What is Digg?189 Comments
- hazelnoot, on 12/01/2008, -8/+5511 Using less energy is not an option
- jeffiek, on 12/01/2008, -4/+43"Myth 1: solar power is too expensive to be of much use"
NOT a myth. "...cheaply as large power stations by 2012." Certainly headed for that point, but this is 2008 and "is" means the present. Even then, it will take years of construction to qualify as "much use".
Promising? Certainly. In the future, not today.
"Myth 4: nuclear power is cheaper than other low-carbon sources of electricity"
I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the US the problem is red tape. Cost of paperwork is huge, and there's no guarantee an operating permit will be issued. I remember Shoreham ( lived in NY in the 80's). $6 billion down the tubes without a single kilowatt generated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Nuclear_Powe ...
The rest of the article was pretty good. - Vlatro, on 12/01/2008, -4/+34From my view, it's a terrible article. The author attempts to dispel "myths" with fact, yet does so without any regard to objectivity.
"The advanced economies are obsessed with finding hi-tech solutions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions"
What is the basis for this claim? What segment of what economies is he talking about? How is that conclusion reached? Is he looking at the amount of capital spent by "green" initiatives in various industries, or by legislation passed or proposed by governments, or is there another benchmark for this alleged bias? I'm not refuting the claim, it may be accurate, but how is the conclusion reached?
"There are many viable proposals to do this cheaply around the world, which also often help feed the world's poorest people."
What do the "World's poorest people" have to do with energy policy, the technological advancement of power production, or the economics and politics surrounding the shift to clean energy? On some level, they do play a significant role, I'm sure. But how does feeding them effect policy. There are no windfalls in science. If an energy technology can help feed the hungry, GREAT! but that is neither here nor there when comparing technologies and their relative effiency. This is weighing a moral and subjective argument into a comparison that attempts dispel bias. Instead, it introduces all new biases.
I can agree with much of what the author is trying to say, but they manner in which it's presented misleads people and detracts from the truth instead of exposing it. This article reeks of emotional and political bias. The author can undoubtedly write great propaganda, but from an objective viewpoint, he does a disservice to his own cause.
Still, most people aren't in the practice of filtering bias and logical fallacies when they read. People who share his bias will praise him as being objective and digg me down. I'm not attacking his view, just his ability to convey facts without whoring him self out to the emotions of witless readers. - DeathRay2K, on 12/01/2008, -13/+38Buried, because they are saying that these things are myths because they will be feasible in the future... That is completely illogical. Sure, there will likely come a day when solar panels actually do produce more energy in their lifespan than is consumed in their creation, but that day is not today! Just because it will happen in the future doesn't mean it is the case now.
- Murdats, on 12/01/2008, -2/+24you mean chernobyl where there was the worst reactor design with poor practices that were broken with fail safes disabled?
you mean that single incident due to bad technology in bad hands with everything being done wrong that could be? sure that's going to happen again right?
oh wait, modern reactors don't melt down, the only other incident also involved everything going wrong that could on a old design and no one even got injured. want to know how many people coal has killed, how much radiation and pollution coal power emits (I will give you a hint, coal power released more radiation then nuclear is even allowed to let alone does), do you know how much waste is produced? and that it can be easily safely stored in a stable state or even recycled with up to 98% efficiency but US laws currently forbid that?
what's your magical solution, fully implement a not yet mature technology? level the planet and cover it with solar panels and wind farms? or are you just going to fight any progress just because it isn't a magic bullet completely free from any downsides and solves every problem man ever has or will face? - xptical, on 12/01/2008, -4/+25All his points were like this.
Point 1 was about solar. Then he went on to say that panels in 2012 will break even.
I could go on, but I won't. - levity90, on 12/01/2008, -7/+28People need to start walking.
- r3becca, on 12/01/2008, -5/+23While the Chernobyl disaster is a tried and tested favourite scare tactic employed by the anti-nuclear camp, a similar incident is simply not possible with modern reactors.
