What is Digg?65 Comments
- Synova, on 07/01/2008, -3/+30If only there was some huge ball of fire constantly beaming 120,000,000,000,000,000 watts of power down on our poor planet. =(
- allaboutdatiki, on 06/30/2008, -1/+22If we could only swap the coal growth for renewable growth ...
- skipthefrog, on 06/30/2008, -2/+19We can't just acquire more energy. That won't solve the problem. We also need to make our energy consumption more efficient. And we can't expect that to come form a user end, as people won't change habits. Instead, devices have to be manufactured better, which will only occur because of improvements in technology, which will only be the result of increased spending and resources devoted to R+D.
- Britney90210, on 06/30/2008, -3/+11Wow we need more solar cells now!
- grumpyrain, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6In order to reduce poverty in the developing world, energy use (in those places) has to increase. For the vast majority of the world, heated water systems are not an available option, let alone cars and many other things we take for granted. We need to both reduce our consumption and help them to not get to our ridiculous levels via efficiency.
Consider the humble light bulb. It consumes 9 times more energy than needed for the visible light produced. The rest is wasted (yes, I know some places need heating anyway, but the position of most bulbs is not an ideal position for heating). Consider the internal combustion engine of the car you drive. I would be impressed if that is not throwing away at least 80% of the available energy in the fuel as heat and sound. Even most coal power plants struggle to get in the high 30%s efficiency. That means you need more than double the coal that it is theoretically possible for the same amount of energy.
It is not like there isn't a potential market for energy efficient devices. The patent system needs to be overhauled to protect good inventions being bought and buried by those who stand to make more money with the business as usual approach. - fakekevinrose, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6Renewable energy sources will be the sustaining force in our near future. We just need a government that's willing to accelerate its production and R&D to drive down costs significantly so they become economically viable for middle class America.
sidenote: That's one reason why I like Obama, he has a very progressive energy policy. (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/)
conclusion: we are not ***** (yet) - grumpyrain, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6Did you do the math?
Presuming I can trust both of your figures (which I can't)
120,000,000,000,000,000 W / 510,065,600,000 m^2 = 235KW/m^2 (averaged) = 2820 KW/hr/Day (averaged over 12 hours).
So in theory I a 1m^2 solar panel could collect enough power in a day to my place for nearly 3 months.
The big failing here is the presumption that 120,000,000,000,000,000W is actually reaching earth. In truth, the available solar energy in most places in the world is between 150 and 300W/m^2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_land_area ... - greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -8/+13Or we could grow up and notice the obvious, that we don't actually need over 50% of the energy we use.
But we probably won't. Shoot yourself now, avoid the rush. - JustAn0th3rFace, on 07/01/2008, -2/+6..and yet we still won't do anything significant enough to change any of this (consumption rates, alternative resources, anything) . Never proactive, always reactive...
- phreak79, on 07/01/2008, -2/+6Think it's Jevons paradox that says when we conserve energy we simply re 'spend' that energy in new ways. This seems to be a pristine example of that as energy efficiency is making some really strong gains, yet energy usage continues to soar.
- YellowStar, on 07/01/2008, -3/+7Word up, China is about to collapse politically and economically. The growth has been too fast and extremely concentrated into the wallets of a select few thousand party members. They have polluted their entire water supply and most days the major cities are under smog alert. China is completely corrupt and has no scruples about human rights (Sudan?). The big story next decade won't be the collapse of America but the collapse of China.
- Haoie, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4This energy usage increase is being driven mainly by demand from developing countries, for the record. So that includes India, China, and so on.
- secrity, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3We need much better and much cheaper solar cells now.
- greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Oddly I see radical energy conservation as a positive. Personally I am down to something like 30% (+/- 5%, it's hard to get reliable numbers) of the North American avg carbon footprint. In calling on others to try for 50% I am asking for significantly less than I have already done.
Obviously alternative energies are part of the solution, but a much smaller part than most people think. They still require a significant infrastructure, never mind the CO2 production from all of the stuff they are powering. And the fact of the matter is that we need to reduce net CO2 to approx 0, and we need to do it fast. Alternative energies are not going to get us anywhere near that.
So how you doing with that alternative energy thing? Got the footprint down to? - nonks, on 07/01/2008, -3/+6good we're gonna need it for the PS9
- Veriander, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4The US must end our self-imposed moratorium on nuclear power plants. We need to standardize on five or ten models and expedite the construction of hundreds of new plants in the next ten years. Our goal should be to increase electrical generation produced by nuclear power from 21% to 50% by the year 2020.
(And please, no whining that we must safe-guard fission "waste" for 50,000 years! What we consider waste today will be tomorrow's resource - you can store it in my own back yard so long as I can sell it a century from now when it's needed again...) - Yez70, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Some of the coal growth will be justified by the lower sulphur coals, plus the US is finally in a position where we are going to see sustainable renewable energy growth. It has never been economically feasible before. It is now.
