What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
51 Comments
- derekmas10, on 12/29/2008, -0/+17Building an empire in an arid environment with no local source of water wasn't feasible or cost effective, but we call it L.A.
- envi99, on 12/29/2008, -2/+13Anything is possible, you just need the will to have it. Last week, we transported solar cookers on the backs of YAKs to one of the highest altitude region in the Himalayas. For more info:
http://www.yellowsandblues.com/postDetail.php?id=3 ... - Namakemono, on 12/29/2008, -0/+7Vegas is an even more extreme example.
- partrow, on 12/29/2008, -3/+8If this was feasible and cost effective, it would have been done. But it is not with current technology and costs.
Do you think these hurdles will be lowered when California raises taxes on everything in sight? - hiPpymIck, on 12/29/2008, -0/+5right HVDC - it only loses 3% every 1000km - 620ml
- GhostFreeman, on 12/29/2008, -0/+5It would be. it's also a lot more expensive to service in the off chance something like construction or plate tectonics cause damage to it.
- edebolt, on 12/29/2008, -1/+6that is all well and good but how come that state is so broke?
- krnldmp, on 12/29/2008, -2/+7Build the damned power lines. There's one running to the coal fired electric plant, you may as well have one running to the solar and wind fields.
- wcarver, on 12/29/2008, -0/+4That's true, but is also the reason for a HVDC (high voltage direct current) smart grid where there is little loss in transmission. That would allow power generated in the midwest to be used in New York.
- redsoc, on 12/29/2008, -0/+4Don't forget that power is lost in transmission. The further the power source is from those who will be using it, the more power lost. This is just one of the many additional factors that need to be considered. It doesn't make the project infeasible, just a bit less efficient.
- inactive, on 12/29/2008, -4/+7Dugg for "Power to the people"
- davidg11, on 12/29/2008, -1/+4What you do is you install high efficiency power lines. I follow a company called Composite Technology Corporation. They make the highest efficiency power lines out there. They can transfer twice the current of "normal lines" of the same diameter. Why? The core of the line is carbon and the outside is Aluminum. Heat does not effect this type of power line as much.
"CTC Cable Corporation produces composite rod for use in its patented high efficiency ACCC* conductors, (Aluminum Conductor Composite Core) used in electrical transmission grids. ACCC conductors have less line loss compared to similar diameter conventional conductors and therefore enable power generators to reduce the amount of generation while still delivering the same power to customers. Our conductors have demonstrated significant savings in upgrade capital costs as well as operating expenses when substituted in grid systems. ACCC conductors enable grid operators to reduce blackouts and brownouts by providing reserve electrical capacity, since they can be operated at higher temperatures without significant thermal line sag. ACCC conductors are an economical solution for reconductoring power lines, constructing new lines and crossing large spans. ACCC core is produced by CTC Cable and delivered to licensed qualified conductor manufacturers worldwide for ACCC conductor production and resale into local markets."
If interested, the stock symbol is CPTC and the price is only .25 a share. The bonus is its other subsidiary, Dewind, manufactures 1-2 MW wind turbines.
I - davidg11, on 12/29/2008, -0/+3Also, because the line is more efficient, that means less towers needed to carry the line across distances (because there is less line sag since it handles heat far better).
- Spoomeister, on 12/29/2008, -0/+3Where's the 10-year, put-a-man-on-the-moon style project to have solar cells on every building in America?
- Start with mandating that every new construction project starting in 2010 onwards must derive 100% of its electrical power from solar.
- Allow homeowners to refinance their existing mortgages to convert them to 30-year-fixed, locked in to the current prime rate, if they convert their home to getting power from 100% solar.
- Create a job retraining program for all those automotive workers who will likely be laid off, to have them working on creation of solar cells and related technologies. Same for workers at electrical power plants and related utilities, which ideally should be closing down left and right in a decade or so if this works.
- Provide tax breaks on par with what's given to the oil or automotive industries, for any solar technology company that is physically located entirely in America, using nothing but American workers, selling solely to American private individuals or American government entities for their own direct use (i.e. no reselling to foreign 3rd parties).
- Provide federal incentives for every state to use a portion of their current utilities revenue to convert federal buildings to solar.
- Provide a one-time benefit to every taxpayer, that in 2010 credits them the entire amount of tax paid in 2009, if they can furnish a receipt with their 2010 tax return from an accredited producer of solar power, and a form from the electric company saying that the taxpayer is no longer a customer due to being 100% on solar.