Oddly I feel more comforted by the thought that you are an informed troll than alternative where you are so utterly ignorant and devoid of intellectual independence you repeat whatever the Greenpeace pamphlet says. - hetmankp, on 12/01/2008, -2/+19Well this guy is certainly no Electrical Engineer. It's ironic but people seem happy to listen to anyone that'll give them a nice feel good story rather than going to the actual experts to get a good dose of reality so they can actually start dealing with it. No doubt why most of the comments to this effect are getting burried.
Missrepresenting the problem with such "facts" like the claim the cost of manufacturing the solar panels themselves constitutes the main cost of operating photovoltaic power stations as a sizeable contributor to the grid, and then throwing in a mish mash of other experimental solar technologies which are nothing more than experimental. That's really not helping us deal with the issues we have right now. - YouAreDead, on 12/01/2008, -10/+26Myth 2: wind power is too unreliable
Actually, during some periods earlier this year the wind provided almost 40% of Spanish power.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Actually".. so its not a myth? - wflan, on 12/01/2008, -1/+16but it has everything to do with money for the power companies who are competing with eachother to have the cheapest, most reliable streams possible... And nuclear meltdown isn't a very big issue in practice (go look up the damages from 3 Mile Island...). Proliferation and disposal on the other hand...
- aletoledo, on 12/01/2008, -1/+16I agree that it wasn't a great article. Myth 4 is about the time that I realized that he had an agenda to push. I'm not necessarily as fan of nuclear power, but when he concluded "it looks as though CO2 capture at coal-fired plants will be a cheaper way of producing low-carbon electricity", I found that a bit unusual. First he bashes nuclear for being expensive and then he proposes doing something even more expensive. It makes me wonder if he is really looking at the economics or just trying to find a way to push his preconceived notions?
- Barackalypse, on 12/01/2008, -1/+16I think the author of this should have done some better research, Myth 2 is a fact according to a study funded by the Renewable Energy Foundation:
"Wind power would be too unreliable to meet Britain's electricity needs"
"Wind output in Britain can be very low at the moment of maximum annual UK demand"
"Simultaneously, the wind output in neighbouring countries can also be very low, and this suggests that intercontinental transmission grids will be hard to justify."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3345785 ...
Also, Myth 1 is true based on current technology, that fact that at some future point it might be false doesn't make it a myth. - Cerebron, on 12/01/2008, -1/+16I'm up to here right now. I was here, and now I'm here.
- Vlatro, on 12/01/2008, -0/+13This risk of meltdown is practically non-existent in contemporary nuclear power plants. The trouble is that we (in the U.S.) have no modern nuclear plants.
That does still leave the matter of disposing of spent nuclear materials. But a fun fact for environmentally conscious out there:
The average coal burning plant in the U.S. puts more radioactive material into the atmosphere every year than the total mass of radioactive waste produced by a modern nuclear plant over the course of 15 years. The materials can often be reused to produce energy through other secondary processes, so the waste is minimal. We do still end up with barrels of worthless nuclear material, and storage is an issue as the density poses a risk if the container is accidentally broken. But in theory, the material could just as easily be tossed into the air in small quantities over time with less environmental impact than coal alternatives. I'm not saying it a good solution, but in theory would be more equitable from an environmental safety standpoint.
There has also been a lot of research put into turning spent rods into battery cells. They are safe as long and they aren't taken apart. It would have to be a controlled substance, not for consumer use, but the military and industrial applications for it would allow us to get further use out of the materials and use up over 80% of what we currently dispose.
The issue with nuclear waste is fear. We don't regulate lead or steel. They are used in the production of things that can and do kill more people than nuclear material. From bullets to automobiles, there are many potentially dangerous applications for those materials. Still it's a net gain for society in spite of the risks. If a dirty bomb were made, it could in theory kill millions of people very quickly, but the potential exists for the same substance to improve the quality of life for billions, and function for many generations. Technology has been very good to us so far, but it can never advance if fear of who may use it dictates what is pursued. Caution is always prudent, but fear never is. - HamstaMan, on 12/01/2008, -2/+15I bet most people that keep parroting the Chernobyl incident don't even know themselves what technically caused it. Get informed. Chernobyl was an obvious human error that wouldn't be possible with modern nuclear power plants.