Capitalism does have it's perks, and we're on the verge of seeing a radical change in the way energy is produced. You can make money on it now, where it used to cost more than it was worth. - inactive, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3I don't it is possibly to remove 4 billion people from poverty. We simply do not have the resources. Especially with the tight demand and high prices of commodities such as oil and food.
- gavinhudson, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4Yeah, and next you'll tell me that we can just "magically" get energy from the air or even oceans. Wouldn't THAT be cool.
- CosmicJustice, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3How much energy does it take to manufacture a solar cell? How long would it take that same solar cell to produce the amount of energy consumed in it's manufacturing process?
- Barackalypse, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4I don't know why you got dugg down, his 10,000 square foot mansion energy usage increased 10% over last year and is 20 times the national average usage.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369084,00.html - trendygamer, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Nuclear. Nuclear, nuclear, nuclear, nuclear, nuclear, nuclear, nuclear. Let's act like adults with our energy policies, people.
- mijelh, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4"China's RAPID growth and their need for resources will trigger WW3"
By now, it just triggered your imagination. Their need for resources will cause a big recession, but there's not even a chance that they declare a war on... the world, as you say, just because the "western" armies are overwhelming superior.
They might however start some kind of economic cold war, (if they already didn't ) - Barackalypse, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2So, you can complain about it and demand the government do something or you can buy energy stocks and fund your retirement. Guess which most of you will be doing?
- inactive, on 07/01/2008, -6/+8And to back up my claim. Show me a vehicle that's even a CONCEPT that is affordable to the lower-middle class.
You can't. They start at the upper 20's and work up from there. There are only 2 Hydrogen Fuel stations in the US. TWO! Mother ***** two!!!
And the only car that can use it is a Honda! Which they are only making a few of!
Seriously people, nothing can save us. I'm usually optimistic about the future. But if you look at it intelligently, you'll realize it's game over soon. We are going to bleed the planet until either there is nothing left or we kill each other fighting over it.
You watch, mark my words, China's RAPID growth and their need for resources will trigger WW3. - greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2The energy that Deniers waste trying to swiftboat Gore with lies could power China http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2008/06/18/furth
http://www.ecorazzi.com/2008/06/18/here-we-go-agai ...
http://current.com/items/88793568_al_gore_s_home_1 ...
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI ... - CosmicJustice, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Finally a voice of reason. They can build a nuke plant next door to my house, just hook me up with an all you can drink electricity plan.
- greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2"The growth has been too fast and extremely concentrated into the wallets of a select few thousand "
Sorry, what country(s) was that again? A Return to the Income Gap that Gave Us the Great Depression http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/extreme_ineq ...
Actually China's prosperity has reached about 300 million of it's citizens, but it is very true that the rest still live in poverty and that this inequity is creating instability. - tbhurst, on 07/01/2008, -3/+5the only "good" thing in this report is that the bulk of the growth will come from the developing countries that have some "catching up" to do.
- secrity, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2When will this new technology come into mass production and be affordable by middle and lower middle class people?
New technologies for power generation have been promised for over 30 years. All that has happened is that a few wind farms have been built and some pilot solar projects have been built. How many residential active solar collectors were installed in the 1980's to get a tax deduction; how many homes have active solar collectors now? How many of the residential active solar collectors that were installed ever really worked? - inactive, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Emotional charge so called response - Omg solar, wind and blah blah blah.
Educated response based on efficiency, cost benefit analysis, technology, logical and rational thinking = Nuclear, clean cold, maybe solar and wind depending on region and energy production capacity.
Also, when it comes to ENERGY production stay clear of anyone without the basic knowledge of science they tend to put things in an emotional state were intellectual reasoning isn't respected. - nowhereelse, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4Sounds about right for a country that got all of its economic ideas from the two greatest oppressors on the planet - the US and the UK - where all the wealth is in the pockets of a selected few thousand insiders. China is buying up South America at the moment and has enough wealth and momentum to carry on for now. In fact, the big story of the next decade will be the indebted economies of the world ganging up and telling the World Bank and IMF to go ***** themselves.
- DeathB4Life, on 07/01/2008, -0/+11km^2 = 1000m * 1000m = 1,000,000m^2
the amount of solar energy that reaches the earth's surface is a fraction of what originally enters its atmosphere. light is scattered, reflected back into space, absorbed as heat by gases etc and its energy cant be tapped by solar cells alone. - Barackalypse, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1What technical or economic reason prevents us from just acquiring more energy? There isn't any, however there is a political reason, for some reason people like you have an agenda to change how things are done. I think you underestimate just how cheap solar power is going to become once some of the new technology comes into mass production.
- LeeSoong, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Good thing Hybrid wind/solar LED street lights will power themselves:
http://digg.com/world_news/Light_Up_your_city_for_ ...
And if the magnetic generator really can produce 24 kilowatts a day with no fuel, no problems:
http://digg.com/gadgets/500_Percent_Energy_Efficie ... - blast_flame, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1No, it's very good. It means people are no longer poor...
