What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- ISmokesDaPot420, on 04/14/2008, -38/+10Yay for clean energy.. but I thought that we had gotten over the ridiculous concept of global warming.
- Kireblade, on 04/14/2008, -10/+23Yeah, but those damn scientists keep on getting in the way with their pesky studies and facts.
- atmenterprises, on 04/14/2008, -15/+5Not all of them:
http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/2008/03/07/pr ...- Chompy, on 04/14/2008, -9/+4Yes, all of them. Fake/shill "scientists" need not apply.
- Railer, on 04/14/2008, -5/+3Hey Chompy thanks for showing how "open minded" alarmists really are, guys like you are the reason AGW is no longer a science but a religion.
- Chompy, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4I'm sorry, bumpkin, I can't understand your ignorant, rural hick grunts and clicks.
- Railer, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2Wow and you show it again, you really are a bigot, everyone one who doesn't believe the way you do is a shill, hick, or some such nonsense. It's sad you really think you are somehow different then a racists who thinks everyone who looks a certain way is "slow". Just out of curiosity when are you and your brown shirted thought police friends coming to my town?
- exronin, on 04/14/2008, -4/+7'Real scientists' that aren't paid by the GOP.
- bphicke, on 04/14/2008, -3/+3Or the UN
- Stevo23, on 04/14/2008, -4/+3Yeah, damn the UN, and their evil agenda to...um...wait, what's the UN's evil agenda, again?
- atmenterprises, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Oil for food was one of them.
- atmenterprises, on 04/14/2008, -15/+5Not all of them:
- zeebo, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3Global warming is happening, the question is how much of an impact we're having. However, most of the best things that are discussed would benefit society in other ways, some of them far more tangible than simply slowing down a few degree warming trend over the next couple of decades, because there is one thing that I don't think that anyone would attempt to debate. Coal kills.
We need nuclear power, both direct and indirect. Fission plants, solar power, geothermal power, fusion plants in another decade or two.
- Kireblade, on 04/14/2008, -10/+23Yeah, but those damn scientists keep on getting in the way with their pesky studies and facts.
- poidh, on 04/14/2008, -27/+11Save humanity? I had no idea that we were facing extinction.
- poidh, on 04/14/2008, -2/+6Well, I'm getting dugg down to buggery, so either we are going to be extinct imminently and I didn't know anything about it or some lesser diggers have happened this way.
- Corvidae, on 04/14/2008, -5/+4On a long enough time scale, the survival rate for everything is 0.
That everything, including the human species, dies is a simple fact that can't be changed.
The time scale, on the other hand, can be readily changed.
The gripping hand is the knowledge and will to change it.- RobotBuddha, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1Not sure why you're getting buried. The lifespan of any species, typically, isn't that long in a relative sense. We've probably got a pretty good run left ahead of us, but it's inevitable that humans will die out eventually. And that might not be a bad thing at all for sentience on earth. I'm sure our chimp-like ancestors would have been pretty upset to see their species die off as well, but it made way for something better in most ways.
- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2You are, of course, neglecting the chance that we are not bound to this earth. We are in theory the only species I'm aware of that can go find another planet to inhabit. Heck, we may even be capable of geo-engineering another crib for all of our future hommies.
- Corvidae, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Even if we leave this planet, our galaxy has a lifespan. Outside of the that, our universe has a finite lifespan as well.
Entropy always wins in the end. - Stratochief66, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Lets wait until we become a type 1 civilization before worrying about the lifespan of our galaxy limiting us, mkay?
- Corvidae, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Even if we leave this planet, our galaxy has a lifespan. Outside of the that, our universe has a finite lifespan as well.
- Corvidae, on 04/14/2008, -5/+4On a long enough time scale, the survival rate for everything is 0.
- bullcutter, on 04/14/2008, -2/+5we're all always on the verge of extinction, its always up to us to save the world, otherwise how self-important can you feel knowing you lived through a relatively uneventful and mediocre part of earth's history, and what fun is that??
- poidh, on 04/14/2008, -2/+6Well, I'm getting dugg down to buggery, so either we are going to be extinct imminently and I didn't know anything about it or some lesser diggers have happened this way.
- chililili, on 04/14/2008, -20/+65I got two words for you: Nuclear power
- Nanobe, on 04/14/2008, -25/+9I got two words for you: Nuclear meltdown
- trogdor282, on 04/14/2008, -1/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_a ...
- Acewrap, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_acc ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster- trogdor282, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4Have you ever heard of progress? Chernobyl and TMI were both designed in the 1960's. It's like saying you shouldn't travel to Europe cuz you might catch the Bubonic Plague.
- avaugha4, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1Argument from old evidence is no argument at all.
- Acewrap, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_acc ...
- Chompy, on 04/14/2008, -1/+33I've got eight words for you: utterly impossible unless the laws of physics change.
Modern pebble-bed designs litterally cannot meltdown. Hell, Cherynobl was 1950s-era technology and it still took a team of 40 untrained idiots several hours to systematically disable all of the safety devices in place and cause that disaster. With a modern reactor, that would be physically impossible to do, even on purpose. As for the waste, yes, it sucks.. but thousands of tons of waste that you can control beats billions of tons of waste spewed into the atmosphere that you can't. Nukes are still the only tech currently available that can produce enough juice to realistically replace coal.
Long story short: anyone who still opposes nuclear power needs to educate themselves.- Mercedes383, on 04/14/2008, -0/+9The thing with nuclear waste is most of it is just unprocessed fuel rods. With reprocessing the contaminants can be removed that build up and prevent a sustained reaction allowing the rods to be reused. But alas this reprocessing can also be used to produce Plutonium thus laws are set to prevent reprocessing for civilian use, though I think Pakistan and India do it.
- fugazied, on 04/14/2008, -6/+5The waste and also fissionable materials falling into the wrong hands is a concern. The more reactors, the more nuclear materials. Nuclear bombs can destroy human civilisation pretty quickly and waste improperly handled can lead to a lot of cancer. I'd prefer other options with no downsides.
- Chompy, on 04/14/2008, -1/+8"I'd prefer other options with no downsides."
Yeah let us know when you find that one. - KnightWhoSaysNi, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4"I'd prefer other options with no downsides"
Yes, and I like turtles.
- Chompy, on 04/14/2008, -1/+8"I'd prefer other options with no downsides."
- MattBrown, on 04/14/2008, -2/+3I don't oppose nuclear power per se. But I do oppose government subsidizing nuclear power, including the storage of the waste. The waste storage should be regulated and checked, but paid for by the power company running the plant. I suspect that without the subsidies, power companies would look to other technologies for new plants.
Fusion based nuclear power deserves a better look-see, however.- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3Yeah, because a fusion plant wouldn't require any subsidation at all...
Every electricity source is subsidized, nuclear tends to get its fair share. I'd cut the fossil fuel subsidies before nuclear, but thats just because I'm not a fan of 18th century industrial technology.
- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3Yeah, because a fusion plant wouldn't require any subsidation at all...
- tetfsu, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1First tell us if you said "noo-clee-er" or "nuc-yu-lur" then we'll decide if we're listening...
- trogdor282, on 04/14/2008, -1/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_a ...