- Create an incentive program for every town in America between 10000 and 100000 people in population, that fully removes the need for an electrical plant (i.e. every private home, private business and governmental building is powered by solar). The first 10 towns to do so, gets some massive prize, e.g. pay off the mortgage of the primary residence of every U.S. citizen in that town. You can even arrange for a symbolic (or literal) "switching off" party, where they formally close down the local electrical plant.
All of the above would cost a fraction, of a fraction, of the amount spent on the automotive and banking bailouts. It would likely cost the same as 3 or 4 months' worth of what we spend on Iraq now.
All of the great technologies and great locations and great principles in the world won't do a damned thing to change anything. What's needed, is money. Financial incentive. Pay people to do the right thing, make it fundamentally cheaper to do the right thing, and the right thing will happen. - derekmas10, on 12/29/2008, -0/+3true that
- canbyte, on 12/29/2008, -0/+2Good article for bringing in competing, complex opinions on alternatives - even if no resolution was achieved in those few words. Hooray for development of alternative energy in all forms but Booo on those who cannot seem to remember that conservation is 1) the very best / lowest cost alternative and 2) conservation reduces overall load which means alternative technologies (that fluctuate) have a better chance of being viable (may not need new power lines in some cases).
Did you also notice that that website was able to present the 3 most popular (~wisest?) comments on the same page?!! Now that was good. I learned much. - Liberame999, on 12/29/2008, -0/+2Couple this with the black hole being created by CERN, and the thermonuclear explosion certain to result at Livermore, and the end-of-days crowd is going to have an orgasm.
- lornali, on 12/30/2008, -0/+2The challenge is to harness this energy
- hiPpymIck, on 12/29/2008, -0/+2i think maybe the local v grid supply debate comes down to unless a local area can guarantee full and easy supply produced locally - youre going to need a grid
if youre going to need a grid
then its best to design it for maximum national overall efficiency
i think maybe local supply is going to be too small to cover all local needs in so many different places for the whole thing to really need a national (rather than local) solution
i agree small is beautiful but only when its sufficient - for everyone
just my 2 cents - inactive, on 12/30/2008, -0/+2The Southern California desert could produce a gusher of renewable energy.
-----
How many gushers does one need to power a light bulb? - inactive, on 12/29/2008, -1/+2Mate politicians and CEO's don't hang on Digg!
- inactive, on 12/30/2008, -0/+1Just read Wiki to find out all that goss. It looks good and and is in use. I also see that it can be great for synchronizing "renewable" generators like wind and solar. You transmit in HVDC and the end terminal converts it to 3 phase AC. Nice! This means that a state the size of NSW Australia could use solar and wind over vast distances and gather that feed into one source proving Sydney with plenty full energy.
You could also apply this between Tasmania and Victoria or even NZ and Australia. - roddack, on 12/29/2008, -1/+2Tesla had the idea to use the earth itself as a transmission line....to bad JP pulled the plug on it.
- SecondBeach, on 12/29/2008, -1/+2NIMBY: Ted Kennedy syndrome. Hypocrite.
- korvan504521, on 12/30/2008, -0/+1Where do you get the money?
- davidg11, on 12/29/2008, -2/+3Because every CA state institution has unionized workers
- ElGstr, on 01/05/2009, -0/+1Cool
Using High Tech For Conservation http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=4327
We Love Sunlight Spills. In this article, How American Energy Independence Was Won, http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3907, the author wrote,
“Voila, 4,641,748,800 megawatts a year. America’s heir and a spare to American energy independence. The Feds lease this land to U.S. Solar, Inc. (a strong, proud and patriotic USS for the stock exchange with We Love Sunlight Spills as its’ slogan) for The Nevada Solar Plant. U.S. Solar, Inc. is a red-blooded true blue American capitalist mega-corporation. U.S. Solar, Inc., through it’s Nevada division, Nevada Solar, Inc., gets the usual Federal and State tax subsides and contracts awarded to mega-corporations. A new breed of lobbyist is born, one driving electric cars with a solar panel on every roof. U.S. Solar, Inc. immediately pays it CEO $100 million a year plus perks and bonuses. U.S. Solar, Inc. hires illegals, has zero retirement and health care coverage, is non-union. It charges its’ employees for plugging in their electric cars, and each car has a solar panel on its roof. Ownership of electric cars is a condition to employment and the power generated by the solar panel on each car’s roof belongs to the U.S. Solar, Inc. electric grid. For those just not getting it :-( more ;-) tongue-in-cheek sarcasm going on here. Nevada Solar, Inc pays it CEO $50 million a year plus perks and bonuses. Within two years Nevada Solar, Inc., replicates itself in Montana and other American states, then goes global. It’s Another Great American Story. Brings a tear of patriotic pride to my eye, ‘cause boy, we really won that American War for Energy Independence. “ - socialrebel, on 12/29/2008, -3/+4what we need is for the environmentalists to get the fark outta the way. they've been doing nothing but trying to screw up the development of our infrastructure. yes, it's an ugly necessity... but a necessity nonetheless. and while we're at it, we should make it as eco friendly as possible to mollify them AND out of respect for our earth.
