What is Digg?94 Comments
- DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -6/+63should we start with you?
- monolith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Current nukes provide something like 20% of the US power, hydro something like 10%. Lets go the rest of the way with nukes and dump the coal burners, we could do it now with ease.
- SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Perhaps our time would be better spent discussing plans to reduce energy usage that DON'T involve murdering billions of innocent people. Just a thought...
- techiedavid, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18Which half would you kill. When only about 10% of the world population use some like 90% of the resources. And yes the 10% are the developed countries. So killing off half the population if you did it in underdeveloped nations will do nothing in the overall use of oil and gas. So you have the target the developed countries - that is the answer to your question.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+161. Turn things off when you are not using them.
2. Drive a car, not a glorified truck ( SUVs, minivans, hummers )
3. Eat less meat
4. See how many other digg ditto heads made your sophmoric comment before posting it again - GottIstTot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10According to Ray Kurzweil "If we captured 1% of 1% of the sunlight on the earth we could get produce enough power for the entire world's population". I really like nuclear energy but solar is getting cheaper and cheaper every year. There have also been some amazing breakthroughs with organic solar cells and better silicon photovoltaic cells.
Vampire appliances notwithstanding, we still need more innovation in both energy generation and utilization.
Very interesting article, +digg. - theoallardyce, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15Well reducing population growth is probably slightly less genocidal and more realistic. We really need to start doing this now - the earth can only take so many people and space colonisation is still a way off, on top of that the most intelligent/civilised/earth-friendly people are the ones with the lowest birth-rates - everyone else are breading like rabbits.
- deltaechoromeo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Am I the only person who saw "IEA" and read "IKEA"?
- kp3469, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11um, does anyone else find this logical discussion of genocide a bit ... odd?
- friend18, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Solar and Wind power FTW!
- Crimsoneer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Solar and wind power really arent efficient at the moment to rely on them for more than 30% of our energy. Nuclear right now is the only viable option. I believe over 90% of France's energy is nuclear based. Another Chernobyl is practically impossible with decent levels of maintenance and care.
- iggee85, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Other renewable sources are geothermal power and tidal power.
- monolith, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11uhm aoeuhtns thats a pretty lame argument. Uranium and it's use in Nuclear power plants, especially in the light of the ability to recycle much of it again for power generation, will FAR outlast coal. It'll outlast coal by such a wide margin that your comment is the height of ridiculous.
- Ibox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Ive said it before, retrieve thwe dead birds tha get caught up in the wind mills and use them for producing methanol. its perfect.
- Panna, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7We currently have around 100 active plants in the US. That accounts for about 20% of our power. If we were to bump this up to 90% then we would need around 450 plants. That's less than 10 in each state. I think we can find at least 10 competent safety inspectors in each state, and probably more for redundancy.
- kp3469, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5i agree on your first point. but to dismiss global warming as the "GUESS of SOME of the world's scientists" is simply wrong. like many things scientific, global warming is a theory. but it is a theory that has an ever increasing body of sound evidence to support it. and it is supported by the VAST MAJORITY of scientists, not just SOME.
- aoeuhtns, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12uranium is a limited ressource. it wouldn't be wise to rely solely on it
- smartyhall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I have converted every light source in my apartment to fluorescent or compact fluorescent -- with the exception of a certain closet light that refuses to die. The place came with incandescent bulbs, and I've been switching as they blow. It has cut my electric bill by over $30.00 USD a month! (Now, if only I could find a way to use less power for my computers....)
- kp3469, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@scott1:
yep, you do need a lot of space for "wind farms". a great idea i've seen recently is putting them offshore, over the horizon line (that way they don't ruin the view from the beach). won't solve 100% of energy problems, but there is a LOT of ocean surface area that we ain't using right now ...
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/11/norways_hydro_d.php - Zenithan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+41721, I can agree with you on the heat pollution, but that is easily regulated. As for the toxic waste, the amount of that produced in a year GLOBALLY isn't even enough to fill one (albeit large) building. The real problem is that corporations have no regard for how they store this waste... meaning we need to work on enforcing certain rules regarding waste storage. In addition, the Chernobyl reactor was being run on very old technology; today's reactors are a lot safer than they were in the past. Chernobyl is not very likely to occur again.
- ACalcutt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4So what we need to do is research more in solar to make it more efficient
- scott1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Solar power:
Pros:
Sun provides alot of energy
The sun won't go out untill 1 billon years frome now
cons:
Solar cells are expensive...
