Slashdot Mirror

Your information is way out of date (if it ever was true). PV is relatively clean and cost effective now, and per unit these advantages will only improve with increasing volume. We just don't need centralized nukes in the next few decades, propping up a nuclear industry with a history of lies, murder (Silkwood), and pollution, built on government subsidies for R&D and insurance, and initmately associated with WMD production.

On scalability, PV solar systems work well especially when integrated with a system that gets some of its energy during cloudy or nighttime from cogeneration, which could be fueled using hydrogen made elsewhere by solar panels, or by biodiesel fuelds derived from farms, or from synthetic carbon based fuels (like synthetic propane) created from power from solar panels deployed in equatorial areas or the ocean. To see such an solar and cogeneration system working cost effectively in a major northern city, consider:
http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/popup/hhtoronto/works.h tm
"What is truly amazing is that CMHC's Healthy House in Toronto provides all the comforts of home - without using municipal services. It has been designed to rely on sun and precipitation as the basis of its heating, electrical, water and waste water management systems. And right from the start, the way it is built and the materials used in construction mean more comfort, less maintenance and lower operating costs. That goes for the landscaping, too. CMHC's Healthy House in Toronto is located near public transportation, and is designed to provide maximum usable space on a minimum amount of land, to limit air and water pollution, and to use locally available materials and durable renewable resources wherever possible. It is an affordable solution to housing now that will keep on working for many years to come."

On pollution:
http://greennature.com/article641.html
"These differences, however, may not be particularly meaningful, according to Vasilis Fthenakis, a senior chemical engineer at Brookhaven National Laboratory who specializes in the potential environmental impacts of solar cells. "There are no significant environmental and safety hazards with any of [the types of solar cells] to the scale that they are manufactured today," he explains. And although there are some hazardous materials used, such as silane gas, cadmium, carbon tetrafluoride, and lead, he says, "if you look at the quantities in relation to their use in other industries, they are very, very small." But these risks will become more significant as the industry grows, he adds."

Still, the fact remains that either we clean up all manufacturing towards zero emissions, or we will be burried in waste and pollution no matter what our energy source. R&D into all forms of low pollution manufacuring in the future will benefit PV.

Overall they make sense right now compare to what we have:
http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1119
"An average U.S. household uses 830 kilowatt-hours of electricity per month. On average, producing 1000 kWh of electricity with solar power reduces emissions by nearly 8 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 5 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and more than 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide. During its projected 28 years of clean energy production, a rooftop system with 2-year payback and meeting half of a household's electricity use would avoid conventional electrical plant emissions of more than half a ton of sulfur dioxide, one-third a ton of nitrogen oxides, and 100 tons of carbon dioxide. PV is clearly a wise energy investment with great environmental benefits!"

And consider innovative approaches towards lifetime recycling of PV products:
http://www.renewableenergyacc

CFCs destroy ozone.

Yes, but do they have any significant effect compared to say solar flares and the like?

Its a complicated universe.

Entergy will sometimes sell some of their excess off-peak generation from AR Nuclear-One for as low as $7/MWh. Compare that to the average coal cost of about $15/MWh, natural gas of about $70/MWh, oil-2 $60/MWh, and less refined oil about $50/MWh. I don't understand why the US doesn't have more nuclear plants. I guess people fear what they don't understand. See this and this for more info.

European countries have more of a dependence on Nuclear power than the US, see power statistics.

Throughout the world, most people are uneducated about nuclear power and do not consider it green at all. In fact, nuclear power is much cleaner and cheaper than coal. Wind and hydro power are both less environmental friendly and more expensive. See this government waste article for details. Also, you can't put wind, hydro, and tidal generator in as many places as nuclear. But, people fear what they don't understand making electric companies like the one I work for less likely build nuclear power plants because of the bad feelings people get about nuclear power.

These guys are a little off the mark. Global warming is a combination of very-long-term weather cycles and the earth slowly dying.

"First fact to consider is just one lone volcano in an eruptive phase releases more of these toxic gases in a single day then mankind has in its species existence"

The problem is that there are more volcanic eruptions. Volcanic activity is increasing very fast and is a major symptom of the planets approaching death.

Maybe they should fast track the terra-forming of Mars.

I agree with parts of what the parent said, and this post is only in part intended as a reply to that post. I do, however, think that it is important to point out that global warming does affect some people greatly, and those people are not European. I don't think that the "people do die" argument is valid here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2204756.st m
http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20030729/449_7030.asp
http://greennature.com/article1608.html
http://www.climatehotmap.org/africa.html

[...] laws often use definitions of words different from what they really mean.

Exactly, like declaring things vegetables when they really are fruits, just so they can collect more taxes.

Because, ultimately, the safety systems at Three Mile Island were able to keep the plant from blowing up, where other nations have not done so well when they had accidents. Nuclear power systems are safest made by advanced technological nations... even leaving aside the number of agressive loons who want nuclear bombs to lob at their obnoxious neighbors. True, even the current guys get it wrong... but the US has 60 years of experience in screwing up, and tends to not make the same engineering mistakes twice. (Political mistakes are another story.) If the developing world gets to use advanced safety designs, even if only by borrowing them rather than having to build them themselves, it's probably safer than them trying to reverse engineer the product and botching it.

You want to stop nuclear proliferation? How about starting with the United States, Israel, England, France, India...

Ummm... because stopping proliferation means keeping those who don't have nuclear weapons from getting them, which is incidentally easier than it is to get the ones who have them to give them up?

the mccormick place exposition centre in chicago had ornamental lighting that casued navigational confusion for birds (ie. it looked like the moon) resulting in a total of 1,500 bird deaths between 1982 and 1996.

i am not making this up. there's a good article on how light kills birds here.

In fact:

The 100,000 elephants is low even for today. And as recently as 1970 there were an estimated 1.5 million wild elephants in Africa alone.

Fifty years isn't a bad guess for generations. this article puts life-span at 60 years... but, ater factoring in early mortality, historical average life was probably much, much lower.

Continuing back-of-the-envelope calculations:

Let's say that an average historical elephant population was two million...

... and average life-span was twenty years...

... and assuming an historical period of, say, ten thousand years...

... suggests that two billion elephants ever lived.

Silly article.