digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at salon.com —

Why We Never Need to Build Another Polluting Power Plant

salon.com — America is the Saudi Arabia of energy waste. A 2007 report found that improving energy efficiency in buildings, appliances and factories could offset almost all of the projected demand for electricity in 2030 and largely negate the need for new coal-fired power plants. The cost of the efficient equipment would pay for itself in energy savings.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Xenth, on 07/28/2008, -15/+12Funny how they're promoting the same California which just went through an energy crisis.
    • Berkana, on 07/28/2008, -5/+25The energy crisis in California was engineered by Enron for their profit's sake:

      Olbermann on the Enron Loophole
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdRbuUQNcxw
      • insanebrain, on 07/28/2008, -9/+2a crisis is a crisis, no matter the reason.
      • ulmedas, on 07/28/2008, -1/+5@Insaebrain- That sort of logic, examining a particular state of affairs without regard to cause whatsoever, is why our country is doing as well as it is.
    • ulmedas, on 07/28/2008, -2/+11The 'energy crisis' of several years ago (and others like it) is why California has these conservation measures in place. Energy shortages do not detract from the good that came of them.
    • Nubli, on 07/28/2008, -2/+2Not having an energy crises currently nor have had one for a while now. Our main problem right now is water.
    • unclefire, on 07/28/2008, -2/+1Xenth, you're mixing apples and oranges. The energy crisis was due to a number of issues- de-regulation of the energy industry for one. the fact that they're more efficient in Cali has nothing to do with the supply of energy. They addressed the demand side of energy usage.
  • phreak79, on 07/28/2008, -12/+6Wasn't California recently outed as using more energy than China too?
  • DeskFlyer, on 07/28/2008, -3/+24Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's a refinery pictured there, not a power plant.
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 07/28/2008, -0/+4They're refining fuel into powerful electrons to be poured into the power grid.
    • dajuggernaut, on 07/28/2008, -0/+9who cares... there are flowers coming out of it, it must be good for the environment!
  • db0255, on 07/28/2008, -11/+6
    • norman619, on 07/28/2008, -3/+15LOL!!! France and other countries are proof that it actually is. Something like 70% of France's power is from nuclear.
      • nick111, on 07/28/2008, -2/+1And they're having accidents

        http://www.euronews.net/en/article/24/07/2008/fran ...

        And things are ***** up in the UK

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/may/29/bri ...

        And the cost of dealing with UK waste is about the same as the cost of the entire Apollo moon landing - every British tax payer pays about 100 GBP (that's sterling, not $) per year for Sellafield alone. EACH.

        Pro nuke people are gulliable - they can't (surely) be liars, because I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would actually lie so someone else can get rich controlling the energy supply again.
    • stix213, on 07/28/2008, -2/+5It is the least expensive per kilowatt of all power plants by a huge margin, releases zero pollution into the air, and has never caused a civilian death in the US compared to dozens each year in the oil and coal industries. Not to mention the US has plenty of nuclear fuel just waiting to be used.

      Is it really that bad??? And don't bring up that same tired 30 year old 3 mile island incident, which didn't even injure anyone.
  • chrissku, on 07/28/2008, -4/+17Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
  • Memnochxx, on 07/28/2008, -4/+41"Saudi Arabia" of energy waste? What does that even mean?
    • brummers, on 07/28/2008, -2/+7Exactly. I was going to read the article, but when the first sentence makes no sense, why bother?
    • gamebittk, on 07/28/2008, -1/+7I think he meant Canada.
    • T440, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1Was gonna ask the same thing.

      And that sentence is 3 paragraphs down. Although the first two paragraphs are just as stupid.
    • DuffyDirect, on 07/28/2008, -0/+9Seriously, what DOES it mean by that?
    • saranagati, on 07/28/2008, -0/+8Salon.com is the New York Times of bad journalism.
    • johnsna2, on 07/28/2008, -3/+13Saudi Arabia is the largest supplier of fossil fuel energy in the world. What the sentence means is we are the largest waster of energy in the world. The article is actually very insightful, instead of wanting more energy, more oil, more coal etc. we should be trying to use what we have more efficiently. Thats what the automobile industry is trying to do, make more efficient cars. Its silly to think that the same concept shouldn't be applied to other sources of energy consumption.
      • any1particular, on 07/28/2008, -1/+7Thank you for saying something intelligent! BRAVO!!!
      • unclefire, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1Yeah, really.

