Slashdot Mirror

You continue to assert that the backup source must be fossil fuel. It does not. I don't know where you got the 80~90% base load number from since there are places that already exceed 20% renewable energy:

https://www.greenbiz.com/blog/...

And places that have almost gone fossil-fuel-free:

https://mashable.com/2017/01/0...

But if you must include these distant and difficult to estimate costs, let's include them on both sides.

On the fossil fuel side, let's include the flooding, the levy-building/land reclamation costs, the refugee crises, the wars, the oceanic mass extinctions, everything bad that global warming has in store for us. These are about as far off as renewables' storage costs and we don't know exactly what they'll be. Do you think those will be cheaper than renewables and energy storage? Looks like it won't:

https://www.greentechmedia.com...

And that's not even accounting for the wars and such.

Level 3 DC fast-chargers are $50k-$100k each.

https://www.greenbiz.com/blog/...

Well what do you know?
I still haven't run out of copy/paste NOR has the reality abruptly changed to fit delusions of pathetic creatures who can't face facts.
How's them mod points working for ya, snowflake? Still downmodding facts and arguments you can't accept?
Aaaaw...

Anyways... as I was saying above to that CUNT who's accusing people promoting renewables of genocide...

Those hundreds of thousands you mention have NO energy, if by energy you mean electricity.
Nor the means to get it. There is no electric grid in most those places. Nor will there be as long as there's money in stealing copper cables.

And guess what?
Those "douche bag westerns preaching about global warming" are actually a part of the solution.
Cause all that preaching is the reason why western governments have pumped in billions of dollars into renewable energy (and continue to do so), increasing production and lowering prices of solar and wind power (particularly solar) - thus creating conditions for all those hundreds of thousands you clearly care sooooo much for to get electricity for the first time.
Electricity from renewable sources, that is.
Which is not only cleaner now, thanks in part to those "western douche bags", it is also cheaper than the same electricity from coal.

Which kinda makes you a part of the problem, doesn't it?
So... how does it feel to be "actively killing real people right now"? Does it get your limp dick hard enough to see it?
Without a microscope?

Poor snowflake can't face reality.
Snowflake want rubber ball? Squeezed between its ties it might feel like a testicle? Maybe?
Maybe then snowflake can face reality instead of being a pathetic loser who can't accept factuality of arguments, forced to throw mod-tantrums instead?
Like a retarded baby with diarrhea. Only more retarded.

Anyways... as I was saying above to that CUNT who's accusing people promoting renewables of genocide...

Those hundreds of thousands you mention have NO energy, if by energy you mean electricity.
Nor the means to get it. There is no electric grid in most those places. Nor will there be as long as there's money in stealing copper cables.

And guess what?
Those "douche bag westerns preaching about global warming" are actually a part of the solution.
Cause all that preaching is the reason why western governments have pumped in billions of dollars into renewable energy (and continue to do so), increasing production and lowering prices of solar and wind power (particularly solar) - thus creating conditions for all those hundreds of thousands you clearly care sooooo much for to get electricity for the first time.
Electricity from renewable sources, that is.
Which is not only cleaner now, thanks in part to those "western douche bags", it is also cheaper than the same electricity from coal.

Which kinda makes you a part of the problem, doesn't it?
So... how does it feel to be "actively killing real people right now"? Does it get your limp dick hard enough to see it?
Without a microscope?

The best part of all this is - facts still remain facts.
I.e. My downmodders are proving themselves to be SUCH pathetic cognitively dissonant losers with each downmode it's so HI-LAR-I-OUS it's almost tragic.
Like watching a brat writhing on the floor, kicking and screaming "IT'S NOT! IT'S NOT! IT'S NOT!".
And then you say "Oh yes it is." And kick it in the face.

You snowflakes realize you're more likely to run out of mod points while trying to bury facts than I am to run out of copy/paste?

Aaaaw... someone don't likey facty-facty? Boo-hoo... Poor snowflake. Don't you know that global warming is bad for you?
Too bad copy/paste is my ally.

Anyways... as I was saying above to that CUNT who's accusing people promoting renewables of genocide...

Those hundreds of thousands you mention have NO energy, if by energy you mean electricity.
Nor the means to get it. There is no electric grid in most those places. Nor will there be as long as there's money in stealing copper cables.