- Aidanjalali, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1HYDROGEN FUSION will be the solution to 80% of our problems. Hydrogen by-product, abundance of materials, and hopefully a highly efficient process in 10 years time, it'll actually be good for the environment to have electric cars. With the lowering cost of Solar panels and LEDs, hopefully we'll see an age in 20 years time where we're putting out less ***** into the environment than we're taking.
- secrity, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Solar energy would be nice, but I don't think that it is yet practical. What is the efficiency of the most bleeding edge photovoltaics? How many watts does a real 1 sq meter solar panel produce per average day? How much does a real 1 sq meter solar panel cost?
- jlab, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2I think anytime anyone on Digg has said "mark my words" it's never happened.
- Barackalypse, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Not if you own stock in energy companies.
- greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Wow, some historical perspective! Good one
- Diggrock, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1@grumpyrain: Pretty ironic when you ask me if I did the math, when your math isn't even right. You assume that 1 km^2=1,000 m^2, which it isn't, its 1 km^2=1,000,000 m^2. Therefore the equation should read 120,000,000,000,000,000 W / 510,065,600,000,000 m^2 which is 235 WATTS, not kilowatts, or 0.235 KW. So take 0.235 KW and add all the de-contributing factors and you are not left with much. Yes, I do believe solar energy can be used, but it is not the holy grail of alternative energies. To realistically power our planet we either need to continue using fossil fuels, and further molest mother nature, or switch o nuclear power on a large scale.
- inactive, on 07/01/2008, -0/+150% chance of another world wide war for resources
Nothings different then 1941.
America strangled Japans oil lifelines and could do the same with present day China..1930s Japan built a Blue water navy ,present day America has warned China to keep its navy along its coast.Dont build anything larger then a Destroyer.
Hitler attacked Russia because Russia was a Monkey on his back,dribbling out Oil for diplomatic and territorial promises....Russia still has the Oil and Europe doesn't,why do you think NATO is inching closer to the Russian heartland?
Solar and Fuel cells could never keep pace to prevent WW3 - SolarPandaBot, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Currently, the energy payback (how long it takes for a solar module to produce the energy that went into making it) is about 3-4 years (http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf)
- inactive, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Exactly It is not just South America which China is buying up. They are here in Australia, they are in Africa and even in Iraq. They throw two billion here and there like there is no tomorrow.
- 1053r, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1These projections have the proportion of renewables remaining largely unchanged over the next 22 years. That seems unlikely to me. According to this article which was just on digg http://digg.com/environment/Experts_Wind_Power_is_ ... wind is growing at 29% a year (doubling approximately every 3 years). Since wind power is MUCH more abundant (although also much more diffuse) than fossil fuel energy, it is likely that 29% or higher growth will be sustainable for at least a decade or three. Therefore, one would expect renewables to contribute much more to the overall energy budget.
Also, it should be pointed out that according to the same article, wind is currently providing 3% of the power in the united states. If that is representative of the world (and perhaps it is not), in just 3 years it will be doing somewhere between 5% and 6% (since it will double, but overall energy consumption will also rise). Another 3 years, and we are looking at 10% or so. By 2017, we are looking at perhaps 19%. 2020 is perhaps 35% (considering that all this cheap power will probably cause consumption to start rising faster). One can see how by 2030 it is unreasonable to think that renewables will remain about the same proportion of the budget that they are now.
Lastly, some of you might point out that wind is intermittent, and not usable for baseline power. However, with such an abundant source, assuming that we don't develop some great new way to store electricity (and with hybrid cars driving battery demand up the way they are, that seems unlikely), we can afford to waste a lot of that power on an inefficient storage mechanism. Even if we are (say pumping water up hill when it is windy, then using hydroelectric when it isn't) only 50% efficient on our storage, that won't slow down wind power growth very much. Basically, it would set back wind power growth by one doubling cycle, or 3 years.
And don't even get me started on solar, which is currently a much smaller proportion of our energy budget, but has even greater growth potential. $150 a dollar oil is the best thing that could have happened to us. It will kick start our usage of a new kind of energy which is WAY more abundant (look up the numbers on the energy involved in a small thunderstorm, or energy hitting the earth). It will slow down the economy for a short time 5-10 years, but after that, we will be way better off. - secrity, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1They aren't here yet. I guess we will see WHEN and IF the free market will deliver them. I have been waiting for over 30 years for the promised cheap and efficient solar cells that can power a home. I have been waiting for practical solar cells for about the same length of time as I have been waiting for an airplane in every driveway.
- CosmicJustice, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1People were saying those exact words in 1975. Fusion is decades away, maybe centuries. Fission is real now.
- CosmicJustice, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1There is a proven way to get 100% of the energy from a fuel. It's called nuclear fission and it produces zero CO2. But the greenies aren't really interested in a solution. They want power over you life and that means there can never be a real solution.
- inactive, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0Thanks...sometimes I think I rant alone
-
Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 