- scybeam, on 12/01/2008, -8/+20Straw-man myths and unfounded speculation.
- Cerebron, on 12/01/2008, -1/+13The author can't disprove myths by pointing to the as-yet-unseen future, and pretend that during 'some periods' up to any percentage is reliable enough to prove something.
It's just sloppy. - Llamainthepool, on 12/01/2008, -2/+14You say "chernobyl deniers" as if anyone was disputing the fact that it happened. The truth is that were there even the slightest bit of responsible oversight, the circumstances that created the possibility for the incident never could have developed. The scare campaign is based on a faulty understanding of past events, and I'm not really sure I understand the motives of those who are so strongly opposed to nuclear, given the alternatives.
That being said, the initial cost of contruction (in time and $$) for most nuclear plants is prohibitive for most communities. This is the main reason you won't be seeing those cooling towers popping up in a city near you. - Oatlord, on 12/01/2008, -0/+12The reason nuke plants cost so much to build in this country is due to all the regulation. Everything have to be triple signed off on, up to and incluing the types of screws used (not joking) in wall outlets. Everything has an approved vendor list and only those may be used. While some regulation is without doubt needed, environmentalists in the 70s and 80s used government regulation to kill nuke plants.
- computershack, on 12/01/2008, -2/+13Buried for ignore the simple fact that buying green consumer technologies to replace existing working devices people have will reduce emissions. That argument completely misses the point that replacing something that's working fine just because the replacement has a slightly lower output completely negates the savings of the new tech with the pollution created during its manufacture and energy required for disposal of the old unit.
For example:
If you have an old car, don't get rid of it because you think you should do as it pollutes more than a new one. Any environmental benefits of the new car over your existing one will be completely negated by its manufacture and the energy involved in prematurely junking your perfectly fine existing one. Instead, continue to use the old one until it comes to its natural end, then replace it. - Harabeck, on 12/01/2008, -0/+10Myth 7: climate change means we need more organic agriculture
The uncomfortable reality is that we already struggle to feed six billion people.
Thats actually an economic issue, not an agricultural one. We produce more than enough food to feed every person on the earth, it just doesn't reach the poorest of us. - Murdats, on 12/01/2008, -1/+11"Since it's not possible to scale the process down safely"
look up pebble bed reactors, toshiba actually has designs and is planning to start selling a small reactor for local areas, another company has created a 3mx3x reactor that is totally sealed that can power a small neighbourhood for 7-12 years for $25mill (starting technology is going to be expensive, but for apartment block that would actually probably eventually pay for it self) - moonboots, on 12/01/2008, -9/+19not myths, most of these points are debatable one way or another.
buried as sensationalist journalism - Boohickey11, on 12/01/2008, -15/+25Buried. These aren't myth realities they're common ***** knowledge.
Instead of talking about Alt Energy and trying to convince people of *****, get off your ***** asses and just do the ***** work. - AaronRoss, on 12/01/2008, -1/+10Myth 5: electric cars are slow and ugly...lol
- rayfiend, on 12/01/2008, -1/+10Fewer than...
- coyote1284, on 12/01/2008, -1/+10And here I've been, levitating around when I'm not in a vehicle.
/levity - zaii7, on 12/01/2008, -20/+28you gotta pay the troll toll to get into that boys hole
- Countess666, on 12/01/2008, -5/+13where did you get that solar panels do not produce more energy then is needed to make them?
its completely untrue. silicon panals take roughly 10 years to get back the energy used to make them.
the ACTUAL problem, the one i think your confusing it with, is that silicon solar panels without subsidies don't provide enough power to pay for their own costs.
but even thats not true anymore, the cheap panels, while less efficient, can repay for themselfs in their 25-30 year lifespan.. and afterwords the materials can be recycled to save a fair chunk of the energy used to make them.
and there are new panal's made using the same technologie as plasmascreen that can get the energy used to make them in 8 months. and they cost far less then silicon solar panels. production of those is starting up as we speak. - Lozil, on 12/01/2008, -23/+31Really a Good article.....