        I got it. Why can't you other brainiacs get it?
  • ReeferChiefer42, on 07/28/2008, -8/+3We must stop Manbearpig, no one is safe until we do!
  • galvo, on 07/28/2008, -2/+2Power plant =/= refinery.
  • supremebeing18, on 07/28/2008, -0/+24I thought Saudi Arabia was the Saudi Arabia of energy waste.
  • neutrino2063, on 07/28/2008, -7/+4I'm still running my A/C full blast to keep a comfy 65 degrees despites 90s outside. Also during the winter I'm lucky enough to have heat going almost 24/7 despite no thermostat in my apartment... thus the window is a good make-shift thermostat. I guess they didn't care about energy efficiency in the 1950's, when they built the place.
    • ulmedas, on 07/28/2008, -0/+5My first two apartments in New York included heat. By that they meant that you would be blasted out of you home by the too hot to touch steam radiators and pipe, generated by a giant boiler that is more than likely thirty or forty years old (I am willing to bet that the boilers were/are not terribly efficient either.) We just kept all of our windows open all winter long in order to survive...

      New York could learn a lot from California in terms of energy conservation...
  • Ihatehillary, on 07/28/2008, -10/+2You must bow down to the Goracle!!!!!

    Do as he says, not as he does!!!!!
  • Mr.Gone, on 07/28/2008, -7/+19I hear that burning just one christian releases enough energy to toast 100 pop-tarts. Just saying.
  • lilmentor, on 07/28/2008, -14/+8
    • insanebrain, on 07/28/2008, -3/+5strange. . a few articles ago they died of something else.
    • theOster, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2funny, two of *my* friends died when they started a sentence with "two of my friends died...".

      because i stabbed them.
  • liuite, on 07/28/2008, -2/+6here is what i see around me today;
    A/C cools the air in the house and the cloth dryer heats it back up and pump it out of the house.
    I baked a pizza and the oven heat up the kitchen which required the A/C to work harder.
    the water heater heats the water, i use the water once and the heat/water goes down the drain.
    my condo was "rehabbed" 10 years ago but no insulation was added so it is not energy efficient.
    i step on the brake to slow the car down; the inertia is converted to friction.
    the heat (energy) from the exhaust, engine and transmission is dissipated into the thin air.
    i draw the blinds closed to block out light and heat instead of converting that to energy i can use.
  • stix213, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2My knee-jerk reaction to the headline was to complain that everyone I know already does save electricity when possible, and the utilities here seem to do a good job too, so shut the hell up....

    But I live in California, so I guess that was all true - I should read articles before making snap judgments :)
  • nastronomical, on 07/28/2008, -6/+3*****
  • defwheezer, on 07/28/2008, -3/+6But the Dark Lord Cheney has ordained that conservation is "UnAmerican", hence we bow and obey.
    • eth3l, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2And the Evil Sith Lord Gore ignores Nuclear and wants to roll-back our standard of living. So you point your finger and agree with fist raised.
      • defwheezer, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1And the evil minions of the Borg We Call Corporate America push Nuclear, Coal and Oil while the Sheeple slurp and mew. Maybe it's time to go renewable and kick the dirty old habit of fossil fuels.
      • defwheezer, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2btw, your dirty subsidized 'standard of living' denies that same 'standard' to much of the rest of the world.
      • eth3l, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1IDKWTM.
  • Barackalypse, on 07/28/2008, -7/+6I'll take more conventional power plants over energy savings through more government regulation anyday. ***** the government if it thinks it can dictate what color I can paint the roof on my building or what percentage of my parking lot lights illuminate the sky.
    • ulmedas, on 07/28/2008, -2/+4It's the people whom you are ***** over that are asking to government to regulate you. If you want to live in an anarchical state where you do what you want while answering to only your closest neighbors and the rest of the world be damned, you better vote libertarian.
      As long as you live in a semi-functional republic, your neighbors can implore the government to stop you from making energy more expensive for them. Because you can afford to waste it and throw money away, doesn't mean that everyone else can.
    • unclefire, on 07/28/2008, -5/+0Why? If a smart business (or consumer) can save THEIR OWN money by following some best practices, why not do it?