And guess what?
Those "douche bag westerns preaching about global warming" are actually a part of the solution.
Cause all that preaching is the reason why western governments have pumped in billions of dollars into renewable energy (and continue to do so), increasing production and lowering prices of solar and wind power (particularly solar) - thus creating conditions for all those hundreds of thousands you clearly care sooooo much for to get electricity for the first time.
Electricity from renewable sources, that is.
Which is not only cleaner now, thanks in part to those "western douche bags", it is also cheaper than the same electricity from coal.

Which kinda makes you a part of the problem, doesn't it?
So... how does it feel to be "actively killing real people right now"? Does it get your limp dick hard enough to see it?
Without a microscope?

Aaaaw... someone don't likey facty-facty? Boo-hoo... Poor snowflake. Don't you know that global warming is bad for you?
Too bad copy/paste is my ally.

Anyways... as I was saying above to that CUNT who's accusing people promoting renewables of genocide...

Those hundreds of thousands you mention have NO energy, if by energy you mean electricity.
Nor the means to get it. There is no electric grid in most those places. Nor will there be as long as there's money in stealing copper cables.

And guess what?
Those "douche bag westerns preaching about global warming" are actually a part of the solution.
Cause all that preaching is the reason why western governments have pumped in billions of dollars into renewable energy (and continue to do so), increasing production and lowering prices of solar and wind power (particularly solar) - thus creating conditions for all those hundreds of thousands you clearly care sooooo much for to get electricity for the first time.
Electricity from renewable sources, that is.
Which is not only cleaner now, thanks in part to those "western douche bags", it is also cheaper than the same electricity from coal.

Which kinda makes you a part of the problem, doesn't it?
So... how does it feel to be "actively killing real people right now"? Does it get your limp dick hard enough to see it?
Without a microscope?

Those hundreds of thousands you mention have NO energy, if by energy you mean electricity.
Nor the means to get it. There is no electric grid in most those places. Nor will there be as long as there's money in stealing copper cables.

And guess what?
Those "douche bag westerns preaching about global warming" are actually a part of the solution.
Cause all that preaching is the reason why western governments have pumped in billions of dollars into renewable energy (and continue to do so), increasing production and lowering prices of solar and wind power (particularly solar) - thus creating conditions for all those hundreds of thousands you clearly care sooooo much for to get electricity for the first time.
Electricity from renewable sources, that is.
Which is not only cleaner now, thanks in part to those "western douche bags", it is also cheaper than the same electricity from coal.

Which kinda makes you a part of the problem, doesn't it?
So... how does it feel to be "actively killing real people right now"? Does it get your limp dick hard enough to see it?
Without a microscope?

The truth is that the intermittency problem with wind and solar is so severe that when you get more than a few percent tied into the grid it actually has negative value.

Only if you do it stupidly. California is already seeing days where renewable make up 50% of their electric usage and their problems with negative value are relatively small, manageable and are in the process of being mitigated. BTW, the term for what you call intermittancy is the duck curve.

The smart way to do it is:

1. Improve the grid so that, for example, when the wind stops blowing off the east coast you can bring in electricity from the plain states to fill the gap.
2. Build natgas plants that can easily and rapidly spin up and down to also buffer the supply.
3. Include storage as part of the plants. California has recently added that to the law regulating all new forms commercial power generation in the state.

What you can't do is rely on baseload power (like nukes and coal) which get tons of subsidies in the form of guaranteed returns.

What's more, most of the energy used to PRODUCE solar panels, and much of the energy used to produce wind turbines, comes from soot-belching, coal-fired power plants in China, and most of the energy REPLACED BY these devices would have been produced in clean power plants with state-of-the-art "scrubbers" in North America, Europe & Australia.

That's all bullshit of the highest degree.
The energy required to manufacture wind turbines is recouped within about 6 months of operation.

And, in case anyone is interested:
The energy required to manufacture solar panels is a tiny fraction of how much they will generate over their lifetime.
In Middle Europe, where irradiance is about equal to that of Alaska, PV panels built with 10 year old manufacturing technology reached a net energy cost of zero within 3 years. In Southern Europe it was between 0.5 and 1.5 years.
Furthermore for every doubling in solar manufacturing capacity energy used to produce solar panels decreased by 12-13 percent, and greenhouse gas emissions dropped by 17-24 percent. Over the last decade, solar manufacturing capacity has increased 10x.

As for "scrubbers" and coal, China is way ahead of the US.
China recently cancelled construction of 104 new coal plants equal to one third of the US's total installed coal capacity. Even then, China's coal regulations are so much cleaner than the US's that by 2020 not one single US coal plant would be clean enough to legally operate if it were in China.