- navster15, on 04/14/2008, -2/+15@chililili
For the short term, nuclear power isn't a bad option. It's relatively clean, safe and economically viable. The issue is that nuclear power uses up finite stocks of nuclear fuels and produces dangerous nuclear waste. If the technology described in the article pans out, we may be able to get rid of nuclear power for most applications and thereby reduce the environmental impact of our energy production.- Corvidae, on 04/14/2008, -1/+7There's also cost factors. Nuclear plants take a long time to build and the costs are far from trivial.
Solar thermal has a better ROI in a shorter time span, for less of an investment.- jpstanle, on 04/14/2008, -4/+3Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
Nuclear plants are only expensive to build because of the absurd amounts of red tape, paperwork, licensing, PR, and litigation associated with them. From a resource/labor standpoint they are only marginally more expensive than any other type of generation facility of equivalent capacity. All the NIMBY idiots in the 70's ruined it for the rest of us.
And solar thermal is NOT cheap. First, you need land. LOTS AND LOTS of really sunny land that you don't want to anything else on. Even if the land was free, the hardware is expensive too. If you invest a fixed amount of money into either type of facility, the nuclear plant that you can build for that cost generates at least one or two orders of magnitude more power than a solar thermal plant.
Nuclear power is the *only* carbon-free generation technology that is already economically feasible, robust, and scalable enough to satisfy our power needs. Wind is dandy, but its a supplemental alternative at best. Solar is great, but is not cheap or mature enough yet. And we've already tapped virtually all the hydro power available. Nuclear power provides an excellent short term solution (50-300 years) to hold us over until cold fusion or solar matures enough to replace it.- MikeSD34, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3So what your saying is because of red tape, nuclear is more expensive. How does that disagree with the parent posters statement?
Solar in this form is quite similar to nuclear in that the heat generated is used to heat another material which in turn expands and turns a turbine. I'd be willing to bet a large set of mirrors is a lot cheaper and easier to maintain then a nuclear reactor.
I agree nuclear is better and cleaner then coal and oil, but it's not the be all and end all of power sources. It's also not the only option. - jpstanle, on 04/14/2008, -3/+2Because the parent implies that the costs of nuclear power are inherent as opposed to artificially imposed. Change a few laws, educate the public, and all of a sudden nuclear power becomes nearly as cheap as old school coal.
Solar thermal is also a lot more complex than just a bunch of mirrors. The article incorrectly states that the systems would run on "Molten salt." Most solar thermal systems run on pure molten sodium, which is pretty nasty stuff, of course. And to achieve any sort of efficiency, they have to run at upwards of 1000 C. Piping hundreds of thousands of gallons of scorching hot sodium across hundreds of square miles is not easy or cheap.
Solar thermal power may certainly prove to be an important part of a long-term energy solution, but its absurd to suggest that it is going to make nuclear power obsolete any time in the next several decades. - MikeSD34, on 04/15/2008, -1/+4The only difference between this and nuclear is the heat source. I'd say a solar heat source is a lot safer than a nuclear one.
There's no sodium being pumped across hundreds of square miles, it's a closed loop system the same as nuclear is. - Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1MikeSD34, 'only difference between this and nuclear is the heat source'?? You only display your ignorance of the technologies involved. Sure an array of mirrors is inherently less dangerous than having to bend radiation to your will. However, solar requires a huge amount of land, nuclear requires a large source of cooling water. Nuclear is on all the time (baseload power) and solar only during the day (with currently operating designs). They are ridiculously different power sources, with completely different concerns, costs, and advantages/disadvantages. Don't oversimplify things.
- MikeSD34, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1With solar you're using the suns energy to heat a mass of liquid material and using that heat cause water (or some other material) to expand (usually via phase change), and use that expansion to turn a turbine which generates electricity. With nuclear power you're doing the same thing, only instead, you're using a nuclear reaction to generate that heat. Both of these technologies are ridiculously simple at their roots.
Solar may require more land in the short run, but with the storage needs for nuclear waste, I have to question if that really pans out in the long run. Investment costs to get a solar generator of this kind running are much much smaller then that of nuclear, not to mention the availability of the source 'material' that runs it (you know, the sun).
You're right that solar isn't on all the time, I didn't say that it was perfect, but to pretend that nuclear energy is the only viable option is just ridiculous. - Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1I'd like to hear you explain the 'basics' of those nuclear reactions to me, if they are so simple. I agree that solar thermal is simple, mirrors -> heat -> salt -> steam -> turbines. Nuclear is not that simple, there are a wide variety of different fuels, neutron fluxes that transmute those fuels completely differently, etc. And waste isn't the deal breaker most pretend it is, a few forward thinking countries already economically and safely reprocess their waste into fuel. Storage is the American 'solution' to their inefficient once fuel 'cycle'.
You are right that the investment required for a solar plant is smaller, but it results in a similarly smaller energy output. The smallest nuclear plant one might build is much larger than the smallest solar plant, but the original investment per unit energy is fairly similar. Sunlight has always been free, but you know that is not the source material I'm referring to. Large quantities of salt, steel and glass are required to build the plants, as well as land. Nuclear source material is not in short supply, as it lasts a great deal longer than conventional fuels and is potentially renewable (breeder reactors)
I do not pretend that nuclear is the only option, It just gets an unjustly bad rap sometimes so I'm defending it. If someone were to brush off solar or wind as a options I would be quick to point out their respective advantages. - Corvidae, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1With rooftop reflectors, a solar thermal station could be built in the middle of an existing town.
Not the best or cheapest of solutions, but it could be done. Space isn't really an issue in the best places to put solar stations anyway.
Also red tape is what it is, a cost of doing business. Oil companies pay for it too. If you're going to compare the costs of doing something then you have to include all the fees or subsidies that will be included. Just as you also have to consider the environmental footprint from water usage, contamination, or gas exhaust. Which incidentaly is what the fees are meant to account for in the first place.
- MikeSD34, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3So what your saying is because of red tape, nuclear is more expensive. How does that disagree with the parent posters statement?
- jpstanle, on 04/14/2008, -4/+3Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
- Pulch, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3The waste isn't nearly as harmful as you would think, and as we speak there are storage facilities being built with such strict codes as to make any sort of leaks or ground water contaminations statistically irrelevant. I'm sure if more people knew more about nuclear power, it would be easier to get the OK for new plants to be built. As for cost, we live in a capitalist society, the money the plant makes would eventually be greater than the cost, the only hurdle would be the initial investment.
- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1In todays system, building nuclear power plants require serious government intervention, because of the serious government intervention of tight nuclear regulations. Without preferential loans and monopolistic guaranties of future electricity costs, nobody would make the huge long term investments involved to build new nuclear plants.
- steeeeve, on 04/14/2008, -4/+0Unfortunately nuclear energy is not clean at all. The dirty part is the mining of the uranium and its extraction from the rock. Huge amounts of poisonous stuff end up in rivers.
- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3Whereas the extraction of coal, oil, or refined silicon for solar releases no 'poisonous stuff'. Uranium mining is like typical open pit mining, producing some concentrated tailings, contained on site. The difference is that a fractional amount of uranium must be mined compared to coal or other mines. American uranium mines release(d) large amounts of 'poisonous stuff', but that is because those deposits were not economical and were pursued by the government purely to keep the supply domestic for the nuclear weapons program.
- nick111, on 04/15/2008, -3/+3Nuclear power is merely a stage of climate change denial. It goes:
1) climate change isn't happening
2) ok, it is, but it isn't our fault
3) ok it is our fault, but there's nothing we can do about it
4) ok, we can, but what about China? they're just as bad
5) Nukes!
