Slashdot Mirror

If the government insurance is as good as the private insurance but cheaper, what's the problem?

Your point is valid, and applies to everything and anything — not just health insurance: "If the government X is as good as the private X but cheaper, what's the problem?"

The obvious problem is, it can not. It can only be "cheaper" if the taxpayer subsidizes it — our Medicare and Medicade spending (which only covers the old and the poor), for example, exceed the entire Department of Defense expenditures already.

Indeed! Dizzy with success of our:

• government schools — where we pay at the top of the world per pupil, but produce highschoolers unabled to compete with those of the Third World;
• government highways, which cost a fortune, but still cause an American — average, including those who don't drive at all — to spend 38 hours per year waiting in traffic (double that in busy places like LA)
• government postal service — which needs billions of bailouts every few years — despite having a monopoly on First Class Mail service

who wouldn't be anxious to switch to government-provided health insurance? What could possibly go wrong? Next up — government provided food (can't be healthy without good nutrition, can you?), shelter (same), clothes — you name it... I grew up in a country, where the government claimed to provide everything — and it sucked. I move to the US, and what do I find? A bunch of idiots wishing to make the mistake, someone has already made for them!

And it is not like you haven't been warned by your own:

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson

According to treehuger.com the flowers are genetically engineered. It's a danger unparallelled in human history, we're destroying the millenia old single lifeline there is, the genetical code.

And when the GMOs contaminate natural plants, one would expect the company making them be sued out of business but what actually has happened is the company goes suing the farmer for using their intellectual property! This model encourages careless handling of the GMO seeds and even intentional contamination. The human greed is boundless and shows no mercy.

Shame on Toyota, I for one certainly will not buy their products after this. I bet many people (especially in the EU) feel likewise.

"Bikers" pay gasoline taxes anyway. Cyclists would be perfectly happy with 10- to 12-foot-wide paths (equivalent to one vehicle lane), and those paths can use vastly lighter (i.e., cheaper) construction since bicycles weigh so much less than cars. Moreover, the traditional method of making of "better roads" -- adding lanes, increasing speed limits, etc. -- results in facilities worse for cyclists!

Oh, they have. A friend of mine did her PhD on computationally-enhanced textiles.

Do-it-yourself rapid prototyping machinery is roughly in the same state that home desktop publishing was back in 1980. Fabrication devices like 3D printers, laser cutters, CNC routers, and soon robotic garment makers will eventually become cheap enough that you will likely have access to one (if not in your home, then perhaps at your school or local crazy artist co-op). The thing is, most people have such a consumption mentality that given the opportunity to design and make things for themselves, they really have no idea where to begin. Fortunately, this is starting to change as people realize they can take an active part in designing and making the world they live in. Communities like Make Faire and various local flavors of DorkBot (go find yours!) are around to help educate and support your inner nerd. Personally, I've made a sort of 3D Logo language for programming physical shape that can be produced on a laser cutter.

what you say is reasonable but there are a lot of assumptions and i really would like to see some numbers. So what about solar panel ? Are they made with this concepts in mind or are they made just as cheap as possible without taking in account pollution made to make them or not? How long does it takes to make them "greener" or , using math, when this is true ?

Google is your friend. This IEEE Spectrum article has some numbers.

Also, even though the panels are made to last "forever" (many manufacturers give 25-year warranties), some players in the industry are already giving the option to recycle (since it only costs 1/3 in energy terms to recycle them than to manufacture them from scratch).

People really need to get past this "kills birds" thing. There was ONE specific wind setup that used high speed mills in an area filled with birds that YES killed lots of birds. And bats too as I recall. Newer mills spin more slowly and while tip speed is quite high birds avoid them, they can see them spinning. A number I've seen quoted is something like 1-2 birds per YEAR per big mill.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/common_misconce.php
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~insrisg/nature/nw04/0509Windmills.htm

Anyway, the problem isn't nearly as severe as opponents would like you to believe, not with larger mills anyway. It will be interesting to see how the larger mills fare long term. Your point stands though, none of this removes the need for power transmission. Generation that isn't constant is especially going to require the need to shuffle power all over the place.

have you seen the new Tesla model S ? http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/tesla-motors-model-s-platform-electric-minivan-crossover-suv-van-doe.php Now, that's what I call a sleek car.