Wait what? That doesn't sound right, do you have evidence of this?

https://slashdot.org/story/06/04/11/1759205/wal-mart-controls-modern-game-design
http://corporate.walmart.com/_news_/news-archive/2006/09/22/wal-mart-launches-5-year-plan-to-reduce-packaging
https://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2012/06/04/3-ways-walmart-and-its-suppliers-are-reducing-packaging

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/ghost-milton-friedman-endorses-price-carbon

And in case you don't believe what's written, here it is from Milton's own mouth - discussion at 2:08 into the video, and he comments on taxing pollution at 3:08:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH0O_JjH06k

Down, but certainly not out - and definitely not out as fast as it would have been with continued nuclear use and development.

https://carboncounter.wordpres...

http://www.greenbiz.com/articl...

http://www.gtai.de/GTAI/Naviga...

https://eu.boell.org/sites/def...

Gas and renewables are the future. Coal is dying. There have been a rash of nuclear plants that are asking for bailouts or shutting down.

On the battery front there is very good news as well:

The Southwest commercial story is particularly interesting: Our original analysis did not indicate that solar-plus-battery systems would be cost effective in the Southwest for several decades. However, as illustrated above, the Tesla announcement enables cost-effective deployment of systems for commercial customers throughout the Southwest in the near term.

Bottom line: Thanks to Tesla’s announcement, in the Northeast and Southwest, an additional 60 million annual customer megawatt-hours cost-effectively can defect from the grid to solar-plus-battery systems more or less immediately, resulting in an additional $12.5 billion in annual utility revenue erosion.

Another factor to consider, which was not included in this comparison, is what might happen should solar prices drop faster than expected. Current prices and updated forecasts are coming in lower than what we modeled as well, meaning the economics could further accelerate.

Currently this is true, but the costs on batteries keep going down and as the battery producers ramp up production prices will drop even more. Things are going to get interesting more quickly than many realize:

In our modeling for both The Economics of Load Defection from April 2015 and its predecessor, "The Economics of Grid Defection" from February 2014, our average battery price in 2015 was $547/kWh. Our models did not assume a price close to $350/kWh until 2022 (the $429/kWh price arrived in our models in 2018).

This means Tesla’s batteries are seven years ahead of the prices we modeled. (The $250/kWh utility price point didn’t appear in our models until 2028, although we didn’t specifically model a utility-sized solution.) A seven-year accelerated price reduction means tens of millions more customers will be able to cost-effectively install solar-plus-battery systems than we originally modeled in our analyses.

Is more focus on humanity and less on capitalism.

Capitalism creates the economy that produces wealth to reduce poverty and improve living conditions. For example, China's decision to abandon strict communist has brought hundreds of millions of Chinese out of the extreme poverty of living on under $1 per day.

Capitalism also allows companies to effectively meet the individual needs of people. Compare the small number of models of Soviet-built cars with the vast selection of cars available in the capitalist sphere, from the Smart Car to the Hummer, to meet every possible personal need.

Isn't meeting the individual needs of people a "human" effort?

Capitalism is also slowly working its way into the "bottom billion" of world consumers, figuring out ways to bring them all of the consumer goods we have in the west, but sold in ways that meet their needs - for example, Unilever's Comfort One Rinse, designed to reduce the amount of water used when washing clothes in areas where water is scarce.

Or take D.Light, a for-profit social enterprise that has sold 12 million solar-power lamps to people in 40 countries who don't have regular access to electric power.

Considering more power plants are being taken offline than built I think your math is slightly off.

Tell it to the DOE and PNNL.

Are you really not aware of the fact that much more power is used during the daytime than at night?

And lastly the range of current electric vehicles isn't anywhere close to being useful. I live in the city where GM developed the EV. you barely see the cars in the summer and never in the winter as the range just isn't there

Clearly that has nothing to do with there being *incredibly small numbers produced so far*, heavens no...

100 miles sounds good in theory but if you turn on the air conditioning you get 50-60, you turn on the radio and head lights it is cut down even more.

Also outright false. Cruising at 300Wh/mi at 70mph is 21kW of cruising power. Max load for a car air conditioner might be something like 3kW. Maintaining temperature at a steady state even on a hot day will be a small fraction of that, perhaps 0.5-1kW. Headlights are even less, around 100W total, give or take depending on your headlight type. The radio is (generally) even less still.

