Slashdot Mirror

The dustbowl wasn't a one-time event - soil erosion on a massive scale continues to this day, and is a world wide problem:
http://www.globalchange.umich....

You want sustainable efficiency?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

This is a design system that is not only sustainable, but improves fertility and efficiency over time. Rather than design a system based on multiple inputs and a single yield, you design it based on the interaction of a complex web of natural systems and the yield is the surplus.

"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted and thoughtful observation rather than protracted and thoughtless labor; and of looking at plants and animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single product system." - Bill Mollison [4]

Want actual references to working systems? Here's the best example: Sepp Holzer
http://www.celsias.com/article...

Want more? See my original post.

Scalability? "If anybody ever suggests that permaculture does not scale, just
point to Willie Smits." - Paul Wheaton

What about this effort from 2008?

http://www.celsias.com/article/australias-solar-power-tower/

I wonder what would happen if such disasters had hit a dam or a thermal gas/coal plant...

The massive environmental devastation that resulted would once again be hushed up and glossed over by the majority of the media, just like these ones were. Of course, they didn't even have a 9.0 earthquake or a tsunami, just some incompetence, bad safety protocols, and much looser restrictions on how they store and treat their toxic waste products.

BS! I dare you to cite one scientific study supporting your statement. Here are some studies or references to studies that conclude organic food [pdf] can feed the world.

Falcon

I know you have an ax to grind with nuclear power for some reason - but calling it "dirty" compared to it's alternatives is just silly and you should know better.

BS! Nuclear power is dirtier than either solar or wind. With both there is no waste to be stored. And there is no processing or reprocessing of fuel. The sun or wind is the fuel.

Does it create some potentially hazardous materials that have to be dealt with? Yes
Are they in reality THAT HARD to deal with? No

Yes it is hard to deal with. Even the French, who have gone further with reprocessing nuclear waste has problems doing it. "France is aggravating both problems: spent fuel and separated plutonium stocks." "Reprocessing [pdf] and MOX fuel use are uneconomical and will remain so for the foreseeable future;"

"Nuclear France - The Myths Uncovered"
"France gets nearly 80% of its electricity from its 58 reactors. However, such a heavy reliance on nuclear power brings with it many major, unsolved problems, most especially that of radioactive waste. Despite assertions to the contrary, the French nuclear story is far from a gleaming example of nuclear success. The example, set by the French nuclear infrastructure - and best exemplified by its giant nuclear corporation, Areva, is not to be emulated."

Are they really that bad for the environment? Not really

If you believe that you haven't seen the effects of uranium mining. "The Effects of Uranium Mining are Disastrous."

biggest problem with dealing with nuclear byproducts is NIMBY.

The biggest problem with wind is NIMBYism. The government's National Renewable Energy Lab has produced an atlas of wind potential through the US. The Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind power to power the continental US. Which I might add that Texas Oil Man T Boone Pickens is pushing with his Pickens Plan. But that's not all. The Pacific Northwest has a lot as well. If you draw a line south from there to Southern CA then turn east to Texas, you'll see more potential. Now go east, the Appalachians is a good location for wind as well. The mountains up the east coast have good locations. Offshore from Cape Hatteras to Cape Cod there's another line of good cites.

Oh, I think it's rather telling that so called environmentalist activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr is one of those NIMBYs fighting wind farms in Cape Cod, from that first link on Nimbys.

I'm surprised that photovoltaic is more cost effective than solar thermal. Using fresnel lenses that focus on heat exchangers that double as turbines, it can be cheaper than coal. See here:
http://www.celsias.com/article/utahs-solar-fired-furnace-power-california-less-co/

Buy those tuna now, closing down sale, get some while stocks last!

http://www.celsias.com/article/no-reprieve-eastern-pacific-tuna/

The simple answer is that Coal is cheaper than wind and solar.

this won't be true for very long... see: http://www.celsias.com/article/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheap/

On the other hand, they did pick up on nanosolar research in 2004, which is coming into its own now.

I used google to search for result (I refuse to use google as a verb) and came up with this: http://www.celsias.com/2007/12/23/nanosolar-update-first-panels-now-shipping

http://www.celsias.com/2007/11/23/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheaper-than-coal/

Plastic solar panels, for thirty cents a watt of panels (so an 80w panel would cost, say, $24 to manufacture), giving a probable cost per killowatt hour of around 1 cent.

You know? **CHEAP**

I think this is done.

They paid for the lines, the installation, the maintenance, etc... ...with help from government grants. If they didn't want to play fair, they shouldn't have taken the money.

What I don't get is why conservatives get so up in arms about regular people getting any sort of government benefits, but when big companies get government benefits (no-bid contracts, public funding, no price negotiations), it's all fine and dandy. Not only is the conservative philosophy of governmental non-intervention demonstrably wrong-headed (deregulation -> Enron debacle), it's not even internally consistent (okay to give taxpayers' money to big business, but God forbid we give it to taxpayers).

Here's an example. Recently, a small meat-packing company decided they wanted to test every cow they butcher for mad cow disease, and then label their meat to the effect that every cow had been tested. Of course, the meat packing industry jumped into the ring and proposed that such labeling be made illegal because it would drive their costs up by forcing them to test their own meat to keep pace (or drive their sales down if they didn't). And of course the big backers of these new regulations were conservatives. So it's not about deregulation at all. It's about helping big business at the expense of consumers, which usually involves deregulation. Regulations that protect big business from consumers are of course completely okay.

Read all about this here:
http://www.celsias.com/2007/07/12/white-house-tries-to-force-less-mad-cow-testing/