Kensington will sell you cell phone connectors that will allow you to charge a cell phone from a laptop or other USB power source. It also has a portable battery that can provide an additional charge for your cell phone. Or step up to a fully universal laptop battery if you want to power that netbook

Some cameras can also be charged from USB, allowing you to use the Kensington portable battery or your netbook. Google to find out if yours can be charged that way.

There are at least half a dozen systems to charge a laptop (or in your case, a netbook) from solar power, effectively making it your portable power station, using solar power as the source.

We did it once upon a time.

Apparently Supertankers and Cargo ships have cut their speeds down to 10 knots to save fuel, some of the greatest Cargo ships of the Age of Sail managed 13 knots no dinosaur juice needed.

And everything one of the other posters cited about better materials and new designs still applies.

Flettner Rotors are more efficient than conventional sails, they failed because Diesel was just too cheap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_ship

Enercon a Wind Turbine company built a Rotor Assisted ship to ship its Wind Turbines and cut fuel cost 30%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enercon
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/08/flettner-rotors-cut-fuel-use.php

I was going to say the same thing. And it looks WAY cooler too! Here is a link to an article about it (yea, it's on a "Tree Hugger" site... it was the first one I found) with a pictures of it with the 19-year-old inventor. He was also on one of those "Shark Tank" shows where he got investors to give him, IIRC, 14 million dollars for a 20% share in his company.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/03/tesla-motors-model-s-electric-car-information-specifications-photos-performance-range-speed.php

Tesla has a 300 mile range tho you can trade price for range to some extent.

I love my Honda Element but it *REALLY SUCKS* that it has a 275 mile range. So really about 265. What the hell were they thinking? How much space can one more gallon of fuel take????

At least this idea was previously discussed here in 2008

I always laugh when people suggest the 'obvious' solution.... it either equates to, over fishing, destroying rain forest, inhumane treatment of farm animals, or well too much gas. Fact is the real problem is there are too many human beings... not only that these human beings eat a lot and we mess a lot.

Bottom line is the earth simply cannot handle it. In 1950 the world population wa below 3 Billion, in less than a generation we have doubled that. projections show that we will hit 1o billion by 2010.

http://www.treehugger.com/World-Population-Growth-2050.JPG

With the oceans over fished, rain forest being destroyed for farm land, and farm land being turned into industrial and commerce how are we planning to feed all these people ?

There is only one solution

http://scienceblogs.com/neurotopia/condom%20cartoon.jpg

The giant turbines along the Columbia River Gorge in Washington turn very very slowly. I can't imagine any bird having trouble with those.

Quick google brought this up.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/common_misconce.php

Umm...what batteries are you referring to that are dirty, nasty, and hard-to-recycle? Lead-acid batteries, sure, I'll grant that. But that's not what is being proposed for electric cars.

This http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/03/tesla-electric-car-batteries-non-toxic-recycled.php is closer to it.

With regards to life, I recall hearing that the newest generation of lithium batteries last far more cycles than your laptop's battery, though I cannot provide a link at the moment.

As for ultracapacitors, yes they're neat and could work. But the battery tech we have now is much closer to reality than our current ultracapacitor tech. Should ultracapacitors work out, we'll be grateful we started building the infrastructure to support our battery-powered cars.

Shipping containers

Depending on where you live, it's not necessarily free. Local water laws, especially in a headwater state like Colorado, can limit your ability to legally do things like that.

You'll note that the Santa Ana winds are also devastating to vegetation. They are the reason that much of southern California is a desert.

You are a little confused. The deserts of that region are rainshadow deserts. They are not caused by the Santa Ana wind (which is not even a permanent feature). In fact, the Santa Ana wind is caused (partly) by the high deserts.

If we made the (incorrect) assumption that Antarctica is guaranteed a similar desert region, it would also be guaranteed a region of high precipitation. The water moisture doesn't just evacuate into space.