The only thing that's driving this pro-nuke thing is people not wanting to admit that the liberals and environmentalists were right all along.
Sorry folks, liberals and environmentalists are usually right - because they're not arguing on behalf of private interests against public interests.- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3Right, the liberals and environmentalist who have crippled the growth of a domestic energy source (nuclear) for three decades share no blame in the matter. Instead, a true environmental movement would have put forward a viable alternative such as government investment in solar and wind instead of sitting back, patting their own backs and gorging themselves on coal and oil energy.
The public interest would have been a sound energy strategy, and not helping put/keep the nation in the pocket of archaic energy sources such as oil and coal by killing nuclear power in its crib. Now our environment is in worse shape than ever and nuclear power is an undeveloped technology. Lets just hope that new non-fossil energy sources mature before our money finishes imploding the middle east. - zeebo, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2Eh? People are suggesting nuclear power because its the best option that we currently have available. Modern reactor designs are far better than the ones that we were building thirty or forty years ago, and to be honest we should really be replacing our current second-generation plants that are still operating with new ones.
What other options do we have? Solar thermal? It takes lots of land and only is really practical in sunny environments, and its still 'nuclear' (indirect fusion). Geothermal? It only really works in areas that are fairly geologically active, and its still 'nuclear' (indirect fission). Wind? It has a relatively high cost doesn't really work if the wind is too slow or too fast, and its still 'nuclear' (indirect fusion). Coal? It may not be nuclear (well it is really, really indirect fusion), but it releases particulate uranium in minute amounts, and its hard to ignore the death toll. What does that leave? Natural gas? Photo-voltaic? Those both have problems, not the least of which is expense.
Face it, till we have the ability to make orbital solar power generation a reality, we're going to need third and fourth generation nuclear reactors. Although if you have a problem with nuclear power, I'm sure you'd similarly have a problem with electricity transmitted to earth as microwaves.
This has nothing to do with climate change denial, I'll freely admit it. Global warming is happening, the ice sheets are melting, and our addiction to fossil fuels, is largely to blame. Replacing our coal plants with modern nuclear reactors would be a big step in the right direction.
- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3Right, the liberals and environmentalist who have crippled the growth of a domestic energy source (nuclear) for three decades share no blame in the matter. Instead, a true environmental movement would have put forward a viable alternative such as government investment in solar and wind instead of sitting back, patting their own backs and gorging themselves on coal and oil energy.
- Corvidae, on 04/14/2008, -1/+7There's also cost factors. Nuclear plants take a long time to build and the costs are far from trivial.
- sodade, on 04/14/2008, -0/+19If you had read the article, you'd know that they can bring these sun plants online far quicker for far cheaper. If you believe the article, they are predicting that the KWH costs will drop below nuke plants.
- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2I'd like to see the numbers behind those estimations, because I don't see that happening with the unmentioned trouble of energy transmission over continental distances. Nuclear plants are built near the consumers of the power, solar thermal systems are built primarily in the desert, far from the eastern seaboard. The cost per kWh would be higher if constructed nearer the consumers of that energy, both because the land would cost something and because the system wouldn't be placed in the sunniest place on the continent.
- foofightrs777, on 04/14/2008, -6/+11I have two more: radioactive waste
- Slapo, on 04/14/2008, -3/+4Waste from nuclear power plants isn't much of a big issue. It is stored pretty safely, it doesn't take up much space. If someone discovers efficient methods for further processing of the waste, it could become another resource.
- nycmac247, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3It is stored pretty safely
LOL for how many thousands of years?
Even if it were in carbon fibre nanotube containers (i.e. fantasy land) there are still going to break down after a couple hundred years...all it takes is one leak and you can't undo.
Why in the HELL would you risk human stupidity PERMANENTLY ***** up the environment when there is so much desert space in the US and large solar has little to no risk?- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2It is true that modern american waste needs to be stored for thousands of years, but a breeder reactor breaks down those medium lived isotopes into energy, long lived or short lived isotopes. This means that the amount of waste requiring storage is significantly decreased and the amount of time it needs to be stored is also decreased by an order of magnitude or two. Its not like a leak in a single cask of waste signals Armageddon, it means that it needs to be cleaned up and resealed. Please don't fear what you do not yet understand.
- nycmac247, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3It is stored pretty safely
- bphicke, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2The solution to pollution is dilution.
- OrangeCrush, on 04/14/2008, -2/+5Coal is worse than nuclear w/ regards to radioactive waste--trace amounts of radioactive materials are spewed into the air when coal is burned. Nuclear reactors with propery safety systems and storage keep all of their radioactive waste contained and easy to sequester away.
- starkruzr, on 04/14/2008, -2/+3I have two more: waste reprocessing.
- Slapo, on 04/14/2008, -3/+4Waste from nuclear power plants isn't much of a big issue. It is stored pretty safely, it doesn't take up much space. If someone discovers efficient methods for further processing of the waste, it could become another resource.
- vikingboy, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5nucular power... its pronounced nucular power
- Frnnkdlxx, on 04/14/2008, -3/+2This is what's going to save humanity... Unfortunately it will never be used:
http://digg.com/world_news/Fox_News_Report_3rd_Man ...- exronin, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2buried for faux news
- Frnnkdlxx, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2....Ain't that a bitch.
Like Jesse Ventura says. You guys are like HOllywood guns, you never run out of butts, or ways to discredit anything you find even slightly anti what you want to believe.- exronin, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1I like Jesse Ventura, but faux news is still terrible.I just look up the facts man, faux news, cnn whatever they are all equally biased. Faux is just a little more racist.
- Frnnkdlxx, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2....Ain't that a bitch.
- exronin, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2buried for faux news
- exronin, on 04/14/2008, -2/+3thats dumb, securing the waste has been a nightmare and high probability that it will seep through the ground and contaminate water. Yes there is water below surfaces of a lot of these waste deposit sites that has already shown high levels of radiation.
- nycmac247, on 04/14/2008, -1/+6can we put the waste in your back yard - you know, by your water table?
- ButterBuddha, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2Two Words: Soylent Green
- fluxion, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1two words: vacuum energy
i mean, Sir Arthur C. Clarke (RIP) has been right so many times on these types of things - Dealjobber, on 04/15/2008, -1/+0I'd rather wait for fusion, granted it's probably another 50 years away.
- Stratochief66, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1I really don't think you want to wait 50 years before you use any electricity. By that point, will you even want it, let alone 'need' it?
- Nanobe, on 04/14/2008, -25/+9I got two words for you: Nuclear meltdown
- plarp, on 04/14/2008, -1/+16i find it funny that the energy source that has supplied the world for well.. a really long time.. just went out of fashion a little while ago(as far as the earth is concerned) for no good reason..
thankfully it's now comming back..- jeff303, on 04/14/2008, -0/+8Well nature is a lot better at using it than we are, unfortunately. Of course we will get better over time.
- ArachnidDude, on 04/14/2008, -3/+0Not what the guy at the solar store told me. He said the price for silicon and other components has skyrocketed in the past decade, and has no signs of slowing down.
To put it in perspective, if you wanted to continuously power, say, a remote monitoring device with a power supply equivalent to a cell phone, you are looking at around $1000 US, per device, just for the solar equipment.- steeeeve, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2How long ago was that?