      And how do you (along with people who think like you) get to decide to waste energy that eventually make ME have to pay extra to support new power plants (brought on by behaviors like yours).

      The stuff in the article were not that big of a deal. Dont' be such a douche.
  • chrisinsocalif, on 07/28/2008, -1/+5We need Cold Fusion, with 1.21 jigawatts of power, marty.
  • l300, on 07/28/2008, -6/+6
  • Stap1eGun, on 07/28/2008, -2/+5Is everyone missing the point here? With the exception of California, the US is so entrenched in the current energy scheme that politicians consider cost-effective energy savings ideas to be "poppycock".

    If the US were able to cut electricity use by 40% we would see a dramatic decrease in gas prices due to a smaller demand, and also a decrease in energy prices. It sickens me how the bureaucracy that is the US suffocates this type of progress.
    • eth3l, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2OR if the US started getting its electrical power from NUCLEAR we would stop strip mining Coal and use more environmentally friendly power. Plus its cheap as hell.

      trouble is the Dems are getting ass-***** by Big-Coal so the Dems will never change their tune.
      • Stap1eGun, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2I agree nuclear would be a better solution, but that does not mean this is a bad idea. They are both steps towards a better, greener future.
    • JQP123, on 07/29/2008, -1/+1"If the US were able to cut electricity use by 40% we would see a dramatic decrease in gas prices due to a smaller demand..."

      Danger, danger, Will Robinson. Your perfect logic is based on a flawed assumption --- when prices change, demand does not remain fixed. When prices go down, consumption increases ... barring some sort of artifical government control ... which history suggests will never work over the long run.

      You've just run headlong into the "human element" that has frequently been the fly in the ointment of "progressive" thinkers like yourself. Historically, this line of reasoning can be traced back to Karl Marx who was equally self assured and thought he had figured it all out. And what he said made perfect sense ... except for a few flawed assumptions.

  • BHO4Prez, on 07/28/2008, -3/+101. Drill for more oil.
    2. Increase gas mileage of cars and trucks.
    3. Increase efficiency of household appliances and electronics.
    4. Use more rail for transporting goods.
    5. Use more wind, solar, hydro, bio-fuel, geothermal, and other renewables sources
    6. Build more nuclear power plants and reprocessing plants to deal with the waste.

    Energy problems solved!
    • eth3l, on 07/28/2008, -0/+7Totally agreed, dont know why someone dugg you down. You (and I by association) are 100% correct.
    • ulmedas, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2Those solutions are reasonable, but not always practical. Whereas, using energy efficient light bulbs that last ten times as long as normal bulbs while using 70-90% less electricity for the same output is both practical and reasonable.
      Each of the points you enumerated have detractors and supports, benefits and consequences. General conservation of energy is harder for people to argue against (in a reasonable manner that is).
  • h3smith, on 07/28/2008, -3/+3CA as an shining example? Did he forget rolling blackouts?
    • unclefire, on 07/28/2008, -3/+1Again, supply vs. demand. you're mixing apples and oranges.
  • drmangrum, on 07/28/2008, -2/+1You Don't Have To Capitalize Every Word In A Headline.

    Stopped reading after the author equated power plants to getting paid to pollute. They are being paid to generate power. Most people don't care how that power is created, only that their TV, refrigerator, and lights work. Pollution just happens to be a byproduct.

    Power plants aren't trying to produce pollution, there simply doesn't exist any VIABLE replacement at this time. Wind and Solar thermal are making headway, but it takes time to build them, and even time to replace them. Nuclear is the best option, but it has such a huge stigma associated with it, most of the ignorant public wont let them be built.

    In the end it comes down to economics. Coal plants won't be turned off and moved to other source until it's no longer efficient to run them. Coal is just too cheap, and the US has a ***** of it.
  • scuba7183, on 07/28/2008, -2/+1Alliteration.
  • eth3l, on 07/28/2008, -2/+6NUCLEAR!

    Duh.
  • unclefire, on 07/28/2008, -4/+1Why is it so many conservatives become retarded when "green subjects" come up. Employing best practice and "common sense" energy conservations has huge paybacks. It is good business sense as well to employ ideas to save energy in ANY company. Both of those items to me WOULD be in keeping with "conservative" thinking -- e.g. doing what is good for business AND finding new ways to roll-out products and jobs.

