as they do little Susie's stand)
- BigManOnCampus, on 05/06/2009, -0/+4uhm, the largest windfarm takes up 25 square kilometers.
3540 times 25 square km is 88,500 square kilometers or roughly the entire land area of Maine. If you spread that out around the entire sea length of the state of California, you would have a wind farm that stretched the entire length of California, and out to sea for 88 miles.
Yeah, that's too big, so it is unfeasible. - RooX, on 05/06/2009, -0/+4not 3540 turbines.... 3540 wind farms that are at least the size of the worlds largest farm currently.
- Rantus, on 06/11/2009, -2/+6Clean coal is possible, but carbon capture and sequestration is a dumb-ass idea. At the kinds of pressures that they're going to compress that crap at it tends to liquefy. So you basically would have a bunch of massive highly pressurized caverns filled with liquefied CO2 just looking for a crack to escape through for the rest of eternity. Brilliant. Plus, how much is it going to cost to build the infrastructure for this and what do you get out of it in the long run other than gas capture? Not a damn thing.
No one talks about scrubbing coal emissions using algae. Maybe because that actually works, not 100 percent but it still works and you produce usable biomass from it as well and it is a hell of a lot less dangerous. Carbon capture is like corn ethanol, just more diversion tactics destined to fail so they can keep doing business as usual.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0111/p01s03-sten.htm ...
Until people stop believing ***** that they see on TV nothing real is going to get accomplished. - noumuon, on 05/06/2009, -0/+3i think the point is that 3,540 wind farms on the east coast of the US is only a hypothetical that isn't really feasible.
- arbulus, on 05/06/2009, -0/+3There's certainly enough tidal energy, I'd bet.
But with the idea of installing wind turbines, I'd have not problem with it.
Here's what needs to be done:
1. Northeast: Install tidal energy plants and wind farms in the north atlantic
2. In the South, install solar plants
3. In the Midwest, install wind farms
4. In the Southwest install the most massive solar array possible in Death Valley
5 In the northwest, install geothermal plants
Each region of the US has a renewable power source that is specific and abundant to it. It just needs to be used. This way, coal plants can be completely eliminated. - trymene, on 05/06/2009, -2/+5The slight irony here is that the website this originated on would probably disagree with most of the comments that are about to flood this page.
- donnytomas, on 05/07/2009, -0/+2Recycling.
- publiclurker, on 05/06/2009, -0/+2The problem is that the original question was regarding the amount of available power, not whether or not it was practical to extract it.
- theskillwithin, on 05/07/2009, -1/+3nuclear power is the litmus test.
if you really cared about green technology, nuclear power would be number one on the list. - temporarysanity, on 05/06/2009, -1/+3My thoughts exactly.
- Richie311, on 05/06/2009, -1/+3WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSHHHHHHHHHHH
- liuite, on 05/06/2009, -0/+2the only true fact is don't trust chain mails for facts
- sipsyrup, on 05/06/2009, -0/+2I agree, and while I am very much in favor of nuclear power that's not what I meant. Everything has a material cost, some greater than others.
But while nuclear plants are better than wind farms, wind farms are better than coal plants.
What would really be awesome is if they build these:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/11/mini-nuclear-pl ... - lamejoketeller, on 05/06/2009, -1/+3Exactly
And besides, let's talk about how we get energy from coal. We get it from breaking down carbon-based molecules into carbon dioxide. No matter how you cut out other pollutants, you're still taking carbon dioxide that's been out of the carbon cycle for millions of years and pumping it right back into the atmosphere. - shieldwolf, on 05/06/2009, -1/+3The myth they suggested was not that we can build windfarms to offset coal, it was that there is enough wind power in the atlantic to do so. Though it may be economically and logistically infeasible to harness this energy, it is still TRUE, hence not debunked.
- ViscidGobs, on 05/06/2009, -0/+2There we go bringing Hitler into it again. LEAVE HITLER ALONE!!!!!!!
- arbulus, on 05/06/2009, -1/+3"Clean coal" is such a ridiculous oxymoron and I cannot fathom how people have been duped by the idea of it. Beside the fact that it's impossible, cleaning up fossil fuels and making non-renewable resources more "efficient" is NOT the answer. Looking for new energy sources means looking to renewable and sustainable sources. Any alternative energy source that does not look to renewable sources fails. Period.
- MxM111, on 05/06/2009, -1/+2You see, if the article argued like you did, it would had more validity.
- kaelyiesta, on 05/06/2009, -1/+2They don't actually. The environmental costs per energy of wind farms vs nuclear are absurdly disproportionate in favor of nuclear energy(and if we are talking about the new breeder reactors that can simply use the trace uranium in the oceans then the difference is astronomical).
http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad11983coh ...
Do some google searches on the material costs of wind farms vs the energy they produce. It isn't zero. The construction, transportation, land use and maintenance all must be objectively factored into the final comparison along with energy output if we are to make a rational economic(in the true sense of the word economic, not just in respect to dollar cost) choice. With current technology, wind farms are not in fact the most sustainable.