- telfy, on 12/01/2008, -7/+14Which ever side of the fence your on these new technologies need to be taken seriously by governments around the world.
- Phalanxia, on 12/01/2008, -8/+15Dugg for great points AND The Guardian. Makes a bloody change from the Daily Mail.
- epalla, on 12/01/2008, -0/+7so angry
- bobbknight, on 12/01/2008, -2/+9Nuclear powered electricity generation with hydrogen generated from electrolysis for transportation.
- thallium205, on 12/01/2008, -1/+8source?
- hazelnoot, on 12/01/2008, -0/+7What's meant is that 10% of the amount of energy that hits the solar panel will be converted into electricity.
- Wag3Slav3, on 12/01/2008, -2/+9Wow. 10 energy common knowledge points, all of which are proved true in the article. Why not call this list "10 things about alternate energy that I wish were untrue and why I am wrong?"
- ParanoydAndroid, on 12/01/2008, -0/+7... What? If there's one thing the market is _great_ at it's developing and then adapting to new technologies. The darwinian evolution of a free market can help ensure that the inventors and/or early adoptors of a new technology get the benefits, and the companies that refuse to move on become extinct.
The free market is bad, however, at using these new technologies safely or properly considering social externalities (of course). - bschonec, on 12/01/2008, -8/+15Myth #whatever: Carbon is a pollutant.
- BN2L, on 12/01/2008, -0/+6The Daily Mail is a tabloid for idiots. The Guardian is probably the best newspaper in the world.
- KMye, on 12/01/2008, -1/+7That's not entirely true in every case. Don't get me wrong, I'm with you completely on the regulation. But these plants are so expensive to begin with that if anything goes wrong in construction, it's that much more expensive to correct.
The cost overruns in the Finnish reactor cited in the article are because cheap, imported labor ***** up a huge piece of the plant that now needs to be completely rebuilt. A mistake future builders around the world will be sure as hell not to repeat, and not a good argument against nuclear power or its innate costs. - Vodd9, on 12/01/2008, -2/+811. Hybrid cars are better for the environment than normal cars.
- xtal3, on 12/01/2008, -0/+6Hahahah are you joking?
Yeah the Guardian totally wants what the Daily Mail has going
that.. ugh.. "hot" Sally Field action - h4nk3f4n, on 12/01/2008, -0/+6I wonder how many actually got the Sunny reference! Awesome!
- joe122370, on 12/01/2008, -0/+6internet angry
- tyho, on 12/01/2008, -1/+7Glad you said that Vlatro. A lot of the "myths" he was trying to refute by saying "yeah but in the future, this technology will improve to the point it's not cost prohibitive" Which, of course means currently, it is NOT a myth.
I saw this article as biased, pie in the sky, and buried for inaccuracies. - coyote1284, on 12/01/2008, -1/+7OK, electric cars may look better and be quicker now, but they are still inefficient for interstate travel (and entirely inefficient for travel withing large/wide states like Texas or Nebraska. Sure, an electric car is just fine for the commute to and from work for most, but if you are planning on driving more than 100 mi, you don't want to stop part of the way to your destination to wait a few hours while you car charges back up.
- wflan, on 12/01/2008, -3/+9"The intermittency of wind power does mean that we would need to run our electricity grids in a very different way"
That's pretty dubious... Long-range power transmission from Northern Scotland to wherever would have to be robust and efficient enough to cope with both peak hours and 'wind supply' fluctuations. There's a reason coal is so dominant in the US–it's mostly domestic, it's cheap, and it's flexible, output wise. That's the skeptic in me. Overall, an excellent article which hilights some of the misappropriations of resources that occur everyday. -
Show 51 - 100 of 192 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is