What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Smart Guys Keep Their Faces Looking Young view!
howlifeworks.com - Why men have finally started to use certain anti-aging skin care products...
83 Comments
- thavi, on 11/05/2009, -0/+40that zoom feature was worthless
- V1ruk, on 11/05/2009, -2/+16The worlds 200 co2-iest power plants, would have been a better title.
- inactive, on 11/05/2009, -3/+16Let us go nuclear or stop whining hippies....you can't have it both ways.
- PandaBearShenyu, on 11/05/2009, -3/+13The U.S. has nearly the same amount of dirty plants as a country with 4 times its population.
- Quaterni0n, on 11/05/2009, -3/+11We throw it in the air faster than plant life can clean it up. Unless you can live off CO2, you should consider it a pollutant.
- 029A, on 11/05/2009, -3/+11That's because you import most of your power from other states.
- active1x0, on 11/05/2009, -7/+15Can someone tell me how Co2 is a pollutant? Please?
I just don't understand how something that is RECYCLED by nearly all forms of plant life is a pollutant. - pathouston22, on 11/05/2009, -0/+8Which is why I included it in my sarcastic comment.
- SeaDog, on 11/05/2009, -2/+10Magic Pixie dust isn't powering your house with all its gadgets.
- CosmosCR, on 11/05/2009, -0/+7The red dots should have remained the same size after zooming (Not grown proportionately with the map). Then you could avoid overlaps by zooming in, or see more accurately exactly where the dot is.
- plaguepony, on 11/05/2009, -1/+7Which All together produce less power than a single Nuclear Power plant. (Excluding the Hydro Electric)
- theonlywizdum, on 11/05/2009, -0/+6You get almost half of your power from Canada.
- ihavebeenseen, on 11/05/2009, -0/+6If the map was dirtiest mining projects then CA would be top of the list. That Tar Sands project is a real Earth raper.
- Abscess2, on 11/05/2009, -0/+6They could have at least listed them underneath.
- Alli3388, on 11/05/2009, -0/+5Way to go Canada. Not bad for a huge first world country with tons of energy resources.
- 029A, on 11/05/2009, -4/+9So the "dirtiest" power plants are the ones which emit the most CO2, regardless of how much power they produce? Nice definition there.
- guardianx, on 11/05/2009, -3/+8Sponsored by Shell LOL
- Sublimefly, on 11/05/2009, -0/+5I am tempted to bury this because of the worthless zoom and generally poor layout of the whole thing. Whom ever designed this should start over....
- pathouston22, on 11/05/2009, -3/+8And countries with 4 times our population have half+ their populations living in poverty.
- homercles337, on 11/05/2009, -0/+4Clean coal is an oxymoron.
- LonesomeFighter, on 11/05/2009, -5/+9just shows France can do something right. i'll be damned
- askantik, on 11/05/2009, -0/+4This is a suck ass map and the fact that it's plastered with Shell logos is retarded.
- pathouston22, on 11/05/2009, -2/+6Thanks god Obama is closing Yucca Mountain, we can invest more into clean coal rather than dirty nuclear energy!
- FritoPendejo, on 11/05/2009, -1/+5No, it's sponsored by the Confronting Climate Change Initiative, one of those end of the world bla bla organizations.
- thatspsychotic, on 11/05/2009, -0/+4Helps that they have tens of thousands of megawatts of hydroelectric capacity. Hydro meets 59% of their electrical energy needs.
- Alli3388, on 11/05/2009, -0/+4France has about 60 million people in it and is only about half the size of British Columbia. They don't HAVE enough water in Western Europe to sustain the population unless they conserve water, and to charge people for every litre is what makes people restrict its use. I don't know what kind of "endless sources of water" land you live in, but people in France don't live there with you.
- RubyTuesday, on 11/05/2009, -0/+4FritoPendejo - Are you from the states - because if progress is having enough clean water that you can use a lot without worrying, you are screwed.
"Progress" can only go so far anyway. At some point you have to be realistic and be responsible with your natural resource use. - Alli3388, on 11/05/2009, -1/+4The French are fantastic when it comes to environmental responsibility (if you can just forget about that little underwater nuclear weapons testing back in the 90s!). They have really managed to adopt a widespread everyday lifestyle towards conservation, and the laws around it are great (i.e., they don't allow any road transport vehicles for shipping of goods over 1 ton trucks, and have strict hour restrictions on that. Also, pretty much all of the houses in France are built so that all of the windows (or most of them) only face South so that the most heat gets into the home and they save on heating energy. They pay for amount of water used in the household rather than just water heating, causing them to really restrict their water use, and they are light years ahead of North America as far as low emission cars go. North American could learn A LOT from France in terms of environmental responsibility. Unfortunately, individuals in N.A. are not willing to make any real changes like the French seem willing to be.
Otherwise, the French are quite irritating. - zapass, on 11/05/2009, -0/+3lemme re-frame this in a right wing way for you:
it is called "offer and demand"
even if there's demand, excessive production will cause an imbalance and your inventory will build up to a point where it could threaten your business as a whole.
capice? - active1x0, on 11/05/2009, -0/+3This may be true in the short run, but production will cease when total revenue is less than total variable cost. In the long run the business will restructure and only produce to the point where marginal cost of production is equal to the market price.
