treehugger.com— One of the world's largest solar installation is about to be switched on. The project is called Nevada Solar One, and it is projected to generate 64 megawatts, when it is operational.
Mar 16, 2007View in Crawl 4
Hydro's great, until there's a drought, like the one that was primarily responsible for the power shortages in CA in 2001. Also, contrary though it may seem, the biggest obstacle for hydro comes from environmental groups.
@ebfoxbat "...once we can dispose of nuclear waste easily and safely"I've been hearing this for about 40 years. In the mean time more plants have gotten built and millions of pounds of waste is still polluting our environment. Why is it that pro nuclear advocates are really against new technology? Commercial photovoltaic systems were only first being tested when, in the late 1980's? It's now starting to become economically viable (yes with government support but the nuclear industry would not exist without the same). So the technology is still being developed and pro-polluting interests are constantly pointing out it's drawbacks but are willing to poison the world for future generation on the hope that "someday" a nuclear technology will be developed completely.Why do you folks hate promising technology so much?
great initiative. I wonder what if we put some of these units on a floating platform in Earth's Stratosphere. Maybe we can have the benefit of getting electricity and blocking available sun light to reduce the "global warming"?
> Why not just decrease demand rather than build more? Australia just passed a law that goes into effect in 2012 that outlaws incandescent lights. Sadly it is more of a political stunt by Mr Howard & Co to try and counter the fact they refused to sign Kyoto. They need to demonstrate they are doing something to reduce greenhouse gasses, because they lack credibility in this area. What the legislation fails to address is the applications where CFLs are not ideal, such as in dimmer lights and particular fittings which can't physically accommodate CFLs. I personally don't think banning incandescents is necessary, just get them off the shelves in supermarkets and put a high carbon tax on them. Instead of them costing about AU$ 0.60 per globe, make them AU $5 per globe and people will only buy them where they really need them.> <a class="user" href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0220-05.htm">http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0220-05.htm</a> I don't know if it is true but they say it will cut greenhouse gasses and decrease home power bills by 66 percent.I don't know how they come to their figure, but the primary electricity drinkers are Heating (air / water / cooking) and Cooling (air / fridge), although in places where it is available gas can be more efficient for some of these tasks. The average sized room only needs a 60W incandescent, so I can't imagine more than a couple of hundred Watts being used by a home for lighting (compare that to an oven or an air conditioner).That said, we have replaced all of our lights and lamps with CFLs (except our bathroom and laundry where the fittings dont allow). They do save money and more importantly, they do last a lot longer. We have not had one die in over 2 years (except one I accidentally cracked).> I wish the US would do the same. I also like the fact that the new Core Duo processors draw 65 watts (how many joules is that? - heh!) compared with 135 Watts of the Pentium 4. Hopefully new technology will pave the way to lower consumption and emissions.Yes technology does get more efficient, and smaller manufacturing processes mean less wastage in heat. This is good news for laptop users, it means longer battery life and better performance than before. Actually a larger improvement is the fact that it is now hard to buy a CRT monitor. LCDs are much more efficient at the same size. If you want something with good power efficiency, take something designed for a laptop first.But there are also some downsides. 10 years ago, you didn't have every fourth house leaving their ADSL and wireless router on 24/7. Also, laser printers were much more expensive so very few households actually owned one. They can use up to 100W and due to the fact they are business machines heading into the household, most still have very generous times before switching onto powersave. New technology is a double edged sword.
The best thing about this article is that it shows that we (humans) can use technology to work with nature ... this is not an article "complaining" about polar bears, or politics, but how something is actually being done .... If we could change our culture to use our minds, emotions, and bodies to work with nature instead of ignoring it or just complaining we would all be a LOT better off! And we can't go back to the stone age .. we as humans need to move forward, it's what we do ... OGnow
Closed AccountMar 17, 2007
LOL I never thought a Simpson's reference would go down so fast! I wasn't trying to be ignorant, it was just a joke.
irvman21Mar 17, 2007
Hydro's great, until there's a drought, like the one that was primarily responsible for the power shortages in CA in 2001. Also, contrary though it may seem, the biggest obstacle for hydro comes from environmental groups.