    • HtomSirveaux, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Actually, the main reason green has not been very big in the past is because it has long been deemed not cost-effective, of course the politician would like you to think otherwise. Believe me, if Wal-Mart thought they could save butt-loads of cash by setting up solar panels on the roofs of all of their big-box stores, they would have long ago. Sure there are some interests that would rather see bigger profit margins than they would green tech but the truth is that it is still rather expensive. "Green-fitting" structures built decades ago and special insulations or heat-exchange methods have only been recently perfected or come down in price.
    • unclefire, on 08/01/2008, -0/+0I agree with you to an extent. That's not what I'm getting at though. I'm SURE Walmart has put things in place to be more efficient (or green) -- including energy. That could mean lighting, more efficient distribution centers, optimizing supply chains, etc.

      And to your point-- well, of course if solar cells don't make good business sense, they won't do it. But when they do, I'd be willing to bet they would put them up there.

      Point is-- being green and doing what's good for business or your personal finance isn't mutually exclusive.

      My issue with conservatives is that "being green" has become sort of like poking an open wound. Everytime its brought up, they (some of them) just start foaming at the mouth.
  • Uncreation, on 07/28/2008, -1/+4Nebulous energy efficiency improvement ummm okay. The major load in residential is HVAC units (by far) this tracks directly with temperature and relative humidity. So that not going to change (don’t think programmable thermostats and higher efficiency heat pumps are going to get you there and solar is not even remotely economical).
    The big loads are related to industry. A typical manufacturing facility will run 30-60 MW per hour. I have news for you most of those guys have already picked the low hanging fruit. Most utilities have demand side management which gives the big loads (steel mills etc…) incentives to run their peak at a different time. This is peak management.
    I had some involvement in the DOE stuff this guy is talking about it was a load of crap. They pencil whipped the savings (like $1mm for putting in a steam trap). Look at the load profiles. They have not changed. Efficiency is going to be limited to (at best) 60% due to the inherent loss in changing the phase of liquid to steam (Carnot cycle folks…). Stop dreaming up all this *****. Nuclear is the answer if you care about carbon. If you don’t then supercritical coal fired is the answer (with SCR / baghouse etc…).
  • ch4os1337, on 07/28/2008, -2/+2Nuclear plants?
  • morepowerr, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Stuff like this makes me wont to run for governator of OH, Before we've buried every one in nuclear wast. Can we try forcing places like wal-mart,whirlpool and GM to use there roofs as solar farms. And throw in some tax breaks on new home built with things like Solar shingles,grid tie systems and GeoExchange heating and cooling systems.

    If you not to bussy stuffing you swiss bank account with oil money there George.
  • morepowerr, on 07/28/2008, -3/+1As for the lent all jump on the nuke band wagon. I have 1 word "Chernobyl" Do you really wont people building shoddy nuke planes in you back yard. And you know they will be shoddy because they will try to make them as cheaply as possible. At lest when a wind mill or solar cell is made shoddy, you don't have people dropping dead from fallout.

    Remember Finagle's Law
  • quiggibub, on 07/29/2008, -0/+3One thing that can happen is big box stores and large shopping centers could put solar panels on their rooftops to help offset the energy use for their airconditioning in the summer. It won't power them completely, but with the amount of roof space available, it would lower their demand from the grid quite a bit during the day when demand is at its peak.
    • HtomSirveaux, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1The maintenance costs of that many solar panels would greatly offset that of any saved energy. Not to mention there would need to be some way to protect from bad weather which would greatly add to the cost.
  • DestroyFascism, on 07/29/2008, -2/+1Which is why you have carbon trading credits.
  • timbuktu22, on 07/29/2008, -0/+0Yes! Finally someone sheds some light on the importance of efficiency and energy conservation. Too often our politicians focus on the sexier solutions like huge windfarms and large nuclear facilities, when the answer is much simpler. We just need to be more efficient, and the best way for our infrastructure to achieve this is not through huge, centralized system, but with smaller, diversified sources of energy. That's where efficiency can come from. See: Electric Power Plants - Size Matters.
  • techunderworld, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1California wants be able to remotely control your thermostat. Yea, that will work out well. They do not have their energy act together.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.