- ArachnidDude, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0It was about a year and a half ago. He specifically mentioned the demand for silicon, especially overseas. I was just on a learning expedition, this guy was a long time solar pro. Actually invented a usable solar car, and consequently his life was threatened many times over. Maybe you've read about him.. He's the owner of The PowerStore in San Antonio. Anyway, a credible source, and an investor.
I was interested in powering a remote monitoring device, and he was being straight up about it.
True, this is only an initial investment, so I'm not trying to make it out to be ridiculously expensive. But it is expensive, and going up. Then there's the downside of reliability and non-functioning in sunless conditions.
- ArachnidDude, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0It was about a year and a half ago. He specifically mentioned the demand for silicon, especially overseas. I was just on a learning expedition, this guy was a long time solar pro. Actually invented a usable solar car, and consequently his life was threatened many times over. Maybe you've read about him.. He's the owner of The PowerStore in San Antonio. Anyway, a credible source, and an investor.
- fluxion, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2price per watt has already reached the price of coal from what ive heard.
of course there's a higher buy-in either way, but you dont seem to be taking into account that it's nearly a 1-time investment.- fluxion, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1lol, what, did some exxon exec just stroll by and digg me down for stating facts?
http://www.celsias.com/2007/11/23/nanosolars-break ... - Stratochief66, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Some of us like to wait until a technology is commercially available and in quantity before turning over our test papers and filing out of the room.
- fluxion, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1lol, what, did some exxon exec just stroll by and digg me down for stating facts?
- steeeeve, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2How long ago was that?
- 380ppm, on 04/14/2008, -4/+20until the sun goes out....
- Harabeck, on 04/14/2008, -1/+13In 5 billion years.
- shreas, on 04/14/2008, -0/+7We'll be long gone by that time.
- OrangeCrush, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2One way or another. The Earth may be more than 4 bilion years old, but it's only been habitable for life forms like us for the past few hundred million years. It's much more likely that long term chemical and geological changes will make the planet uninhabitable long before the sun expands.
- fluxion, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3unless we stop giving NASA the shaft and take the future of the human race a little more seriously
- bizchris, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2T-minus 4 years and counting...
- shreas, on 04/14/2008, -0/+7We'll be long gone by that time.
- xXShadowstormXx, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4But that's not forever, Bert.
- Hananda, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1What was the name of that story? I'd like to read it again but for the life of me I can't remember the title or author.
- milomilomilo, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
- Hananda, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Thanks.
- milomilomilo, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
- Hananda, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1What was the name of that story? I'd like to read it again but for the life of me I can't remember the title or author.
- Harabeck, on 04/14/2008, -1/+13In 5 billion years.
- Chickenzness, on 04/14/2008, -6/+1When is antimatter due?
- tim3094, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2not until we find the dilithium crystals
- Harabeck, on 04/14/2008, -3/+1We use antimatter now in brain scans, positrons(anti-protons) are injected into the brain and more energy is released from the areas with more elecrons (more brain activity).
The problem is both in creating large amounts of anti-matter and in containing, failures in either result in a huge BOOOM.- OrangeCrush, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1Positrons are anti-electrons. Anti-protons have only been generated in particle accelerators so far, and not nearly enough to contain and use for purposes beyond physics research.
The real problem with anti-matter is that it isn't an energy source--only an extremely inefficient energy storage mechanism. Maybe someday we'll discover an easier way of generating the stuff and be able to use it for spacecraft fuel, but that's it.- Harabeck, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1I meant anti-electrons, thanks for the correction. And producing/finding it indeed a large part of the problem.
- Kamill85, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1"only an extremely inefficient energy storage mechanism" ... wait what? i think you meant antimatter is the _MOST_ efficient way for energy storage...
- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Most compact, but efficiency includes conversion of the source into the storage mechanism and conversion back, which isn't so good for antimatter. Also, antimatter containment is highly experimental and ineffective.
- zeebo, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Its not all that great now. It has the potential to be the most efficient way to store energy though.
- OrangeCrush, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1Positrons are anti-electrons. Anti-protons have only been generated in particle accelerators so far, and not nearly enough to contain and use for purposes beyond physics research.
- staffa, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Unless you find a place to mine antimatter, probably not.
Creating antimatter costs more energy then is released when it's annihilated with normal matter. I suppose if you got to the point where it cost less then 50% of the energy output to create it and you were nearly 100% efficient in capturing the annihilation energy, you might see a net gain, but we are at a fraction of 1 billionth percent of the first and about 30% of the second right now.
It might be used to store energy someday though, fuel for starships created at great expense but a very compact form of energy storage. - Corvidae, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Hopefully after we have self sufficient colonies on another planet. Right now anti-matter is harmless because we can only store enough of it to heat a coffee cup before it annihilates itself. Once we start storing pounds and tons of the stuff...I'd rather not be on the same planet with it.
- bullcutter, on 04/14/2008, -3/+38I think its a travesty that everything isn't powered by the sun already. Its big, its hot, its dependable. It doesn't melt down, it doesn't go on strike, it doesn't ruin the environment. What century is this anyway?
- Chompy, on 04/14/2008, -12/+13"Doesn't ruin the environment."
Do you imagine that solar panels are made out of leaves and sticks? Manufacturing a modern solar panel requires many synthetic products and polymers, as well as quite a few petroleum products. I'm not saying that solar power is a bad thing, but people really need to pay attention to the long tail when they advocate solutions like this.- N0vember, on 04/14/2008, -2/+10Did you read the article ? This is NOT about "solar panel[s requiring] many synthetic products and polymers"
This is about mirrors heating oil heating water making a steam turbine produce electricity.
So, no, it's not made out of leaves and sticks, but it's principally made of glass, metal and concrete. - Thousand, on 04/14/2008, -0/+10Photovoltaic panels do, but the article is talking about solar thermal, which only uses mirrors. Regardless, the materials that go into making photovoltaic cells are a lot less harmful than those that are spewed into the air from coal or buried in the ground from nuclear.
- hayzeus, on 04/14/2008, -0/+12"but people really need to pay attention to the long tail when they advocate solutions like this."
..but people really need to RTFA before commenting...- N0vember, on 04/14/2008, -0/+6And the fun fact about that is that people are digging him up, so :
Either these diggers didn't read the article
Either these diggers didn't read the comment
In both cases, we're screwed
- N0vember, on 04/14/2008, -0/+6And the fun fact about that is that people are digging him up, so :
- bullcutter, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1... and coal burning, nuclear and oil power plants all require ***** of dangerous and dirty materials to build as well, so what point are you trying to make exactly?
- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1The coal and oil plants are made out of steel and concrete, as clean as it gets by industrial terms. It is the fuel and emissions that are dangerous and dirty. Nuclear plants are also made of steel and concrete, the fuel is a tad dangerous but hardly dirty, gotta love those steam emissions from the cooling tower...
- N0vember, on 04/14/2008, -2/+10Did you read the article ? This is NOT about "solar panel[s requiring] many synthetic products and polymers"
- doctechnical, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5"Dependable"? You obviously don't live where I live.
- bullcutter, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2where you live the sun's movement across the sky is free of cycles? does it zig zag chaotically, refuse to show up when its in a bad mood, or suddenly dim itself just to piss you off?
- steeeeve, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2That is why they build those things near deserts.