I would also point out that climate change is unlikely to mitigate the antarctic katabatic winds -- it's more likely to amplify them, because there will be more energy in the system.

This fits well with 'Day After Tomorrow' logic, but is ignorant of how the winds themselves originate:

"Katabatic winds are created by the cooling of air close to the surface of the ice sheet on the higher parts of the continent. As this cold heavy air sinks, it presses down hard, pushing away all the air that was underneath. This process creates a downhill wind which, by the time it reaches the coast, is blowing at great force."

The unusual energy of the Antarctic katabatics comes directly from the existence of high elevation ice sheets. Global warming voodoo will not make the winds more powerful when the continent thaws.

As it happens, I was just reading an article about how global warming is possibly diminishing the force of the Santa Ana winds.

There is a reason that large plants do not grow past the Arctic tree line. Permafrost, wind, and cold inhibit vegetation, and they will cause severe problems for agriculture.

Yes, you have accurately stated the status quo. That is not relevant to our debate of what happens when these regions are warmed. The problems of cold and permafrost no longer exist in this scenario.

The angle of incidence of sunlight, in addition to the amount of sunlight per year, causes these effects.

Yes, because as I previously observed, the same quantity of sunlight is spread over a larger area. But also as I observed, plants can theoretically absorb much the same amount of sunlight being at a proper angle. (they would however have to spaced out father) Not that it isn't possible to use low-sunlight plants.

But you are pairing an unrealistic conception of how much sunlight is diminished with an oversight of geographical warming effects. I'll bet when the sunsets, you don't freeze to death. The reason for this is the earth's ability to retain heat. You should be acquainted with this since as far as I know this is the most fundamental tenet of man made global warming--that the suns energy remains constant but our activity causes more heat to be retained. In fact, there is a fairly intricate 'heat cycle' for which the initial bombardment by the sun is merely the first step. But it is a widely held theory that Antarctica did not ice over until warm ocean currents were deflected from the continent, which is the opposite of your theory that ice and cold temperatures must necessarily exist in the low sunlight conditions.

Antarctica will never get warm enough for agriculture to take hold -- if it does, the tropics and likely the temperate zones will be uninhabitable.

So why are we fearmongering over the possibility of ocean levels rising, when it seems to me that frying to death at the equator would be a much worse effect of the ice caps getting warm enough to melt?

It is because, for reasons mentioned on the last point, temperature does not distribute the way you think it does. The arctic can get 30 degrees warmer without the equator bursting into flames.

Yes- I believe in a world where people strip houses of wiring and pirates attack ships, that the large commercial windmills that contain very large copper cores

Those would have to be some brave freaking looters who really know what the heck they're doing if they don't want to, you know, die.

I think it's a little sad and I would love to see a power-meter that shows exactly how much power you use when you use it. I think that would make people think.

It's here already. I know there are others, but I found this quickly with GG and didn't care to look for more examples.

Why isn't everyone here trying to make their home and car as efficient as comfortably possible? It's the "techie" thing to do.

Simple. ROI. Some of us still have limited finances and ROI is a big deal. For those that it isn't, I'm sure many are already doing it. My dad built a house in the 1980s with double-thick walls, excess insulation, innovative heating, balanced electrical, non-traditional construction materials, etc. While the rest of our neighborhood used two pigs of propane (or more) per annum, we could make it over a year on one tank. When I'm in the same position, I'll do the same. Until then, I need to keep the pantry stocked with food and the car filled with fuel.

Speaking of cars, this thing is pretty cool.

If cities would allow no-holds-bared competition, every city would end up looking as if it were overrun by a herd of rabid gophers. It is simply not feasible to have 20 companies run wires/fibre/what-not all over the place.

You mean like these: 1, 2, 3, or 4? Or these: 5, 6? Darn, I wish I had those links, last week another /.er posted links to city views with a bunch more cables.

A saner idea, which some cities have implemented, is to place a whole network of city-owned conduits (essentially weather-proof empty pipes) which then can be leased for a nominal fee by anyone who wishes to run a fibre or some other wiring through them to a customer. Probably even more efficient would be for a city to run optical fibre to all households and simply lease that fiber to whatever competing businesses the residents wishes to be connected to.