There are two issues at play here: EPEAT failing to keep up with the times and Apple choosing to go in a different direction.

Regarding the first, imagine if you went to get your driver's license and they told you that, using their outdated test which failed to consider corrective lenses, your vision was too poor. EPEAT has similar issues. Alternatives to some of the problems they seek to address have been developed in recent years, but their certifications still fail to consider those alternatives, and will fail the devices as a result.

For instance, their interim-CEO was talking just a few months ago, and said regarding their goals (emphasis mine):

Part of it is expanding EPEAT's global reach through the multiple certification [process]; as well as moving into new, additional products; as well as updating the EPEAT [certifications], because they're a little long in the tooth. [Each of those] is a huge project on its own.

Regarding the second point, EPEAT checks a number of factors, such as the materials being used, packaging, energy conservation, and how serviceable the device is. Apple has received EPEAT's highest marks up until now for all of their devices that sought certification, but they're clearly interested in slimmer form factors that come at the cost of serviceability, which means that their future marks are likely to be much lower.

With regards to your drivers license example, so if I fell into the category you describe, I should just go and drive without a license anyway? Isn't that what Apple is saying with the EPEAT? I'm pretty sure the I would be in trouble for ignoring the test, regardless of how unimportant I thought it was. Likewise, ignoring the EPEAT, while not against the law, could have some very negative consequences for Apple.

With regards to Apple wanting out of EPEAT so that they can make slimmer devices, how is that any different than Ford wanting out of EPA so they can make bigger faster vehicles? I do understand Apple, wanting a thin molded on case, but surely it can be engineered so that a screwdriver can pry it off or some other method. Actually, I am quite sure it can be designed that way, which would mean Apple has a different reason than just wanting a thin device.

There are two issues at play here: EPEAT failing to keep up with the times and Apple choosing to go in a different direction.

Regarding the first, imagine if you went to get your driver's license and they told you that, using their outdated test which failed to consider corrective lenses, your vision was too poor. EPEAT has similar issues. Alternatives to some of the problems they seek to address have been developed in recent years, but their certifications still fail to consider those alternatives, and will fail the devices as a result.

For instance, their interim-CEO was talking just a few months ago, and said regarding their goals (emphasis mine):

Part of it is expanding EPEAT's global reach through the multiple certification [process]; as well as moving into new, additional products; as well as updating the EPEAT [certifications], because they're a little long in the tooth. [Each of those] is a huge project on its own.

Regarding the second point, EPEAT checks a number of factors, such as the materials being used, packaging, energy conservation, and how serviceable the device is. Apple has received EPEAT's highest marks up until now for all of their devices that sought certification, but they're clearly interested in slimmer form factors that come at the cost of serviceability, which means that their future marks are likely to be much lower.

EPEAT itself has admitted that their certifications are outdated. Back in March, a board member of theirs who was acting as interim-CEO addressed the question of what the new CEO's chief mandate would be (emphasis mine):

Part of it is expanding EPEAT's global reach through the multiple certification [process]; as well as moving into new, additional products; as well as updating the EPEAT [certifications], because they're a little long in the tooth. [Each of those] is a huge project on its own.

Source

I discussed this in a response to the last article about EPEAT, but they've failed to keep up with the times. There are a number of factors they fail to consider which render many of their current arguments moot. To shoehorn a car analogy in, it'd be similar to if you were unable to get your driver's license on the grounds that your vision was too poor, despite the fact that you had glasses to correct for the issue, simply because the agency issuing the license had failed to consider the "modern innovation" of corrective lenses. Similarly, there are alternative ways to address many of the things that EPEAT looks for, yet they fail to consider them since their certifications were developed before those alternatives existed. Companies at the forefront are thus discouraged from using them.

Now, none of that is to say that EPEAT should change their standards to let Apple's products in. Far from it, since Apple should still fail in several areas, given what EPEAT is designed to certify. All of the products Apple had certified by EPEAT prior to this received EPEAT's highest marks, including some Apple products, such as the MacBook Air, that are not known for being particularly serviceable, but this should be taken (as you said) as an indication that Apple is interested in pushing things even further in that direction, sacrificing user-serviceability in favor of other factors.

I don't see any of it as a false reality or fantasy. Rather, it simply looks like they got EPEAT certs while their priorities were aligned with EPEAT's, and now that they're not, they're doing their own thing once again.

That is, you spend $70/year on computer hardware that will find its way into a landfill rapidly.