- Wonderama, on 04/14/2008, -5/+3I'm sure the autocratic EPA and the zealot-Tree Huggers would forgo the years of environmental lawsuits and lost chances to wield undo influence when huge swaths of land must be utilized for such an endeavor. That doesn't even consider stringing new power transmission lines (everybody know they cause brain cancer, right?) and the massive infrastructure required to build and maintain such a system.
Things like this sound great on paper, then you have to return to the real world.- cubicledrone, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4This country will never build anything of consequence again. Happy now?
- hackiavelli, on 04/14/2008, -2/+4Did you read the article? They estimate it would take a 92 sq. mile area to power the US. While that's not small the fact it could be done in arid areas dramatically lessens the impact.
- jpstanle, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2Have you passed the 4th grade? The article says 92 x 92 miles. Thats 8464 square miles, or about 90% of the entire ***** state of New Hampshire. Do you have any idea how much ***** land that is? Much less how much land that must be flat, consistently sunny, and devoid of any significant wildlife or natural features?
- cubicledrone, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Ever drive from L.A. to Vegas? Thanks.
- zeebo, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1So cubicledrone, you're implying that the desert has no environmental value, and thus would be safe to utilize wholely for solar power generation?
- cubicledrone, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Ever drive from L.A. to Vegas? Thanks.
- jpstanle, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2Have you passed the 4th grade? The article says 92 x 92 miles. Thats 8464 square miles, or about 90% of the entire ***** state of New Hampshire. Do you have any idea how much ***** land that is? Much less how much land that must be flat, consistently sunny, and devoid of any significant wildlife or natural features?
- bullcutter, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2all those mirrors would fit quite comfortably in the middle of the mojave desert, i'm sure.
- cubicledrone, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4This country will never build anything of consequence again. Happy now?
- JitMaster, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3And it's easy to access most of the time. No need to fight a war to get access to the Sun.
- ZekeSulastin, on 04/14/2008, -2/+3Uhm ... weather much? Modern nuclear is safe and isn't dissuaded by a string of overcast days.
- xptoast, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Desert
- zeebo, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1You still have night and the rare rainy day to deal with.
- doctechnical, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1And the sand, which has this tendency to blow around and cover things, like solar cells.
- zeebo, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1You still have night and the rare rainy day to deal with.
- xptoast, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Desert
- Chompy, on 04/14/2008, -12/+13"Doesn't ruin the environment."
- Picer, on 04/14/2008, -2/+6Solar has huge potential i have heard of other articles on digg saying XXXX company has achieved better efficiency but costs are still incredibly high, the mid-east and africa, the Americas and western europe all benefit from sunshine and are huge untapped reserves of energy.
- rebotfc, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1You don't actualyl need that much sunlight to generate electricity, overcast days are fine.
- Jovensdesciple, on 04/14/2008, -20/+8I think there should be a machine which shuts whiney liberals the ***** up. That's how you save humanity.
- sodade, on 04/14/2008, -2/+5FTA: "The United States has already lost the leadership it had in solar photovoltaics and wind, thanks to deep budget cuts by President Reagan and the Newt Gingrich-led Congress. By 2010, China will be the top manufacturer of photovoltaic cells and wind turbines. Must we also abandon our historical leadership in CSP to conservative doctrine? Other countries, particularly Spain but also Israel and Australia, are poised to be dominant. And China, which has already begun importing coal and pursuing CSP projects, will not be far behind. CSP could well be one of the major job-creating industries of the century."
Methinks it is the dumbass conservatives who need to start shutting the ***** up.- RobotBuddha, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2Far left, far right, they're both united in a hatred for actually doing anything to make the world a better place.
- fugazied, on 04/14/2008, -2/+4Bill oreilly is that you?
As for shutting up whiny liberals, I guess you want to roll back to the good ole days when women and blacks couldn't vote. When black people couldn't even use the same bus as white folk. Cause getting those issues fixed was a result of whiney liberals taking a stand.
- sodade, on 04/14/2008, -2/+5FTA: "The United States has already lost the leadership it had in solar photovoltaics and wind, thanks to deep budget cuts by President Reagan and the Newt Gingrich-led Congress. By 2010, China will be the top manufacturer of photovoltaic cells and wind turbines. Must we also abandon our historical leadership in CSP to conservative doctrine? Other countries, particularly Spain but also Israel and Australia, are poised to be dominant. And China, which has already begun importing coal and pursuing CSP projects, will not be far behind. CSP could well be one of the major job-creating industries of the century."
- AbsurdParadox, on 04/14/2008, -7/+19What ever happened to nuclear power?
- sodade, on 04/14/2008, -2/+6What ever happened to reading the article before spouting off?
- AbsurdParadox, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2What the hell makes you think I didn't read the article, based on my question?
- sodade, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1Quoting myself from above:
If you had read the article, you'd know that they can bring these sun plants online far quicker for far cheaper (thank nuke plants). If you believe the article, they are predicting that the KWH costs will drop below nuke plants.- AbsurdParadox, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3I read that single reference to Nuclear power, as well. That, however, doesn't have anything to do with my question.
- sodade, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1Quoting myself from above:
- AbsurdParadox, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2What the hell makes you think I didn't read the article, based on my question?
- Chaoticfist, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Nuclear Waste and NIMBY
- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2Nuclear was forced under when oil got cheap again and the NIMBY people got high and mighty. The same type of people are against allowing you to put solar panels on your roof, or wind turbines in your backyard. I'm assuming you are in the united states, it will be a good while until more are built. Some other countries are further ahead, France is a veritable haven of nuclear power now.
- sodade, on 04/14/2008, -2/+6What ever happened to reading the article before spouting off?
- KillaJazzBass, on 04/14/2008, -1/+38On Digg, there is a world saving technology every Monday.
- tetfsu, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1and Tuesday, and Wed....
- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1And it is usually debunked by the time I get home from class, Tuesday morning if the realists are feeling too lazy to educate the forum.
- satanatnmtedu, on 04/14/2008, -3/+21Everything IS powered by the sun. Where did crude oil come from? It is concentrated organic matter.
- Duositex, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2Where did the sun's energy come from?
- Mercedes383, on 04/14/2008, -1/+7Hamsters in wheels.
- Corvidae, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2The hamsters get all the credit, but it's really the guinea pigs in the back doing all the work.
- hayzeus, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4Jesus?
- hayzeus, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4Fine -- digg me down bitches, but know that you're choosing hamsters over Jesus.
- xptoast, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1God more but.... yea. God=Jesus+Father+Holy Spirit.
Similar to your soul not doing your homework because its not all of who you are. Mind, body and soul you know?
- bullcutter, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3Chuck Norris.
- nycmac247, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1Is this an elaborate "who farted!?!??!" joke?
- Mercedes383, on 04/14/2008, -1/+7Hamsters in wheels.
- hackiavelli, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3Geothermal? Nuclear?
- steeeeve, on 04/14/2008, -1/+0Both powered by ancient suns, that went supernova and made big radioactive atoms like uranium in the process.
- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1*****, suns are at the bottom of every food chain.
- bullcutter, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2energy directly from the sun still _should_ be more easily transferrable than coal and oil plants, not to mention much less smokey and grimey.
- Duositex, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2Where did the sun's energy come from?
- Chickenzness, on 04/14/2008, -5/+8The Sun's power level is OVER NINE THOUSAND!