It is better than what we have now. A Broadband Utopia does like you say, run fiber to homes and businesses then leases access. Here's the link to TFA.

Falcon

Look what BYD is doing on a shoe string... http://www.treehugger.com/galleries/2009/01/byd-f3dm-f6dm-e6-china-electric-cars-plug-in-hybrids- photos.php And it's is aimed at the working man rather than the sportscar crowd!!

Bully for you. But you have to be aware that there are different types of dimmers and different types of CFLs. Some work fine with all dimmers, some work fine only with certain dimmers. Since I don't know (and he likely doesn't either) the exact type of dimmer he has, the best way to avoid problems is to either use a dimmer designed for CFLs or a CFL designed to be dimmable.

All of the following text is from the reference provided:

[1]Newer dimmers are actually semiconductor devices that turn the switch on and off very rapidly - 120 times per second in normal designs. Because CFLs have a finite start-up time, and because frequent switching shortens bulb lifetime, these switches prevent the CFL from working optimally, and cause it to burn out quickly.

Manufacturers compensate for these problems by designing the power electronics within the ballast to deal with these issues. This requires more complicated and more expensive parts. Alternatively, you can design a special dimming switch for CFLs that put those power electronics before the switch rather than after it. This is more expensive, however, and requires a bigger retrofit.

Even with this "fix" there are expectations for dimmable products that need to be addressed.

[2] Do CFLs work on dimmers? Most screw-base CFLs do not work with dimmers designed for use with incandescent lamps. These CFLs will have a label on the lamp and/or the packaging stating "not for use with dimmers. However, certain special screw-base CFLs are designed to work with standard incandescent lamp dimmers. These CFLs will be labeled "dimmable" or similar language on the lamp and/or the packaging. However, due to small differences between different brands of dimmers, not all dimmable CFLs work with all types of incandescent dimmers. Some dimmable CFLs, however, will work with all major brands of incandescent lamp dimmers.

[3]Historically, incandescent dimmers worked through resistance- they lowered the voltage and the dimmer switch got hot, and the light bulb became very inefficient as low voltage barely warmed the filament. The bulb lasted forever but it used as much electricity as if it was running full blast.

Then the electronic dimmer was invented, which work by turning the light bulb on and off faster than we can see it, 120 times a second. It is not 100% efficient, which is why dimming your lights 25% reduces your electricity consumption only 20%. And it is no wonder why it causes problems for compact fluorescents, which are not designed for this additional turning on and off of a switch 120 times per second.

Its happening as you write. Just got back from a new field in Oregon. Coast farms are nothing new, and Texas is under construction. By the way, there's job growth in this sector. I think your argument is getting blown away daily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic#Energy_payback_time_and_energy_returned_on_energy_invested

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/wind_turbine_lca.php
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/env/enpaybk.htm

Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) is an economical way of delivering power to remote locations or areas isolated by war.

To deliver power to a certain places in Iraq and Afghanistan it costs well over $1USD/kWh, not mention the loss of human life.

The pentagon is seriously considering SBSP as a viable way to deliver power to not only these locations, but other places of humanitarian interest.

The technology to deliver and deploy SBSP payloads (for it will take many deployments) already exist. Improvements will undoubtedly be made, and with the hopeful completion of NASA's Ares V cargo launch vehicle SBSP will be economical for the rest of us. (under 20cents(USD)/kWh.)

As for the microwave radiation concern, it is not as scary as commonly depicted. (Can anyone recall the tale of the discovery of microwave radiation as a cooking tool--something to do with a Snickers bar melting in a pocket? [Who the heck carries a Snickers bar in their pocket?]) If the size of the receiving antenna is increased, the power of the transmitted signal may be decreased on a W/m scale. With a transmitter that can 'dither' the signal over a rather wide swath one can abate errors associated with tracking, solar anomalies and human error.

Military applications, however, are not quite as concerned with stray microwave beams.

Do not forget that SBSP is exposed to the sun for 24 hours--no interruptions!

On another note the Japanese are working on developing devices that may convert solar energy to transmittable energy in upwards of 40% efficiency by converting solar power to laser.

