What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
242 Comments
- chililili, on 04/14/2008, -20/+65I got two words for you: Nuclear power
- inactive, on 04/14/2008, -1/+38On Digg, there is a world saving technology every Monday.
- 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, -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. - 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.
- satanatnmtedu, on 04/14/2008, -3/+21Everything IS powered by the sun. Where did crude oil come from? It is concentrated organic matter.
- 380ppm, on 04/14/2008, -4/+20until the sun goes out....
- inactive, 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.. - Kireblade, on 04/14/2008, -10/+23Yeah, but those damn scientists keep on getting in the way with their pesky studies and facts.
- 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. - 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. - Harabeck, on 04/14/2008, -1/+13In 5 billion years.
- AbsurdParadox, on 04/14/2008, -7/+19What ever happened to nuclear power?
- 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... - 9bpm9, on 04/14/2008, -0/+11Because every person in congress is getting "legal bribes" from all of the fossil fuel companies.
- 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.
- 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. - 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.
- 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.
- inactive, 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. - 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. - 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.
- 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.
- shreas, on 04/14/2008, -0/+7We'll be long gone by that time.
- Chompy, on 04/14/2008, -1/+8"I'd prefer other options with no downsides."
Yeah let us know when you find that one. - trogdor282, on 04/14/2008, -1/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_a ...
- 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. - Mercedes383, on 04/14/2008, -1/+7Hamsters in wheels.
- 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.
- 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 - donores, on 04/14/2008, -4/+9Burried because nothing can save humanity.
- inactive, on 04/14/2008, -1/+6can we put the waste in your back yard - you know, by your water table?
- foofightrs777, on 04/14/2008, -6/+11I have two more: radioactive waste
- xXShadowstormXx, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4But that's not forever, Bert.
- vikingboy, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5nucular power... its pronounced nucular power
- 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.
- sodade, on 04/14/2008, -2/+6What ever happened to reading the article before spouting off?
- 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? - KnightWhoSaysNi, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4"I'd prefer other options with no downsides"
Yes, and I like turtles. - 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.
- cubicledrone, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4This country will never build anything of consequence again. Happy now?
- hayzeus, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4Again, consider reading the article. You did not use this type of power in your bass boat. I know you claimed that it was a sailboat, but I'm going with "bass boat."
You lived on a bass boat for years and never read articles properly. So there. - rlh1, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4If hemp is so good, why aren't the countries that legally grow hemp self sufficient in fuel ???
- doctechnical, on 04/14/2008, -1/+5"Dependable"? You obviously don't live where I live.
- 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.
- hayzeus, on 04/14/2008, -0/+4Fine -- digg me down bitches, but know that you're choosing hamsters over Jesus.
- Chickenzness, on 04/14/2008, -5/+8The Sun's power level is OVER NINE THOUSAND!
- 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. - 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.
- exronin, on 04/14/2008, -4/+7'Real scientists' that aren't paid by the GOP.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 243 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is