- Duositex, on 04/14/2008, -12/+5This energy is not "free" and has the potential to cause just as many unintended effects on the climate as any other energy source. When hundreds of thousands of megawatts of energy are no longer absorbed in the natural manner and are instead transferred into the environment in other ways, there _*will*_ be an effect. This is not a silver bullet to the energy problem. There isn't one.
- blantonator, on 04/14/2008, -0/+8Even if all our energy was derived from the solar(sun), it would be only a tiny fraction of what hit's the earth everyday. This impact would be negligible compared to anything else we're doing today.
- Thousand, on 04/14/2008, -1/+7Except the side effect of this is...cold sand, as opposed to...hot sand? I'm having difficulty seeing the negative here.
- permadank, on 04/14/2008, -10/+4The problem with these is that they only work when the SUN is SHINING. The engineers can work around this by heating up liquid salts during the day and storing them, to be released in the dark hours to drive steam powered generators. One problem is if the sun is not out, your screwed. While this may be ok to offset power needs normally, a few days without strong sunlight makes for a big problem when you base your entire power infrastructure around this tech.
- WasabiBomb, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4There are areas in the desert that have sun for, well, most of the year. We already wire electricity from other states, so producing the electricity in one area and using it in others isn't exactly rocket surgery.
- doctechnical, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3Great, who's in charge of wiping the sand off the solar arrays?
Screw terrestrial solar, what we need is orbital solar! The good stuff before it gets filtered by the atmosphere. An array of huge solar satellites beaming the juice back to the planet, that's the ticket. And a great endeavor for getting a real space program back on line.- WasabiBomb, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2And then someday, some lowly technician is going to get bored and will decide to write his name on Los Angeles.
- doctechnical, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1It's not terribly difficult to build in failsafes, closed-loop systems that will shut down the beam if it goes off kilter. You can burn yourself with fire, too, let's not mess with that.
- Corvidae, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Exactly WasabiBomb. Orbital solar is a great idea, until towns start getting microwaved by hackers, terrorists or ***** presidents. The technology is safe, it's the monkeys using it that worry me.
- RobotBuddha, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Tiny automated motor and wiper that triggers every 12 hours or so might do it without a significant power drain. On the other hand, my never having been into the desert might be showing now.
- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Orbital solar has plenty of problems to overcome, such as a ridiculously low conversion rate on one end of the transmission. Also, astronomical (no pun intended) costs involved with launching such large packages into geostationary orbit.
The atmosphere actually makes the sunlight a little better for solar panels, spreading the energy more evenly over the spectrum.- Corvidae, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Actually the atmosphere blocks out most of the solar spectrum. (Fortunately for us living breathing types). Orbital solar panels can take advantage of all the wave lengths above and below visible that the sun puts out. The microwaves from the sun could just be bounced off a big dish and added to the beam heading down.
- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Some spectrum is absorbed by the atmosphere that we don't like, such as a good deal of the UV range, but that energy is redistributed in the lower end of the spectrum like the visible. This newly distributed energy can be better absorbed by solar panels.
I don't believe the sun gives off a great deal of energy in the microwave band, but if you've got evidence I'd like to see it. The earthbound antenna for the microwaves would be tuned to a very specific band of microwave, so just bouncing all microwaves down wouldn't do much good. - Corvidae, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1The sun broadcasts across the entire microwave and xray spectrum above and below visible light. For one thing, that's why directTV goes out for a few minutes twice a year. The sun lines up with the satellites and drowns out the signal. The majority of the energy is centered around the visible 500nm band, however even the gamma frequencies have a useful amount of energy if it can be harnessed.
There's also no need to tune a power receiver very well as long as it can absorb the incoming frequencies, it can convert them to heat for producing power. It's more efficient than trying to use specific frequencies similar to a photovoltaic.
- WasabiBomb, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2And then someday, some lowly technician is going to get bored and will decide to write his name on Los Angeles.
- Hananda, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1Except that we would need facilities covering hundreds of square miles of desert to get the sort of even power distribution to maintain base load.
- doctechnical, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3Great, who's in charge of wiping the sand off the solar arrays?
- Stevo23, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Also, you may not be aware of this, but the earth is round, and it rotates, so there's always sun shining somewhere.
- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1That sounds nice, but doesn't help me unless we have an efficient global energy grid. It doesn't help me if the sun is shining beautifully in the Gobi desert when I'm here on a cold Canadian night.
- brown2hm, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2The main problem with big solar technology is that to guarantee the plant gets lots of sun, it has to be in a remote location. Because of that you're going to lose roughly 50-70% of the power due to transmission loses. (Yes, power lines are ridiculously inefficient)
- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Umm, or you could build a more efficient transmission line suited to such long range delivery. I'm not saying it is cheap, but solar farms in the desert aren't relegated to such high transmission loses.
- zeebo, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Great, how do we do that? This isn't a problem solely of cost.
- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1HVDC, for starters. A well developed technology, used in Canada to bring power down from the big hydro dams to the cities. I'm sure there are other options, or just other variations on HVDC, but the technology is there and has been well tested.
- zeebo, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Great, how do we do that? This isn't a problem solely of cost.
- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Umm, or you could build a more efficient transmission line suited to such long range delivery. I'm not saying it is cheap, but solar farms in the desert aren't relegated to such high transmission loses.
- WasabiBomb, on 04/14/2008, -1/+4There are areas in the desert that have sun for, well, most of the year. We already wire electricity from other states, so producing the electricity in one area and using it in others isn't exactly rocket surgery.
- BikerDude69, on 04/14/2008, -4/+12Solar AND HEMP! Hemp for FUEL! hemp for FOOD! Hemp for PLASTIC! Hemp for CLOTH!
Hemp and solar CAN save the Earth and Humanity, but they are almost free, not much money to stuff the fact cats' pockets, so we may never see it.- rlh1, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4If hemp is so good, why aren't the countries that legally grow hemp self sufficient in fuel ???
- xptoast, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Technology
- nycmac247, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Hemp is OK but harvesting it takes energy. You going to run all that massive amount of farm equipment on water?
- steeeeve, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Hemp as fuel is a biofuel with all the problems that biofuels, that are not made from waste, cause
- rlh1, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4If hemp is so good, why aren't the countries that legally grow hemp self sufficient in fuel ???
- 9bpm9, on 04/14/2008, -8/+1False, hydrogen would be more efficient on so many levels.
- WasabiBomb, on 04/14/2008, -0/+9Okay... so how do you produce the hydrogen?
Hydrogen is NOT a powersource. The best way to think of hydrogen is that it's a fairly efficient battery, a way to store energy. It still takes energy to produce the hydrogen in the first place. - hayzeus, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2Solar power IS hydrogen power. Happy now?
- WasabiBomb, on 04/14/2008, -0/+9Okay... so how do you produce the hydrogen?
- sodade, on 04/14/2008, -0/+13FTA: "From 2002 to 2007, fossil fuels received almost $14 billion in electricity-related tax subsides, whereas renewables received under $3 billion."
Why do we give out this corporate welfare crap to companies who are still relying on fossil fuels? The REAL costs of fossil fuels are being payed by the American consumer in the form of taxes to pay for the disasterous foreign policies of the last 60 years.- 9bpm9, on 04/14/2008, -0/+11Because every person in congress is getting "legal bribes" from all of the fossil fuel companies.
- serif69, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2Probably because there are more companies in fossil fuels than in renewables? Christ, $3 billion is probably more than double the percentage per company than fossil fuels.