One of three finalists in this year's Evolo Skyscraper Competition, Eric Vergne's Dystopian Farm project envisions a future New York City ...

So that's what they're aiming for these days? A dystopian future? Well, at least the architects are catching on to the trend our government's been setting.

I don't know if it's Slashdotted or what but from what I can see in other sources, these are really just photoshopped images some dude made while tripping balls.

I may have been raised a dumbass farmboy but here's a few hints to architects like this guy:

• Plants (especially plants like alfalfa or grasses as depicted) have massive root systems requiring literally tons of soil to be healthy.
• Tons of soil weigh a lot.
• Soil has no architectural integrity.
• Buildings don't like tons of weight with no architectural integrity.
• Plants need water. Lots of water.
• Buildings don't like water.
• Plants die & rot (it's natural). Rotting plants smell. People don't like smelly buildings.
• Currently we use large machines to cultivate plants because it sucks, none of these images look like that would be possible.

I could go on for hours about how completely unrealistic this bad idea is. These pictures indicate that the architects have little to no idea of how top soil and nutrient cycles work.

There's no better way to put a million people into a square mile than skyscrapers in a city. Leave Manhattan as Manhattan and instead focus your efforts on controlling waste and returning the Northeast to massive forests (for some reason Americans love to overlook the ridiculous logging that took place here while we bitch and moan about the rain forests).

Its probably because most people don't want to haul their computer out into the living room to hook it up to the tv.

Blogs report that laptops outsold desktops in 2007 and in 2008. Several companies sell slim desktop PCs that would work well as a second set-top PC for the TV room; I believe this setup is called home theater PC. Why haven't PC game publishers taken advantage of these?

Or that typical interface for almost every PC game is keyboard and mouse.

Why is this the case, and why must it continue to be?

Of course PC gaming has always been a one person to a box thing unlike consoles

This brings me to another question: Say a company wants to develop a fighting game, a party game, or something else where putting all players' characters in one view is desirable. But the company isn't yet big enough to become an authorized developer on PS3 or Wii. What would you recommend?

you have problem of transmitting power from where you can produce it, to the place where it needs to be employed

HVDC, High Voltage DC powerlines can transmit electricity log distances.

Also, you still need some way to ensure a stable baseline of power - power that you can count on producing a minimum amount, all hours of the day or night, every day of the year. Coal, oil, nuclear, and geothermal offer that

As you say geothermal can provide at least some baseload as can natural gas. Geothermal provides power in California. Geothermal provides 13,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity. One geothermal power plant on the Big Island in Hawaii provides 25% of it's electricity. And in New York City geothermal energy is used to heat homes.

Finally, have environmentalists considered the impact of the land use necessary to produce electricity on the scale our nation needs using solar and wind?

Actually now many environmentalists now support nuclear power.

How many birds will be hacked to death by wind turbines

Cats are now a bigger threat to birds than wind turbines. Actually it was some of the older wind turbines that killed a lot of birds. Today they're made with bigger blades that spin slower, it was the fast spinning blades that killed birds.

Maybe bird migrations will be confused by all the glare from PV panels?

Birds are already confused by the windows on buildings.

Where are the UK, France, Germany, etc going to build their solar and wind farms?

Much of Germany has good potential wind energy. A German town is going 100% Renewable Power.

Falcon

wind is very difficult to scale, massacres birds, and is prone to mechanical failures.

I'll grant you mechanical failures but the first two are wrong. There are 5 megawatt wind turbines. Erect 20 of them a month and in one year you've added 1.2 gigawatts of capacity. As for the massacring part, old wind turbines which were smaller and spun fast were responsible for killing birds. Today's turbines have bigger blades which spin slow and therefore don't present the danger the older one did. While they do present some danger, cats present even more danger: "Cats More Lethal to Birds Than Wind Turbines""

Falcon

While many people paint Apple as a friendly company, (who wouldn't sue a school), the fact is that COO Tim Cook said recently (at a quarterly earnings conference call):

We approach this business as a software platform business. We are watching the landscape. We like competition as long as they don't rip off our IP. And if they do, we will go after anyone who does.

and

I don't want to talk about any specific company. We are ready to suit up and go against anyone. However, we will not stand for having our IP ripped off.