lettruthoutMar 17, 2007
@ebfoxbat "...once we can dispose of nuclear waste easily and safely"I've been hearing this for about 40 years. In the mean time more plants have gotten built and millions of pounds of waste is still polluting our environment. Why is it that pro nuclear advocates are really against new technology? Commercial photovoltaic systems were only first being tested when, in the late 1980's? It's now starting to become economically viable (yes with government support but the nuclear industry would not exist without the same). So the technology is still being developed and pro-polluting interests are constantly pointing out it's drawbacks but are willing to poison the world for future generation on the hope that "someday" a nuclear technology will be developed completely.Why do you folks hate promising technology so much?
binarystrangerMar 18, 2007
great initiative. I wonder what if we put some of these units on a floating platform in Earth's Stratosphere. Maybe we can have the benefit of getting electricity and blocking available sun light to reduce the "global warming"?
grumpyrainMar 18, 2007
> Why not just decrease demand rather than build more? Australia just passed a law that goes into effect in 2012 that outlaws incandescent lights. Sadly it is more of a political stunt by Mr Howard & Co to try and counter the fact they refused to sign Kyoto. They need to demonstrate they are doing something to reduce greenhouse gasses, because they lack credibility in this area. What the legislation fails to address is the applications where CFLs are not ideal, such as in dimmer lights and particular fittings which can't physically accommodate CFLs. I personally don't think banning incandescents is necessary, just get them off the shelves in supermarkets and put a high carbon tax on them. Instead of them costing about AU$ 0.60 per globe, make them AU $5 per globe and people will only buy them where they really need them.> <a class="user" href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0220-05.htm">http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0220-05.htm</a> I don't know if it is true but they say it will cut greenhouse gasses and decrease home power bills by 66 percent.I don't know how they come to their figure, but the primary electricity drinkers are Heating (air / water / cooking) and Cooling (air / fridge), although in places where it is available gas can be more efficient for some of these tasks. The average sized room only needs a 60W incandescent, so I can't imagine more than a couple of hundred Watts being used by a home for lighting (compare that to an oven or an air conditioner).That said, we have replaced all of our lights and lamps with CFLs (except our bathroom and laundry where the fittings dont allow). They do save money and more importantly, they do last a lot longer. We have not had one die in over 2 years (except one I accidentally cracked).> I wish the US would do the same. I also like the fact that the new Core Duo processors draw 65 watts (how many joules is that? - heh!) compared with 135 Watts of the Pentium 4. Hopefully new technology will pave the way to lower consumption and emissions.Yes technology does get more efficient, and smaller manufacturing processes mean less wastage in heat. This is good news for laptop users, it means longer battery life and better performance than before. Actually a larger improvement is the fact that it is now hard to buy a CRT monitor. LCDs are much more efficient at the same size. If you want something with good power efficiency, take something designed for a laptop first.But there are also some downsides. 10 years ago, you didn't have every fourth house leaving their ADSL and wireless router on 24/7. Also, laser printers were much more expensive so very few households actually owned one. They can use up to 100W and due to the fact they are business machines heading into the household, most still have very generous times before switching onto powersave. New technology is a double edged sword.
4taxMar 18, 2007
NEVADA SOLAR ONE on Google Earth / Maps<a class="user" href="http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=EarthTourism&Number=836462&Searchpage=1&Main=836462&Words=+dlsgeo&topic=&Search=true#Post836462">http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=EarthTourism&Number=836462&Searchpage=1&Main=836462&Words=+dlsgeo&topic=&Search=true#Post836462</a>
earthman1Mar 19, 2007
The best thing about this article is that it shows that we (humans) can use technology to work with nature ... this is not an article "complaining" about polar bears, or politics, but how something is actually being done .... If we could change our culture to use our minds, emotions, and bodies to work with nature instead of ignoring it or just complaining we would all be a LOT better off! And we can't go back to the stone age .. we as humans need to move forward, it's what we do ... OGnow
joanwestDec 19, 2008
Reminds me of How American Energy Independence Was Won, <a class="user" href="http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3907">http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3907</a>