I don't think we're talking about CO2 anymore, though... - RubyTuesday, on 11/05/2009, -1/+4Yes and that is the problem. That and the fact that you are so immensely comfortable with your selfishness.
- amish4play, on 11/05/2009, -0/+3Efficiency should definitely be the measure to go by in this case.
- tgc1, on 11/05/2009, -0/+3Look at Alberta on google maps. I agree with your comment. Alberta looks like it got ass raped.
// Canadian - csrajuse, on 11/05/2009, -0/+3If that's true , I think again thumbs up for Canada, and also kudos to California for choosing the best source to get power ! Isn't there a rule somewhere for California that we buy energy from only clean plants or something ... explains ! great job ! But not very happy about US ,Western Europe and China though. It really sounds so unfair that these countries will be contributing to the warming and the earliest hit countries will be in Africa! How much does Africa contribute for this ???
- Tinkered, on 11/05/2009, -1/+31) Nearly 3/4 of California power comes from within state: http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/overview/energy_source ...
2) California has two nuclear power plants: http://www.energy.ca.gov/nuclear/california.html
3) Nuclear, large hydro, and renewables only make up 35% of California's power: http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_syst ... - SpoonMSU, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2I'm shocked Forbes.com didn't opt to treat us to one of their delightful slideshows.
- Hetman, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2I agree with you. However it does not change the fact that there population is going to need some alternative. Some of those cities are becomming out of control. Regardless of how well you have control of your people. Eventually they are going to want a higher standard of living and that means cities with better air.
- FritoPendejo, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2People have been practicing deforestation for thousands of years. I know this is hard for your reactionary mind to comprehend, but new forests grow and are planted in areas where they did not exist before. Global forest cover is stable. If my little bubble you mean the one where I actually go out and read about things instead of just making assumptions based on the fact that I think everything is terrible and is always going to get worse, then yeah I'm in my bubble.
Yes, there is a point at which you will hit a limit as to how much development can be sustained without clearing too much, but that is a long, long, long way off. In the meantime maybe you should read up on sustainable forest management. Or you can live your life as if humans are the destroyer of your Mother Nature and the world is coming to an end. - hazello, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2Maybe they should focus on the mercury, acids, smog, particles and other pollution expelled by burning coal instead of just carbon.
- qerplonk, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2Wow, awesome response Frito.
@Alli3388 -- again, read my last sentence and think it through:
If people stopped eating chicken, do you think we'd have more or fewer chickens in 5 years?
Earth is the goose that lays the golden eggs (trees). Obviously those greedy paper capitalists want to keep their profits coming in right? Then they plant more trees in order to keep getting the golden eggs. Voila. - yaroze, on 11/05/2009, -1/+3California has a lot of Hydro-electric, Geothermal Power plants, and a small collection of windmills.
- ahhell, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2Surely they aren't talking about CLEAN coal plants.
/s - uberchaoslord, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2Yes, the people in a few places in the US can be proud driving electric cars, since the power is probably generated by hydroelectric or other cleaner sources. In other places, you're just offsetting the guilt by not having the emissions come out your tailpipe.
- V1ruk, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2Ya, this article is completely down to your interpretation of the word dirty.
CO2 isn't "dirty" we just classify it as a pollutant. The fallout from a coal power plant can be dirty, but CO2 isn't the fallout.
And Nuclear Powerplants should all be entirely clean, as an "dirt" would probably be radioactive, which is why they keep it contained, in high-security areas, until they figure out there's a place in Nevada to store it. - Quaterni0n, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2Your sarcasm is noted. Unfortunately, producing electricity to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen produces CO2.
- dtzitz, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2I agree, I worked at a power plant that had used fuel oil and natural gas. It was pretty clean. I have heard horror stories of coal fired power plants. They list Crystal River, a nuke plant. That place, from what I hear is as clean and as safe as a hospital.
- vitruvius1, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1Good point.
- csrajuse, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1I beg to differ here. When someone drives an electric car in non-california states I think it also helps environment. for
1 Electric engines are more efficient. (They are smaller so energy consumed is less on average)
2. In large cities where traffic and congestion is high electric car's efficiency is more, the amount of energy for an IC engine to start a car from standstill to a particular speed is higher and so are the gases it is releasing.
3. We are moving towards a cleaner solution, and California is leading it, soon enough I think most of the states will follow and it will have a better effect.
The solution we need to be really think about is for countries like China and India. With riches just flowing into the middle class now everyone is eying for a car there, can we afford 2.3 billion people all wanting a car? If so then how are we going to ensure they are green? - RubyTuesday, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1Interesting two of our three problem plants are in Alberta. I know they have been trying to correct the Nanticoke problem but it has been a long drawn out problem.
- neutron7, on 11/05/2009, -1/+2This is bogus.
Carbon is not "dirty" plants need it to live.
heavy metals, smoke and all that other crap are "dirty" -
Show 51 - 83 of 83 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is