ngpowereu.com — As the quest continues to try and make fossil fuels obsolete, one island in Denmark has managed to become the first entirely energy self-sufficient region on the planet - with not a barrel of oil or smoking chimney in sight.
Nov 30, 2009 View in Crawl 4
nanowareNov 30, 2009
hahahahahah this is too funny
offconstantlyNov 30, 2009
the investment required is almost 100k per person living on the island - one with a great natural wind supply as astutely noted by java. It still is too expensive, and your smug, uninformed idealism combined with your misplaced rage annoy me.
axiom0Nov 30, 2009
not a barrel of oil? f**king liars....how about for the cars? yea I know net imported energy is less than net exported energy but that still means that they lied about no oil barrels. but yea buried for lying to our faces.
bearigus77Nov 30, 2009
I figure I pay about $60 every other month to the power company, and I live in a fairly small apartment. Regardless, it is only $360 a year. I would gladly pay double that for renewable energy sources, putting us up to $720 a year. It would take approximately 28 years for them to get their money back on the project. That doesn't account for interest, or selling the excess to offshore parties. What sort of annual maintenance do these solutions produce. Is it more or less than the current processes set in place. Seems like there is a lot that they aren't going over. That being said, it is still an awesome accomplishment
notmarkkDec 1, 2009
If all the ice caps melt, sea levels will rise 2m. Not a big deal.
hallisnaDec 1, 2009
I understand your pessimism completely, but keep in mind that any analysis of global warming would be inherently wrong if it didnt correct for "natural cycles". There is no doubt CO2 volumes in the atmosphere have been increasing at an increasing rate since the industrial revolution. This cannot be disputed, although every once and a while some crackpot scientist will fuel the unknowledgeable masses with opinionated science which determines "the volcanoes" are responsible for it all.Now, the earth does have the potential to natural cleanse itself, but it is estimated to take 50 years. Just think about the amount of coal and natural gas required to supply the heating and cooling for all of the buildings around the world for the past 50 years. The chemical makeup of coal, natural gas, & fuel oil all contain various amount of carbon atoms which, when processed or combusted, produce energy (used for our homes & vehicles) & carbon dioxide when the reaction takes place. If you take a chemistry course you will understand why this chemical reaction results in energy and other outputs. The point is, it is certain that human activity is increasing the volumetric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, so if you want to label yourself as a "green dude", I would urge you to read a book on chemistry, natural resources, and energy then you should be educated enough to comment on the issue.
addiktionDec 2, 2009
hallisna,I appreciate your comment and I agree with you that the industrial era has increased CO2 into the atmosphere because I've researched my own facts and have come to this conclusion. But I would disagree that chemistry courses are needed to understand this simple concept. I would guess most of us aren't chemists on digg and it doesn't take a chemist to understand what is happening. You don't have to explain how coal, natural gas, and fuel works to me. I'm not an idiot and you perpetrate your information like I am one, which isn't the way you get people to see your point of view or to even accept your ideas. I was simply going from data of ice ages. The point is, from the ice age data I've seen, it appears the earth counters high CO2 emissions by shifting towards colder climate somehow. The mayans themselves seem to point that this is a galactic event unfolding and they point to it happening around the notorious December 21st, 2012 date.. We're at the brink of the high CO2 cycle now and the previous ice age trends would seem to indicate that we are about to drop off into colder weather soon as the earth counterbalances the increased heat. The fact that other planets are warming up besides our own, some of which are already hotter to begin with, would seem to indicate to me, that it goes beyond man made emissions and points to more towards our solar system as the cause. Another fact is the magnetosphere is weaker, which could help explain why we are getting bombarded by more radiation from the sun, thus causing more heat to the oceans, which would pass onto further ice melting, while the cycle continues until the earth does something. I'm a green guy because I believe in renewable energies that don't pollute the atmosphere and I spend a great deal of time researching different methods like geothermal, wind, solar, tidal wave, etc. That does not make the claim that I'm a CHEMIST in any way nor does this important issue require a chemist to understand the process of what is happening. Like you, I know man has increased CO2 emissions, but unlike you, I point to actual supporting evidence to add to my point. I'm not making claims, but rather pointing out data I found interesting. I'm sure you know plants live off CO2, and eliminating CO2 could have other destructive consequences that are accounted for.With that said, i think geo-engineering is dangerous. The earth has been just fine without us and it will be just fine handling weather on its own even with us. The earth has obviously lasted this long and has shifted temperatures before while keeping things at sustainable levels for life. Just because we have contributed more CO2, does not mean that earth can't counterbalance that as we shift towards colder weather, as indicated by the ice age data I had seen. I think we should do something on a local level and become more sustainable but most people and companies aren't willing to make the change from materialistic habits to more sustainable living lifestyles.The government wants you to believe we have to put harsh laws on you to stop this, which always ends in more control over people and businesses. I don't disagree that we all should be more green and live more sustainability, but I do disagree that we should let governments control every aspect of our lives, including the weather, and tax us for something as many as 17,000+ scientists disagree on. The government usually likes to take advantage of a good thing and make it a bad thing by relinquishing more rights and freedoms we've come to enjoy.