- jonnyboy1544, on 12/30/2008, -1/+2I hear ya but there is no silver bullet. Coal is going to have to be there if you want your lights on just as natural gas, nukes, solar and wind.
And it would seem as if the politicians in northeast see it that way too since they adopted RGGI. - jonnyboy1544, on 12/29/2008, -4/+5NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard
As someone that's worked in the energy community, this is something that won't go away. And what's funnier is that it's usually the snobby leftists that don't want to see any type of infrastructure. We always joked that it's turned from NIMBY into BANANA... Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone - korvan504521, on 12/30/2008, -0/+1california is broke.
- maz2331, on 12/30/2008, -1/+2Uh, won't work.
- korvan504521, on 12/30/2008, -0/+1Producing power in a power plant brings you for more efficiency of production.
That said, if everyone produced their own power during the day, it would take a hell of a lot less production to support them at night. - inactive, on 12/29/2008, -1/+2Wonder what the cost difference would be to install transmission lines in the ground, if possible at all.
It would be quite a bit more expensive I would bet. - korvan504521, on 12/30/2008, -0/+1Because they can't budget. There is no reason any state should be broke right now. If they lived within their means (although its not like their citizens do either) they could have been ready.
But instead they're inefficient, corrupt, and wasteful. - Spoomeister, on 12/29/2008, -1/+2Absolutely. There was an article a while back that was sympathetic to the plight of this beleaguered second or third generation farmer who was devestated, simply devestated, to see a wind farm pop up near his land, ruining "his" view. These things were just so ugly to him that it tore him up.
- rustintable, on 12/29/2008, -0/+0I can't imagin why you are getting dugg down. even if what you say may not be the final solution for everyone it is reasonable for many.
- SecondBeach, on 12/29/2008, -0/+0but if you're going to have a stimulus package, that sure as hell is the best use for it.
- Rudegar, on 12/29/2008, -2/+2ever heard of offshore windmills?
ever heard about the effect of salt water on metal then can rust?
rust should not be too big a problem - HEgg, on 05/28/2009, -0/+0Let's hope this type of technology catches on! We've seen a boom in geothermal technology in Florida over the past few years. It's great!
- Duncan3, on 12/29/2008, -1/+1The whole point is to produce the power you need locally, as in on *your* roof, and then do something crazy - be awake when the sun is up, and sleep when it's not, reduce your energy waste. No long distance wires needed. Way too obvious, and doesn't pay off the right people, but it works.
- SecondBeach, on 12/29/2008, -1/+1do it.
- TonyCarrasco, on 02/05/2009, -0/+0This is one of those Industry that no mater how bad the economy is will not be affected by it, whether they created new power lines or just fixing the ones down by natural disasters or drunk driver, they are always busy
http://www.nationsequipment.com/ - SecondBeach, on 12/29/2008, -2/+2Well, then he probably isn't to concerned about the droughts/floods/species loss that increased anthropogenic climate change will bring to his ancestral land.
The farm I worked on this summer had been in the farmers family for over 3 centuries. Before Rhode Island (my home) was even a state. And he couldn't wait until funds were freed up for a turbine to get him off the grid, because it would lower his bills and be a move towards cleaner air the bay region if we can reduce dependency on the coal plant nearby that's poisoning the water and harming the fishing economy.
And they're prettier than coal plants - and don't even have the mercury! - rustintable, on 12/29/2008, -1/+0Well if the conservatives want to be right about something for once they should just do it.
- junkneo, on 12/29/2008, -2/+1Energy Storage is key to renewable energy sources such as Geothermal, Solar, Tides and Wind. Upgrading the grid system in the US should be one of the priorities of the new administration. Hope California leads in upgrading and extending their electricity grid.
- Macintoshreader, on 12/29/2008, -2/+1TL; DR
- inactive, on 12/29/2008, -3/+1I think we can all think of a PLENTY of things that are cost effective and feasible, but haven't been done yet.
- nesagwa, on 12/29/2008, -3/+0Should have gone with offshore oil rigs and tankers.
Its not green, its in a highly corrosive environment and yet they dont melt into the ocean. - eastcoast1978, on 12/29/2008, -9/+6Yes for renewable energy, no for using the stimulus package to fund it.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is