...and only 20% effective
Wind power:
Pros:
Wind is a renwble energy that will never go out
No matter what time of day or where you are they will probally be some wind
Cons:
You need alot of them to use for power
You need space
Not everday is a windy day - friend18, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Solar and wind power isn't really expensive if you think about it in the long run. You will have to spend a few thousand dollars for the solar panels and to make or buy a wind turbine but your electricity bill will get lower and if your making enough electricity the electric company will start sending you checks.
- ErrandboyOfDoom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"We really need to start doing this now - the earth can only take so many people"
We've improved the model a bit since Malthus. Population growth is not always exponential, just when there's excess capacity. Right after each agricultural revolution, global population explodes, then eventually levels off.
This can also explain differential birth rates compared to differential costs of living, that is, why birth rates are so high in the poorest nations, and so low in wealthy nations. (ie - having kids in America or France is really expensive compared to having kids in Africa or Latin America, that affects people's decision to become parents).
Population is never "too high" or "too low," as a product of natural forces, it's always exactly where it ought to be. It doesn't dangerously outstrip sustainability and then suddenly collapse, because that's not the way a continual feedback system works. - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4[quote]Solar cells are expensive...[/quote]
They wouldn't be so expensive if they were mass-produced on the scale microchips are today. Both are basically silicon semiconductors. Chip makers are the perfect candidates for branching out into the solar cell business. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm sure some of you saw the show on Discovery last night about this very subject. The segment about wind power basically said that wind farms set up in just 4 particular US states could provide enough power for the entire country. However, government subsidies for the wind industry have been sporadic while they have remained consistent for the oil industry. There is plenty of constant wind power for everybody if you set up shop in the right places. Countries like Denmark and Germany are leading in this area.
- j33buscr1p3s, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There's not much of an incentive, but some big companies are starting to do it because it actually makes financial sense. Check out the story of Texas Instruments new plant near Austin, it's pretty amazing how much money they were able to save just by increasing efficiency. http://construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20060612j.asp
- Ibox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Is there any incentive from the Govt. to impliment enrgy saving tecniques into new constructed buildings? they should push it more.
- Ibox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I plan on building a house pretty soon and would love to implement energy saving techniques, but they cost so much more it would be nice for some kind of subsidy. hell they waste more money on a lot less.
- friend18, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I was talking about a wind turbine in your backyard. Oh, and I just remembered one OTHER type of energy recycling measure you can take. There are the metal coils that your wrap around your drains. I forget what they are called but they recycle the heat from your pipes into energy. So Solar Power, Wind turbine, and Metal pipe coiling combined will get rid of your electric bill and possibly make your electric company start sending you checks in the mail. Expensive, yes, but in the long run you save money or even make money and help the enviroment.
- JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What we really need to do is start describing the power plants in terms other than "nuclear" and "atomic". People have an irrational fear of those words due to decades of being threatened by nuclear war.
Kind of like the way they renamed Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging to MRI. We could use the word "molecular" or something similar, and use some sort of abbreviation to describe the reactor. Call it a "Molecular Separation Electricity Generator" (MSEG). Maybe that's not the best idea, but people's perceptions need to be re-aligned, and language is a good way to do that. - j33buscr1p3s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Actually I saw a special on Discovery channel last night and they were showing some of the work with wind generators off the coast. The real problem is setting them up as they're extremely expensive. The government provides only ~300 million in subsidies to wind generators. How many billions do we spend in oil subsidies? I felt so guilty after watching the special that I spent 75$ getting my bicycle back into working order seeing as it's only about 5 miles to work. I figure that costs about the same as 2 fill ups for me.
- DarkYang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There are many things to take into consideration when you think of nuclear power plants. Yes, there is always a security risk and risk of the damage it could cause if something were to go horribly wrong, but the safety protocols have been stepped up enormously since Chernobyl. The latest nuclear plant problem I know of was Three Mile Island, and that was over twenty years ago. However, even though the nuclear plant's themselves don't release CO2 into the atmosphere, the methods used to get the fuel let out CO2. The building of these plants also requires energy that releases CO2, such as the trucks moving the materials, the cranes used to help build it, and the creation of the materials to create the building. There is also the concern for how to deal with the waste after wards, such as how to store it, or dispose of it. This isn't even all. There are many of the same concerns no matter what energy source you use.
@captainahab Although you could encase the waste in concrete and throw it into the ocean, over time, the water would eventually wear away at it, releasing large amounts of the waste into the ocean. And if we do find ways to deal with the waste instead of disposing it, we would have to go and find these ones and then deal with them, and the possible leakage. - SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I can power my house with the heat from my urine??? Nice!
