What is Digg?Sponsored by truTV
76 Comments
- mikbunn, on 02/03/2009, -2/+57The US capacity grew by 8.4GW, 33% more than China's 6.3GW.
It's a good thing all-around. No need to make it a dick measuring contest. - francois87, on 02/04/2009, -0/+23The title just fails to mention that the reason that it is a "mere" 50% growth is due to the existing larger presence of wind energy in the US as opposed to China. The US might for instance go from 50 to 75 and it is only 50% growth. China can go from 5 to 10 and it is a 100% growth; percentages are misleading. Educate yourself.
- PFCWilliams, on 02/04/2009, -7/+22All taken from the article:
"the US became the world's top wind energy producer"
"China accounted for 6.3GW"
"behind the US, which took the top spot after increasing its capacity by 50 percent in 2008, building 8.4GW of new facilities."
The US added more capacity than China has total. Saying "doubled" sounds more impressive than saying China is behind the US. Why are you being an Anti-America douche bag ritubpant? - yacks, on 02/04/2009, -2/+14Yeah and the US's GDP is $14.33 trillion compared to $4.22 trillion of China
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world ...
and
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world ... - aftern9ne, on 02/04/2009, -0/+10It's an unfortunate title, as the article was not trying to compare either country's wind growth in any competitive way.
- PFCWilliams, on 02/04/2009, -0/+8Doubling is increasing by 100%
- yacks, on 02/04/2009, -2/+10Just a reminder...
If you go from $20 to $30, you still have more money and the same amount of increase
as if you went from $10 to $20... a 50% increase and a 100% increase respectively. - TheCash, on 02/04/2009, -1/+9Too bad one nuclear power plant would produce more energy then all of the U.S. and China's wind plants combined. I saw China Syndrome too, but I think we've come a long way technologically speaking since then.
Christ, if the French can figure it out, you'd think we could too. Nuclear is the way to go. - felman87, on 02/04/2009, -0/+7I think your boobs have a dick attached to the side
- XkenX87, on 02/04/2009, -0/+5Thats some good math rite ther
- Swivelstick, on 02/04/2009, -3/+8Compared to a lot of the 1st world, sorry but you do.
- kricsek, on 02/04/2009, -5/+9It would be also good if americans didn't consume so much electricity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ ... - inactive, on 02/04/2009, -7/+11US' GDP fell 3.4% in 2008. China's GDP grew by 9%.
Sources:
http://useconomy.about.com/od/economicindicators/a ...
http://www.china.org.cn/business/news/2009-01/22/c ... - inactive, on 02/04/2009, -1/+5$5 an hour is not a wage, its a tip!
- sunkist22, on 02/09/2009, -0/+3@fmax: I thought he was no longer responding to your posts?
- fmaxwell, on 02/09/2009, -0/+3Yeah, that would really hurt coming from someone I respected. From you? Not so much.
Anyone who thinks that people like Stalin, Kim Jong Il, and Khrushchev are/were liberals is just mentally retarded. - smcole45, on 02/04/2009, -1/+4Exactly. It's like saying geothermal power will double in the next year in the US. It will go from .5% to 1% of our power needs. Good that it's doubling, bad that it still doesn't amount to a whole lot.
- PhoenixTril, on 02/04/2009, -0/+3China's actually on the right track with this one. The germans developed and the Chinese built one of the only two prototypes of the so-called 'pebble-bed reactors', very safe, very reliable nuclear power, they cannot have criticality problems by design.
- fmaxwell, on 02/09/2009, -0/+3Like many things in Wikipedia, it's wrong. That's what happens when anyone can add content.
Are you telling us the Khrushchev was liberal and so was Stalin? Yeah, I just think flower-power-hippy when I see those guys.
- Swivelstick, on 02/04/2009, -0/+2Always wanted some solar pants need some more spark down there *sigh*..
In answer to your first statement, ignorance is bliss and corporate spin wins, wot.. - fmaxwell, on 02/09/2009, -0/+2If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person alive.
- jane1210, on 03/04/2009, -0/+2very good.
http://www.flv-to-video.com/ - fmaxwell, on 02/09/2009, -0/+2@sunkist22
You actually trusted him? I never, for a moment, believed that he would keep his word. - kricsek, on 02/04/2009, -0/+2Increasing by 100% means doubling.
- peters1023, on 02/05/2009, -0/+2@Swivelstick. . .
Things are also cheaper in the US. - rrife, on 02/04/2009, -2/+4It's like going from 1 to 2 and claiming a 100% increase, and then saying going from 10 to 15 is *only* a 50% increase.
- trollick, on 02/04/2009, -0/+2Be careful dividing by zero calculating rates like that!