The Audubon Society likes windfarms in general and this one in particular.

But thanks for playing.

think I'm joking right?

there's already a lawsuit

1300 raptors are killed annually. Among them are 70 golden eagles that are federally protected. In total, 4700 birds are killed annually.

although I'm sure these are a little better planned out then they're predecessors I still haven't heard anyone talk about this in a long while.

rural folks in india have been doing that since forever.

Yeah, there are definitly gasifiers that are smaller than the 'factory size' that the summary claims. Germany, for example, had many cars running gasifiers during world war 2, since they were short on oil.

There are also DIY projects that have build cars like that:
A Honda Accord that runs on Trash
A converted pickup truck

When the government enters a market, it is at a competitive advantage as it is funded at least partially by tax dollars, which is revenue not linked to demand for its products.

Massive bailouts don't constitute demand-divorced tax revenue?

I suggest you read up on instances where this has happened in the past

1930's Germany? Specific references to examples are always nice :)

The fact is that this almost always results in complete socialization of the industry and a loss of the private component, because private industry has to have such a superior product in order to overcome the competitive disadvantage of the demand-divorced tax revenue the public "competitor" enjoys.

By that logic, one might conclude the solution to our current economic crisis is to socialize industry. Then we would put our foreign competition out of business and bring our jobs back home in one action. No?

An increasingly more common mechanical solution to this problem is to use flywheels:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9968539-54.html

Another nice mechanical way to store energy is to pump pressurized air into underground salt domes as is already being done for about 25 years in Germany:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/01/compressed_air_2.php

But your solution of lifting heavy stuff is in use as well in the form of pumping water back into storage lakes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wivenhoe_Power_Station,_Queensland
http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/sites/mtelbert/mtelbert.html

Actually, since gasoline weighs about .75Kg:l, a 60l tank weighs 45Kg, and this supercap weighs 127Kg, while the gasoline's 566KWh compares to the supercap's 52.22KWh, the gasoline's energy density is 2.82222222 * 10.8387591 = 30.5893868x the supercap's.

However, that's comparing to just the gasoline. The supercap isn't just the capacitive powder/plastic, it's the entire device. So include the gas tank's weight with the gas for comparison.

And then, since the gasoline must be combusted into power, include the engine and the entire fuel system all the way to the transmission. Then you've got to add the electric motor to the supercap for the comparisons to be equal. The electric motor can weigh very little, like the motors mounted in-wheel by Michelin at just 7Kg per wheel (*2 for 41hp = 14Kg). Electric vs gasoline energy density probably comes in at parity, or electric superior.

Plus regen braking delivers a huge advantage to the electric system (especially in traffic, where it can exceed a return of 50% to storage). And since the electric system weighs so much less than the gasoline, it spends less of its power moving itself, in a lighter car. Which is a nonlinear efficiency favoring the lighter vehicle.

So in fact this supercap should outperform gasoline cars. Just like current electric ones do, in the most important metric: acceleration. VVVvvvvvooooommMMMMMMM!!!!

Ok, I see your point, but I still think it's flawed. If you just hand money over to corporations so they don't fail, those corporations are going to use that money the same way they used the money the earned...badly. If, however, we pay the employees (who are layed off), the companies will realize the fucked up, and change their business plans. The coporations will lose some money (short term), the layed off employees will get some money till they find new jobs and the corporations will finally learn that daddy-USA is not going to bail them out every time they screw up.

Auto Industry Poster

Currently technologies of using an air bubble around the ship are already in use that drop the friction by up to 40% (article said this only works for a 20% reduction). The air stuff has the added benefit of helping to reduce the sound pollution of the ship as well.

Maybe you could try using both of them together but I doubt it since you have to repaint ship hulls so often. This would be way too expensive since I doubt it's just a paint you slap on.

Source: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/12/floating_on_air.php

...or just a well known speech made by somebody who was deliberately trying to cover up the truth? (aka: "Lying"). The guy responsible for that has a name, "Frank Luntz", and has since admitted he made it all up (under orders from Bush).