- sodade, on 04/14/2008, -0/+3Why do they get a ***** cent? They are making profits off of old tech that is very problematic without paying for the REAL cost of the problems they create.
- liquidmetalband, on 04/14/2008, -4/+1I'd say water energy is already available, as is very cheap solar.
- doctechnical, on 04/14/2008, -2/+3Damns have environmental impact, too.
- Corvidae, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Submersed turbines are looking pretty good though, as are a few wave generators. And of course wind blows day and night on every coast.
- doctechnical, on 04/14/2008, -2/+3Damns have environmental impact, too.
- AmonAmarth, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4There was a much better article about solar balloons not too long ago.
But besides that, I'm pretty worried about global warming personally. I mean, there's all kinds of ***** published about climate changes and whatnot, it's hard not to be a little scared about it. Plus, at the end of the day, would you really rather have oil, which obviously, clearly puts ***** in the air, vs. solar energy, which is 100% clean? I mean, what really makes more sense? Which air would you rather be breathing?- arkitect, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Solar right now is far from clean. All sorts of toxic chemicals are used to make the panels. Not to mention all of the energy required to make them.
- steeeeve, on 04/14/2008, -0/+0Making mirrors can be quite environment friendly. Silicone crystals are another story, but i think in the long run (they live almost forever) they should be better than the usual sources.
- arkitect, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Solar right now is far from clean. All sorts of toxic chemicals are used to make the panels. Not to mention all of the energy required to make them.
- donores, on 04/14/2008, -4/+9Burried because nothing can save humanity.
- AmandaZampieri, on 04/14/2008, -1/+0It reminds me Mafalda (a Quino's character)...
- noahhoward, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1Not true, we can stop global warming, we just need a device capable of stopping the universe in its tracks.
- bullcutter, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1how emo.
- nycmac247, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1leave him alone, this is how they masturbate (too lazy to actually do it physically)
- AmandaZampieri, on 04/14/2008, -1/+0It reminds me Mafalda (a Quino's character)...
- hookai, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Nah, we simply just can't rely on an energy source that will only last for few hundred million generations of our species. Our evolution would be in peril.
- diggjcarp, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1From the article: "If we are smart, the United States can be the economic leader here. We can accelerate the deployment of a technology that may be critical to saving humanity from a ruined climate."
Unfortunately, we showed the world that we are not so bright, as proven by who we elected in the last presidential election. - omegaredIX, on 04/14/2008, -0/+9In Tuscon, Arizona the power company in the region pays people to have solar panels installed on their homes. Why do they do this? The Solar panels generate constant electricity and in return actually help power the power plant. The government needs to provide massive tax incentive to people who want to install solar panels in their homes, especially in the desert southwest where we get more sun than anywhere else in the United States. I do not see why the US government will not make Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and some of Southern California into a giant Solar Grid that powers the entire nation. Nuclear, Solar, and Wind is the future. Solar panels and solar stations can power Magleve(magnet powered trains) and huzzah transportation problem solved. Zero emissions from magnet trains and solar panels.
- darmacc, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2lobbyists
- omegaredIX, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2Word.
- serif69, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2Why does the government need to when the power company already does? Business is business, and if it's cheaper for the power company to pay individuals to install solar panels than it is for them to generate power by other means (which it is), they're going to do it. Let the market decide.
- darmacc, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2lobbyists
- wigginz, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5Taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture, in order for us to reach a type 2 civilization, we need to be able to harness the energy of our star. It only makes sense that solar energy is the way for us to advance. With an energy source so abundant, there's very few limits that we won't be able to push. Just ask a physicist what kind of experiments they could perform if they had the ability to use the energy the sun can produce.
- Hananda, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2A type 2 civilization? If we're going to think at that timescale, we may as well start making plans to evacuate the planet now. After all, there's a star about seven light years out that could go supernova within a a few tens of millions of years.
- steeeeve, on 04/14/2008, -1/+0Which one?
- wigginz, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Heheh, I'm just saying that it's on our to do list, we might as well get it over with now.
- Hananda, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2A type 2 civilization? If we're going to think at that timescale, we may as well start making plans to evacuate the planet now. After all, there's a star about seven light years out that could go supernova within a a few tens of millions of years.
- Senturion, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1This sounds great and all but what about its viability in northern countries with less sunlight and colder temperatures like Canada and many parts of northern Europe?
- Stevo23, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2It's being used in Spain already, and it's gotta be cheaper to transmit electricity over power lines than it is to ship oil in tankers.
- steeeeve, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1That is the second problem to be solved. Huge DC powerlines will probably have to be built.
- xptoast, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1Maybe focused microwave trasmissions would be a way to fix this problem. Aim and transmit:)
I mean if they are in the desert there is not much to be screwed with.
- xptoast, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1Maybe focused microwave trasmissions would be a way to fix this problem. Aim and transmit:)
- karolisonline, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2ok, so now that Your are building big solar plant, You think you will save humanity? because in europe big sollar plants and wind turbines have been built for a very long long time... this isn't something special..
- Ne007, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2wait right there! This makes too much sense. Dugg down.
- bincoder, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1Big solar == Big electric bill. Some nuke, some hydro, and some solar would be doable, but for cheapness and reliability laws should be changed (death to HOAs and zoning) to allow for the backyard tinker to setup their own micro solar plant. Reduce dependence on the grid and avoid those little problems where a transformer shorts out and the power flow stops over several states. I hate that. Especially when its 114 degrees out and the ac shuts off until they track down and remove the dead bird or whatever popped the grid.
- steeeeve, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Solar panels are constantly falling in price, so a roofplant that makes sense is not that far away
- jphamlore2, on 04/14/2008, -0/+0When I search for "China concentrated solar", I get this link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS13 ...
Observe that GE Power is one of the companies mentioned.
Also look at the history of concentrated solar power in that article. - joeanon, on 04/14/2008, -5/+2thin film solar...so far has limited potential on the world stage.
There is likely not enough of iridium to make the level of change we seek. Plus the longevity of the cells is a major question and the ability of them to be recycled.
NOPE
Nuclear is for people who don't read up on the latest energy trends.
Nanosolar and other thin film solar.. are a big deal, but there is a MUCH better and older solution which is already known to work and can be produced on a national scale.
Solar energy comes in many forms. For instance biofuel. Bio fuels grown on non crop land and from waste agricultural materials can easily replace the current gasoline economy.
If we start now we can be the worlds new fuel provider, easily surpasing ANY and all long term output from oil.
Oil too is really solar power since it's mostly plant waste from millions of years ago, but the process to make it simply takes too long and too much energy.
I find it funny people think we are really in a downward energy crisis. We are facing an energy transition, which we didn't plan for well, and that causes energy spikes.
The ultimate result will be lower energy prices than ever and likely places North America as one of the key fuel providers for a long time to come.
Nuclear is a dirty solution compared to properly managed biofuels.
They've created a diesel fuel cell as well, eliminating most of the pollution advantages of thin film solar to battery transport.
Diesel, unlike batteries does not lose charge over time, so it's a much better solution as long as you can produce a cost effective fuel cell.
Even if you can't biofuel would provide the transition to an all electric infrastructure without major economy downfall.
Just think about it. Who is likely the most efficient designer of solar power conversion.
Today's immature technology, or mother nature.
The only real limitations are that of fertilizer, land and water.... and good management of course.