- jbella, on 05/06/2009, -0/+1Ahh that explains it.
Though if you want to be nitpicky.. it still may not be a myth. It might be true that there is enough wind energy in the atlantic to replace all coal plants... it's just impractical to harness it. - amish4play, on 05/06/2009, -0/+1ah yes, because warming on other planets means the sun is the cause...
- kaelyiesta, on 05/06/2009, -0/+1Not all of it is nonsense. My company, RealNetworks, has it's own initiative pushed by us, the employees, to look for truly sustainable practices. We found a few low hanging fruit, that are both less energy consuming and less expensive.
For example, we have replaced our cups(I think they used to be plastic) with cups that aren't recyclable, but compostable. These cups rot quickly after being used, leaving stuff that is perfectly fine for the environment(no different than leaves or sticks on the ground). Moreover, the process to make them is much less energy consuming and polluting, and the resources in the materials of the cup are fully renewable. This means it does not stay in a landfill for 10000000 years as plastic cups do, it does not use non renewable materials(although the process of making it does but that's nearly impossible to avoid currently), it doesn't require extremely wasteful reclamation and polluting treatment costs like recycling does either.
That's just one example. Going green is a good idea, it's just the implementation that we should take care to address properly. - ViscidGobs, on 05/06/2009, -0/+1Only by a philatelic ptarmigan.
- Troll2, on 05/08/2009, -0/+1I'm always amazed to find people on the internet who think they know more than the scientists who have spent years studying the topic.
Seriously you should tell them about the sun, the probably don't know about the sun. - BaphClass, on 05/06/2009, -0/+1The whole concept of using products that are less harmful to the environment at large, in terms of net carbon emissions is one that has the potential to vastly alter the course we're headed down. "Going green" is simply an annoying label that companies have branded the concept with, in order to spread awareness of it to the less informed men & women of the world. Though the science between man's effect on climate change has not been proven 'beyond the shadow of a doubt,' there is still some definite reasoning behind it. Sure, you can laugh in the face of logic, and claim that we're not going to vastly affect the populations and habitats of animals in future decades, and have even the most remote effect on climate patterns, but you cannot deny the fact that the concept of 'waste not, want not' is one that is both sound, and reasonable. What logic is there in not researching ways to reduce heavy metal, ozone, and water pollution? Is it too 'trendy' for you? Do you think it's a waste of time, and thus shouldn't be pursued at all? Or do you simply buy into the ridiculous notion that hordes of people will lose their jobs, due to their polluting employers having the book thrown at them, and forever being rendered unemployable "just because?"
The fact is: There is nothing but positive gains to be attained through the increasing of environmental consciousness TODAY. Sure, there may be a slight dip in the economy in the immediate future, and even then I'm not saying it's a definite possibility; but when you compare that to the gains of preserving, and even improving the environment of the future, you cannot possibly be against it, and still be a logical, rational human being.
The time for a more harmonious, symbiotic relationship with nature is fast approaching, and the time of a harsh, destructive dominance over it is fading away. I for one would rather see what we can accomplish when we follow this path, rather than the alternative. How about you? Or your great-great-grandchildren? Think about it, and maybe you'd think twice before immediately dismissing "Going green" as a simple, worthless trend. - ViscidGobs, on 05/06/2009, -0/+1Low hanging fruit? I got some low hanging fruits.
- Cowzeetgrass, on 05/06/2009, -0/+0Anyone else at first glance misread the desciption as fatchick.org?
Nobody?
Sorry. - Jektal, on 05/06/2009, -1/+1@Richie311: What? That strangewill was saying Nuclear power is actually really safe yet people are illogically afraid of it? I got that. Was making a joke/reference that every single damn item on TFA was based on something factcheck.org did. You know, like the writer wasn't actually putting together a list of Eco Myths that were untrue, but rather they just did a search of factcheck.com to crap out an article.
So, yeah, *woosh* right back at ya. - gkiltz, on 05/07/2009, -0/+0One more that should be de-bunked: It is environmentally sound to recycle plastic!
- Iceman21pwk, on 05/07/2009, -0/+0I see comments from people all the time stating that we need to do this and do that with regard to our "global warming" issues and it bothers to the nth degree. The cost of wind energy and solar energy is not taken into account when people make these statements.
Is the American public willing to spend 10x - 30x as much money on getting energy into their homes and businesses?
How much our landscape are we willing to sacrifice to technologies that, at this moment, are not able to produce energy on the same level as current less "green" technologies? - MaxxusFlamus, on 05/06/2009, -1/+1unfeasible yes-
but that doesn't make the statement false. - inactive, on 05/06/2009, -5/+5There is global warming on Mars as we speak and it is further from the sun, but no we can't raise that issue over on Earth.
-
Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is