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/06/frank_luntz_acc.php

This sort of information (ie. concrete names, references, etc.) is what we call "pesky facts". Try it sometime.

> "Remember the global cooling scares in the 70's?"

Remember how accurate the weather forecasts were in the 1970s? They were a complete joke, right?

These days we have new toys like very accurate weather satellites which can measure *global* temperatures (the 70's scares were caused by lack of *global* temperature measurements and what's called the "island" effect). We also have big machines to process and visualize the data instead of slide rules.

IOW, the 1970's beliefs on climate are about as useful today as flared trousers and 8-track cartridges.

Again, google would have saved you from embarrassing yourself in public: http://www.google.es/search?q=1970s+climate+scare

Sharp Solar in Japan, for a total of 28,000kW of solar panels on the factory's roof.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/24/sharp-solar-panels-to-be-used-in-two-japanese-mega-plants/

Sanyo PV Manufacturing plant in Oregon.
http://solar1.org/2008/09/30/sanyo-announces-new-pv-manufacturing-plant-in-us/

GM powers 50% of some of their auto facilities with solar.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/gm-to-host-worlds-largest-rooftop-solar-array.php

Those are just a start. I designed and manage a PV array that provides 25% of my company's energy consumption and offer's an 8 year financial payback - in rainy Seattle. Many solar manufacturers place their panels on the roofs of their factories to offset a portion of their electrical consumption.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/10/n55-walking-house.php

"I don't see what the big deal is with voting fraud. So what?

true, ballot has a weak check and balance effect on some government actions, but in these cases the rigging has to be completely obvious, not stealth.

The rest of the times elections are just a propaganda tool giving an illusion of control to the voters, making government psychologically more bearable. Voting fraud is merely a small inefficiency within the government.

If you care about voting fraud, you believe voting makes a difference. If you believe that, you are truly naive."

elections do a bit more than just create an illusion of control, they actually create a populist agenda for the 'puppet masters' we call politicians. as an example, when hallucinogenic drugs were rampantly used in the 60's and 70's people who were well on their way to becoming the 'establishment' suddenly learned that a small drop of a drug can make them feel like they just sat down and talked to god, or learned how to fly, or even start to taste colors or smell the way things feel. the effect of hallucinogenic factors in the brain really do change a person's personality. although I've not taken drugs i have a mental illness that is often compared to taking LSD. I am a different person because of it.

the point? those kinds of drugs they really changed the way people felt, and they changed the way people were elected to office. it also created a war on drugs that has successfully kept 'the masses' mostly sedated and pacified with simple lies crafted by career politicians. where do you see college campuses being shut down by riot squads because of an unjust war? i'm not seeing it either, the 'war' on drugs was effective.

elections would really matter if people could free their minds of the worries of career and family, by taking a single hit of acid, and suddenly realizing that there are people making decisions to rape and destroy the world around you all in the name of 'capitalism' and that yes, by chaining yourself to a tree you can make a difference.

sadly, drugs that suddenly can strip away a lifetime of biases and set you free to explore the world and really see what happens when someone builds a parking lot, much less a mall, and tells you to buy buy buy, consume consume consume... what really happens is the whole ball of wax starts to go down the shitter. did you know the human race is about to wipe out the tuna fish? http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081021/sc_afp/indonesiaenvironmentspeciesfishtuna;_ylt=AniRffGQIiV6L6BWQv97BY5pl88F

yeah, a tasty fish eating fish is about 50 years from extinction. shrimp are also in danger, which would kill off a lot of other animals. but when was the last time you went into a restaurant that serves shrimp and saw a college student handcuff themselves to the front entry to tell people about the way commercial shrimping, along with commercial corn farming is causing the best shrimping grounds in the world to become a place where they're now in danger of extinction.

nope, you don't see it, instead you see a commercial from a big auto maker extolling the 'virtues' of corn ethanol. but where is the guy warning you that it takes 36 gallons of natural and irrigated water to produce a single gallon of ethanol from corn? http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/10/corn-ethanol-more-water-than-other-biofuels.php water is one of our most precious resources, yet if you believe the greenwashing of the ethanol industry, you'd think that corn ethanol was saving the planet, not killing it.