- kricsek, on 02/04/2009, -0/+2Countries build wind power generators in order to get independent from coal/oil/gas. You're helping your country to achieve this goal by consuming less electricity. Using less than 1500 kWh's a month won't kill you.
- opticwind, on 02/04/2009, -0/+2Obama's in charge now, blame him for us still being in Iraq. It's no longer "Bush wants more oil!".
- lorean, on 02/04/2009, -0/+2Many of China's wind power projects are subsidized by 3rd world carbon credits from the EU.
Basically, a joint venture with a 1st world partner doubles the profitability of a wind farm via the sale of carbon credits. - scorchedearth, on 02/04/2009, -0/+2Too bad wind power is only available 16% of the time in Germany and Denmark, the so called leaders in wind power generation, have stated that wind power is not a solution to our energy demands.
All the push for wind power will do is make lots of money for the world's largest wind turbine manufacturer - General Electric. - inactive, on 02/04/2009, -0/+2Investing in something that won't run out? I thought the idea of magic has been discredited for a couple of hundred years?
- googleabcd, on 02/04/2009, -1/+3China's PPP (Purchacing power) is very close to US (85%) in 2008
- Remelox, on 02/04/2009, -0/+2Assuming your number is valid, it would take around six square meters of current technology in ideal conditions. By the way, the desert, by default, doesn't necessarily get more sun than other places. It's just a more attractive place to put a large farm of panels. Your really better off if you have a combination of panel farms and local panels.
If I could afford it, I'd have panels over the entire South side of my roof. It would not sustain me through the year but it would be enough to keep me powered much of the time. I'd also be willing to have a windmill in my yard but I only have a quarter acre so I don't know how much I could get from a reasonably small windmill. - drmangrum, on 02/04/2009, -0/+1You know it would be nice if they included real values and not percentages.
Lets say the US had 100 wind power sites. It grew by 50%, it now has 150 wind power sites.
If China had 50 wind power sites and doubled, they now have 100.
The net gain for both is 50. When people post percentage gains, they are trying to create an opinion. The author of this ***** article is trying to insinuate that china is somehow going green. I've seen figures that state that china is opening new coal plants on a nearly weekly basis to meet its growing demands for power. Admittedly, I don't know how accurate that is offhand.
Post real numbers, not percentages. - PhoenixTril, on 02/04/2009, -0/+1Wind needs to just be one facet of an overall large-scale shift in energy production methods, as well as a reduction in energy consumption. Geothermal, wind, nuclear, cellulosic ethanol, solar. Then reduce energy consumption by reducing inefficiencies in the power grid, shifting to local production and consumption rather than long-distance transmission wherever possible, reducing entropic loss to heat, replacing incandescents with CFLs with newfangled super-LEDs, using sustainable design and better construction methods. You can't expect any one of these things to fix everything. You do it all at once, and then you're talking independence. You can't do something like this from the top down, it really has to be from the bottom up. Trouble is, this sort of thing is expensive. It's hard to do it in a depression.
- ksjiajia, on 03/04/2009, -0/+1Free flv editor lite for testing free now:)
you can get them at: http://www.exp-flv.com - Farik, on 02/04/2009, -0/+18008135
- LoJack, on 02/05/2009, -0/+1Yank D. Bags always find a way to be technical about it. LOL...
- Cerebron, on 02/04/2009, -0/+1If the wasteful person lived right next to the cell.
- inactive, on 02/04/2009, -1/+2Birds are not amused.
- inactive, on 02/04/2009, -0/+1if you DECREASE something by 50%, you must double the new amount to get back to the original.
- sndream, on 02/04/2009, -1/+2China is planning to add 10GW of wind power by end of 2009 and project to over took US in 2012.
US should really stop building so many F22 and funnel the money to area that will increase productivity. - mikbunn, on 02/04/2009, -0/+1China is bigger than the U.S.
- Ramble, on 02/04/2009, -0/+1Your maths is off - I calculate it to be 140'000'000 GWh.
- Spaceba11One, on 02/04/2009, -0/+1What they don't mention is that China went from about 1 wind plant to 2.
- fmaxwell, on 02/09/2009, -0/+1@wtfove
So what do you think that socialist nations force people to spend their wages on?
A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". They give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.
Socialism is liberal. Many people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works.
Communism is conservative. Few people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.
If you want to see the road to Communism, just tune in to Fox News. - brandita, on 02/04/2009, -0/+1America ***** YEAH!
- Xeth, on 02/04/2009, -0/+1You're confusing GW with GWh. TFA cleared said 121 GW, not 121 GWh / year.
121 GW = 121 * 365 * 24 = 1,059,960 GWh/Year
Still very little, but much more significant than a few megawatts. -
Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