With the wealth of options for recycling or even refurbishing a PC (e.g., FreeGeek), if a PC finds itself in a landfill, that only reflects on the laziness and lack of resourcefulness of the former owner. And yes, I'm aware of the unscrupulous 'recyclers' out there, but recent field research has shown that even developing-world Africans and Asians are rather ingenious at repurposing hand-me-down electronics.*

*For the citation-hungry: http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2009/08/07/developing-nations-may-reuse-more-electronics-thought

only for companies dumb enough to make such a short term decision.

Have you not been paying attention? In the last 10 years or so, both the stock market and the way most companies has become very focused on short-term decisions. Long-term thinking seems to have gone away.

Now it's all about meeting your quarterly numbers so the executives can get their bonuses ... by the time any of this "future" stuff you talk about comes along, they'll have moved onto other companies and it won't be their problem anymore. They don't invest in infrastructure or R&D to make sure they'll be viable in 10 years ... they cut, slash, and tweak to make sure that they're profitable in the near term.

It also means they're leaving themselves a bunch of things which they'll never be able to properly fix, because by the time it becomes an issue they'll not be in a position to fix it. Kind of like having a baloon payment on your mortgage and ignoring that you don't have the money for it.

Sadly, the stock market has come to expect this ... if you're not growing 10% every year (which is impossible to sustain indefinitely) you're "underperforming". I find it completely unsurprising that companies are acting penny wise and pound foolish ... the incentive is to save the pennies now and look good on paper, and hope that down the road is someone else's problem.

In part, I blame the shift in management that happened when all of a sudden you had people who only had a business education, no actual experience, and no experience in the industry they're working in. It became a purely "cut costs/increase performance bonuses for the management team" mentality.

Intel seems to have good labor practices: With the exception of Ricoh, Intel and Motorola Mobility, the IT industry earns dismal grades when it comes to sustainability and social practices, averaging about a D+, Oekom Research AG says in a new report. http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2011/12/19/it-industry-gets-d-green-policy-labor-practices

You say : "This report is flawed in thinking that 30% is ewaste and 70% of used computers are "used". "

I'm a former teacher (in Africa). It sounds like you are having trouble believing 5 independent international studies showing 70-90% reuse. There is no study showing 70% waste, at all. However, if you do want a study done in Africa (Nairobi), commissioned and reviewed by BAN.org, I have one. It was published in 2006. It showed 80-90% reuse (it does complain, bitterly, about the remainng 20%). So my question is, why is a teacher in the USA dismissing a study sponsored by the Basel Convention Secretariat in 2011,, a study which was commissioned to investigate the claims by the organization you produce films for?

As for your experience in Latin America, here is a link to a study of used electronics imported into Peru http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2009/08/07/developing-nations-may-reuse-more-electronics-thought. What the Reports in this article say is that most of the goods imported are used for years and eventually scrapped, and that well-intentioned NGOs (and teachers, apparently) mistake those for recent imports. But if you can find another study of any kind saying 70% is junk, please share it. BAN.org admitted to making up the statistic out of whole cloth at a meeting with EPA and MIT in 2011, by the way, so don't ask them for it.

> ...and I only upgrade at a maximum of once per year....

Once per year? Ye gods, the computer I'm typing this on was purchased at the turn of the century, replacing components as they failed. I replaced my phone when it failed 18 months ago and will keep this one until it fails and can't be repaired, despite there being a new model out this year with a dual core proc and better display. In fall 2010 I replaced the stock 8 gig SD card in my Droid X with a 16 gig card and may at some point put a 32 gig card in. If you did that... but you can't, can you? You have to replace the whole device. Besides, in fall 2010 you didn't even own the phone you have now, you owned the previous version, didn't you?

I also bought a higher capacity battery and separate charger, so I can swap batteries in the morning and keep one on the charger, and I have a battery I can use when the original finally goes stale. If you... Oh sorry, you can't do that either, can you?

iPad... god that's funny. My work issued me an ipad2. I played with it for a couple weeks, and gave it back. It's a toy. To do serious work you still need a laptop. As soon as that is no longer true, I'll consider a slate, and it probably won't be an ipad, for several reasons, not the least of which is I don't buy into this yearly forklift upgrade paradigm.

Look, it's not an upgrade if you replace your device. It's an upgrade if you put in more memory or a higher capacity battery. Replacing your device is replacing your device. Once per year? What kind of a fanboi would you have to be to replace a perfectly good device once a year? According to apple's own sales figures, over 73 million iphones have been sold. If everyone upgraded them once a year (some do more often, I have personal experience with this) the e-waste must be staggering.