i do agree, that the system is broken. but unlike you i know that it can be fixed, albeit, with the usage and promotion of drugs that can release an individual from their 'happy little lives' trying to be a perfect sitcom family thinking of nothing but how to make a good income and have h

How about:
-Making cheap ACs with low SEER ratings illegal.
-force the market to develop new STANDARD battery size formats for electric hand tools and Garden tools.
-force 0-watt power usage while on "standby" for most electronics (eg:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/zero-watt-fujitsu-siemens-computer-monitor-idle.php)

Dude, the Department of Energy says you're wrong:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/09/excess_nightime.php

One common critique of an electric car revolution is that the increased energy demand might just lead to the generation of new power plants, negating some of the cars' positive environmental benefits. Well, according to a new study by the U.S. Department of Energy, those critiques are misguided. The study shows 84% of the 198 million cars, light trucks and SUVs on America's roads could be fueled by the existing energy infrastructure if switched to plug-in hybrid vehicles. When you add vans and other vehicles in the "light duty fleet," 73% of the 217 million vehicles could be powered with the power plants we have in place today. In switching from 6.5 million barrels of oil every day to electric cars fueled by off-peak power production, the study estimates a reduction of greenhouse gases by 27%.

Even with America's current power mix, with a heavy dose of coal power generation, electric vehicles are show to reduce total greenhouse emissions, however the picture isn't all rosy. The Department of Energy study also points to an increase in total particulate emissions with the grid pumping power all night. This, however, is much easier to tackle than petroleum-based pollution. As alternative energy gains a greater share of the American power pie chart, we can look for less particulate emissions as well. In the meantime, check to see if your power company offers green power or try to generate your own. Then, when you get your electric speedster, you can rev it up without worry.

Emphasis mine.

Now with all of the methane under the permafrost in Siberia, if an efficient method to capture it can be devised, Russia could become the Saudi Arabia of methane.

which is a truly wonderful plan. Honestly, it is!

If the methane can effective captured it would be good. Methane is 20 tymes more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas but by burning it CO2 will be released. Hydrogen can also be made from methane by reforming it.

But could you answer one small question - what's the technology you're going to use for capture of this methane.

That's the hangup, capturing the methane. Here's some researchers extracting methane from permafrost. I read some tyme ago about a Russian oil company working on a way to capture methane.

I get quizzed on the potential of exploiting methane clathrates almost every time I go off to do my work - drilling oil wells.

This brings up something I don't understand, oil companies burn off methane where they drill and pump, those flares. Is that because it's difficult and or expensive to transport?

look at the tar-sands which are just starting to come on-stream and be significant

Doesn't the tar-sands, at least in Alberta, require a lot of water and energy to heat the water?

coal production is falling through the floor

Though I'd love to see that the US has 100s of years of coal, at least the way we're using today. I don't know how long it will last if it's gasified and used for purposes other than power plants.

Falcon

There are some research projects and operations in the use of biogas as an energy source. Now with all of the methane under the permafrost in Siberia, if an efficient method to capture it can be devised, Russia could become the Saudi Arabia of methane.

Falcon

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/12/new_world_recor.php

TFA is slashdotted, but a little googling shows this happened two years ago.

"Some of them probably don't even have much body hair."

but only because they use the hair to mop up oil spills. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/11/hair_and_shrooms.php

Having very large PSUs is a pain in the ass. Failures tend to be catastrophic and dangerous. They're more expensive to build and maintain. (think basic economy of scale problems) They also may not be any more efficient than distributed conversion. You also tend to distribute much lower voltages with DC than you do with AC. (240vac vs 48vdc) This gives very high amperages which requires much thicker wiring. Copper is EXPENSIVE right now, this makes it a big factor in the cap-ex of building a new DC.

This is why a lot of work is going into improving the efficiency of commodity power supplies. Groups like 80plus.org are doing great things.

Also some other links:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/secret_efficien.php
http://services.google.com/blog_resources/PSU_white_paper.pdf