I used to think thin film solar was the savior, but I can see it's only a small solution compared to properly managed biofuel production.- Stevo23, on 04/14/2008, -1/+2God, RTFA! This isn't about "thin film solar" at all, but rather thermal solar, which uses mirrors to heat water/drive steam turbines. You wrote a long, terribly formatted rant for nothing. I hate you.
- steeeeve, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1You read the news lately? Biofuels are among the ecologically worst options. Additionally they cause food prices to rise, which already causes political instability.
- MatthewKulp, on 04/14/2008, -1/+0The problem with thinking about solar is that so often people advocate for SOLAR POWER PLANTS. It a retarded solution. Why support something a company will charge you a monthly fee for? Bring solar to the real estate that is your roof. Commercial markets are the way to go. No, monthly fee and when in combination with plug-in cars, becomes an CO2 emission free house hold.
Its possible now the goods and services are available. Do it if you can, its mutually beneficial. - milkmit, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2I don't know why it is, but boiling water to turn turbines that create electricity seems so...quaint to me. Sorta in the same way that burning tons and tons of fuel to propel a rocket into orbit or space seems so primitive.
When will we discover a more direct, less-wasteful way to create and use energy?
Also, I wonder if salt water could be used for these turbines, and the pure water steam that is created from the heating be sent off and used as a fresh water supply? Might take more energy than it would otherwise take to create energy and desalinate water, but combining the two processes -- if possible -- seems like it might be useful.- Stevo23, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1"When will we discover a more direct, less-wasteful way to create and use energy?" This is pretty direct, water has a very high heat capacity and is one of the best ways to capture solar energy. You'll get way more power this way than you will from photovoltaic cells.
- benbfree, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Salt water would destroy the turbines I believe.
- xptoast, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1The water would not be passed over the turbines. The steam passes over the turbines and leaves the salt behind.
- steeeeve, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Actually that is part of it. Salt water becomes steam, steam drives the turbine and cools down to be freshwater.
- xptoast, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Desalinate water and get power. Nice idea. The salt water would take on more heat as it would be not able to turn into steam as easy. This would not be a problem anyways because it would be pressurized but yea its a neat idea. Thanks:)
- seldon21, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1(sarcasm)Why does god hate us. We need more oil! He must know of a better technology..... Shouldn't we see more oil popping up in places all the time. The fact that we are only 6000 years old.(/sarcasm)
This isn't new, it has been around for sometime, watch the Science Channel they have been talking about this technology for a long time. Also someone should read or reread the story of Entropy by Asimov. Where is that technology? - beauley, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2In the News as one possible answer to Global Warming. Please Digg it. Thank you.
Billions of years supplying the Earth's needs...
http://www.quazen.com/Science/Technology/Solar-Pow ...
Solar Power, Source of Endless Energy - powerfullogic, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1coal power!
- jpstanle, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1This would be great if bulldozing the 8500 square miles of land (about the size of New Hampshire) necessary to generate power for the US qualified as a "simple short term solution."
- nastronomical, on 04/14/2008, -2/+1The people who believe this are overly emotional, have art degree's, a product of the america public education system, those who lack the ability to do logical/rational thinking based on analysis of data and information readily available,
- chbae87, on 04/14/2008, -0/+0It's funny that I found this article just after submitting my group's final report on the feasibility of solar energy for the new hospital in MI. I see and understand the logic that this article and some related articles linked, but I feel like the article's focusing too much on solar energy, only. Though solar energy is one of the great potential renewable energy sources, it should be noted that the average solar flux, which is crucial in solar energy generation, varies across the continent.
So... I think what must be stressed is the construction of energy transferring infrastructure, which can promote the further utilization of renewable energies and be used for solar and wind energies as noted in the article. - WudWar, on 04/14/2008, -2/+0What happens at night when the sun isn't shining on the mirrors. I think thats the reason this never became popular before. Also the reason it can never be used for powering the entire world .
- Wilsomatic, on 04/14/2008, -1/+1Xenu and Scientology know how to save humanity.
- climateHeretic, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1This is a great system except for the pesky fossil fuel supplementary heater that is required. It is a step in the right direction it is not the answer. Plus is a regional solution at best. Well unless you do not mind having a foreign nation holding the switch to all the power in your country like in "The Grand Solar Plan" advocated by Al Gore. If you are comfortable with all that, have at it.
- nick111, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2Woah - get a load of all the snearing.
Sorry anti-environments. You've made a good job of ***** in your own nest, but the rest of the world is moving on without you.
Personally I don't think the way out is "big solar" though - it's a mixture of decentralised hybrids - increasingly solar as the technology improves, met the other way by radically increased efficiency of the appliances being powered - what Amory Lovens refers to as Negawatts.
Big power-stations will be built of course - but the twin drives of efficiency and independence will be as unstoppable as rechargeable batteries on cell-phones.
And this will probably be driven by Europe and the far-east because America is too brainwashed into "believing" in monolythic private interests being "right" to have the political will to do it... notwithstanding, many of the big plants will be based in the US because not all Americans are as stupid as the people making their comments here, and there is a lot more space (and concentrated wealth) in the US to set big plants up.
But centralised energy generation for de-centralised appliances is non-optimal. - WhistlinTom, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1why can't the internets be a source of power? We're making huge amounts of data per day. Moreso than needed. Can we harness data as a source of power? I'm half joking, can we?
- Genghis1, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2solution to global warming: Replace all coal power plants with nuclear. It is now safe and 60% of the waste is now able to be reused to make more fuel. The rest gets buried. Do this for the next 50 - 75 years and continue to
develop other renewables, eventually moving to all solar or fusion. Make all cars electric or hybrids. - Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1The article lacks much in depth and is fantastically optimistic about solar thermal. No evidence is provided to suggest that costs will drop as rapidly as they suggest. A construction time of 2-3 years is no faster than the construction of a nuclear plant, nor would a cost of 10 cents/kwh undercut nuclear. 'A few hours' of heat storage doesn't keep the grid powered at night.
The article even admits that large government subsidies would be required to stimulate construction, also a government mandate to force a minimum percentage of energy be generated this way.
These are only a few of the holes in this article, but it does raise some valid points, such as the huge potential growth due to the abundance of the materials required for construction. The article is very hazy on 'required electrical transmission', which is a major hurdle to a giant solar farm in Nevada. A very expensive high voltage DC line system would be required to shuttle the energy to the places it is needed, such as the eastern seaboard. I'm not sure where they get their value of 70 billion government dollars for nuclear energy R&D, but I can see that including the cost of developing nuclear weapons technologies. The nuclear technologies used in the US are antiquated and developed by a weapons program, not for civilian power production. Once through fuel, light water reactors are not an optimal design.
PS. I can kill you with my mind.
Summer Glau - salazarmark, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Help save humanity? How about all you digger losers get out and actually do something productive to save the environment. What a bunch of morons.
- Deathrah, on 04/15/2008, -0/+0Petition text:
We, the undersigned, call on the Governments of the world to use some common sense when distributing Energy subsidies.
Why must the taxpayer subsidise the largest cause of man-made Global Warming(Fossil Fuel electricity generation) whilst alternative energy solutions such as Solar Thermal are forced to struggle?
Why must the consumer be asked to pay extra for "Green" Energy when his/her taxes are subsidising the very antithesis?
We, the undersigned, are not impressed with such hypocrisy.
http://www.gopetition.com/online/17583/sign.html
*pass it on!*
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is