And, of course, it is staggering.

So, you give away or resell your old model. And you really think Android users would not do that? And you really think it makes that much of a difference?

I take back, what I said, you don't have a log in your eye, you have an entire tree.

Have you looked?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage#Metal_hydrides
"Metal hydrides, such as MgH2, NaAlH4, LiAlH4, LiH, LaNi5H6, and TiFeH2, with varying degrees of efficiency, can be used as a storage medium for hydrogen, often reversibly.[8] Some are easy-to-fuel liquids at ambient temperature and pressure, others are solids which could be turned into pellets. These materials have good energy density by volume, although their energy density by weight is often worse than the leading hydrocarbon fuels."

http://web.ead.anl.gov/saltcaverns/uses/compair/index.htm
"Salt caverns or mines have been used to store air under high pressure.
* Compressors use off-peak electricity to fill the cavern with compressed air.
* For peaking demand, the compressed air is withdrawn from the cavern, blended with natural gas, and used to drive a gas turbine to generate electricity.
* CAES Plants of 110 â" 290 MW exist."

http://www.saltcavernstorage.com/caes.html

http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2000/alert14
http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2003/update24
http://www.earth-policy.org/books/pb4/PB4ch5_ss2
"Europe is already tapping its off-shore wind. An assessment by the Garrad Hassan wind energy consulting group concluded that if governments aggressively develop their vast off-shore resources, wind could supply all of Europeâ(TM)s residential electricity by 2020. 13 ... This climate-stabilizing initiative would require the installation of 1.5 million wind turbines of 2 megawatts each. Manufacturing such a huge number of wind turbines over the next 11 years sounds intimidating until it is compared with the 70 million automobiles the world produces each year. At $3 million per installed turbine, this would mean investing $4.5 trillion by 2020, or $409 billion per year. This compares with world oil and gas capital expenditures that are projected to reach $1 trillion per year by 2016. 29 Wind turbines can be mass-produced on assembly lines, much as B-24 bombers were in World War II at Fordâ(TM)s massive Willow Run assembly plant in Michigan. Indeed, the idled capacity in the U.S. automobile industry is sufficient to produce all the wind turbines the world needs to reach the Plan B global goal. Not only do the idle plants exist, but there are skilled workers in these communities eager to return to work. The state of Michigan, for example, in the heart of the wind-rich Great Lakes region, has more than its share of idled auto assembly plants. 30"

http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2010/08/24/plan-seeks-100-pct-renewable-energy-australia-ten-years
"The report, entitled Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan, "outlines a technically feasible and economically attractive way for Australia to transition to 100 percent renewable energy within ten years." The plan specifies that the 100 percent renewable grid be "based on proven technologies that are already commercially available and that have already been demonstrated in large industries.""

Recent:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-scientists-breakthrough-nanocomposite-high-capacity-hydrogen.html

This is slightly off your point, but interestingly, "big iron" might be in for a bit of a comeback . I agree with you that the beige box looked poised to win out in the late 90s, but its rise was predicated on cheap energy to an extent most of us didn't appreciate back then. When energy prices double or triple over what they were last decade, suddenly consolidating all those generic, standalone x86 PCs into virtual instances living inside one, massive, efficient mainframe makes a lot more sense. Sun knows this and markets on it extensively. And companies who have opted for the thousands-of-PCs approach in their datacenter are doing everything they can to keep the price of electricity down--without it they're screwed.

It's hard to say... international programs like this are generally rife with corrupt (can we say "oil-for-food"?).

It's funny that you mention "oil-for-food" scandal, which involved top to bottom corruption at the UN. Now who, again, will administer a international carbon credits program?

Here's a particularly disgusting one: "carbon financing will be used to fight poverty," the wealth transfer policy is the environmental policy -- like all carbon trading schemes are, just this one is more upfront about it.

Can't argue with that. But given that we're not going to stop churning out silicon wafers, the best thing we can do is look into making the process more eco-friendly.

What really blows my mind is that this is a new manufacturing plant, located in the U.S., and that its low resource usage is a big part of what makes it cost-competitive with sending the work overseas.

If you're interested in hydrogen you'll probably be interested in an article in Popular Science on how the first retail hydrogen station is opening in Iceland. Makes sense since the country has few cars and lots of geothermal electricity coming from the Reykjanes geothermal area where the North American and Eurasian tectonic plates meet.