- evolseven, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I am going to assume you meant kwh, since thats what electricity is measured in.. and also I am going to assume you did no math to come up with this figure...
a gallon of gas = 1.3x10^8 joules, or well that is the energy obtained from burning it
a killowat hour = 3,600,000 joules
so this gets you at a perfect effeciency around 3.6 kwh out of a gallon of gas
which would mean that it takes at perfect efficiency about 28 gallons of gas to get to Starbucks, even at 1/4 efficiency which is where most cars sit around.. thats 7 gallons.. now my car gets around 25 miles to the gallon.. and there is a starbucks about every 10 miles, at least around here.. so i guess we will assume your car gets very bad gas mileage, like maybe around 1.42 miles to the gallon.. but its probably closer to about 5-7kwh to move your car that far, which still isnt that good but is quite a bit off of the 100kwh - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Population reduces with better education and health services. Poor families have more kids to create more workers in the family and in order to ensure that at least one child survives. It is basically a medieval lifestyle. If they knew the family could continue with just one or two children, they wouldn't have so many children.
There are also cultural traditions involved, especially amongst the Chinese who believe large families are a sign of health and prosperity. Once again, education could alleviate this problem. - kp3469, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.tanklesswaterheaters.com/taxcredit.html
covers many tax credits, not just for tank-less water heaters. anyhow, tank-less water heaters are pretty sweet. "unlimited" hot water and much more efficient than the old fashioned water heaters pretty much everyone has. wicked expensive though - 3 to 4 times that of a conventional water heater. - azermuffin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And who exactly is going to pay for all this ?
It's too bad they don't mention the main problem with the so-called "sustainable energy". It is much too expensive ! - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3[quote]From what I understand, the waste issue can be addresssed. The waste could be glassified, encased in concrete and dropped in the deepest part of the ocean where it would sink beneath 50 feet of mud. Of course, this is currently against international law, but it would be safe.[/quote]
Why the hell would you want to drop it into the ocean, when we have all these empty wastelands in the middle-east, Russia and the 'stans that have enough room to store the world's nuclear waste for hundreds of years? For instance, Afghanistan could have a new income source, nuclear waste disposal, instead of selling heroin.
Don't get started about "dirty bombs," that's nonsense. - tonyjack63, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2very true monolith. However, it's been over 20 years since a nuclear power plant has been built in this country. Chernobyl helped fuel the 'no nuke' propaganda even though the US and western European plants are far safer.
It is time we rethink this and start implementing it. Coal and oil are of the past and should gradually be left there.
Hydrogen-cell automobiles could also become a reality that would eventually free us of the foreign oil shackles. - khag7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3no. you're not. haha i'm glad to know someone else made the same mistake as me. i was a little confused at first.
- Ibox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2they actually stor the waste in the salt flats in Utah. The salt dose a prety good job of containing it and that land isn't very useful anyhow. I know its a poor way to look at it but if it works and the end result helps our atmosphere then I think Neuclear power is the way to go
- kp3469, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ DarkYang
I'm pretty much with you, except for this:
"However, even though the nuclear plant's themselves don't release CO2 into the atmosphere, the methods used to get the fuel let out CO2. The building of these plants also requires energy that releases CO2, such as the trucks moving the materials, the cranes used to help build it, and the creation of the materials to create the building."
that's pretty weak, dude. we currently utilize carbon-based energy. pretty much everything that requires power is responsible for the release of CO2! the production of solar panels and wind power turbines requires the release of CO2. should we stop their productions as well? - Spybot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1anyone yet mentioned cow dung? how about solar, how about wind, how about geothermal? oh right, i forgot oil. nothing is going to change.
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2poipoipoi, that's not true. To grow meat, you have to first grow enough plants to feed the animals you eat. Since you are never going to get 100% efficiency of "edible plant energy" turning into "edible meat energy", it is more "energy efficient" to just eat the plants yourself instead of feeding them to animals.
Though I see no reason to tell people to go vegetarian, reducing the amount of meat in your diet (especially red meat) has significant health benefits too. - CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1is it possible to topple those gulf coast houses on stilts by sawing the stilts diagonally with a chainsaw?
- Dabellah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's rather amusing to see Fugazi get his ass dugg down every day =D
It's users like him that seem to have no lives and contribute meaningless and rather annoying points of views on the whole site. If you don't like it, just leave. The door's right there (that little 'x' in the upper right of your screen or little red button in the upper left) - CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2install compact flourescent bulbs everywhere you work and live.
that would result in a drastic increase in your personal income.
and if you can, sell your suv for a consumer car.
how much of your income are you spending on simply getting back and forth to that job you hate? - SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"This being America, I assume that your solution for which 50% gets to leave the planet will be implemented via money, lobbyists, and lots of lawyers. ;)"
Let's just skip the middleman and get rid of the lobbyists and lawyers. - masterren, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Minivans aren't bad. They hold a lot more than SUVs.
-
Show 51 - 94 of 94 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is