Slashdot Mirror

It's not at all clear if geothermal is usable on a large scale. E.g. it may trigger earthquakes:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/geothermal_powe.php

Windfarms aren't as bad for birds as previously thought. Won't somebody please think of the birds?!

*munches on leftover turkey*

The EV1 was only a failure in GM's eyes, no one else's. 120 miles on a charge isn't a bad thing and better batteries are available now than were 10 years ago. Last I looked, the Tesla came in at under $100k, which is still not quite the price point most people can handle. (It could be worse, of course, this could be a Venturi Fetish, at $660k. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2004/10/venturi_fetish.php )

I want my electric car and I want it noooooow, is that too much to ask?

[quote]A single coal power plant is a large ugly brick building stuck near a rail yard with a single or short series of tall smokestacks all located on the same campus, not a tens of miles long stretch of hideous moaning machines interrupting your previously uninterrupted property.[/quote]

You've apparently never seen a fossil plant up close. It's not just "a railyard", but a whole coal depot that they have near them. It's like a giant's sandpit; the machinery that moves the coal around looks like little ants. They have to spray it all the time to keep the risk of a fire down.

And that's not the problem.

The problem is the huge plume of pollution that comes off of the plants. Apparently you don't care about your lungs. I care about mine. How pretty do you find hospitals and dead trees?

How come we don't wind turbine farms on the tops of buildings in large cities

Because the building has to be built extra strong for that. You can't just add a turbine on top of a building like that. Extra strength means extra cost. Big cities build their turbines offshore. Like, for example, the London Array.

or in Central Park

Apparently the term "high property values" means nothing to you. How much does an acre in rural New York cost? Now how much does an acre in Manhattan cost? Prices aren't irrelevant. In fact, they're the most relevant issue at hand.

Long Island Sound

There was one. It was going to cost too much compared to how much power it would have provided..

off Martha's Vineyard etc etc

You mean like Cape Wind?

And yes, there are some people like you who've been protesting it. Apparently they'd rather breathe heavy metals from coal burning (like the unopposed Canal Electric plant) than have a barely visible turbine on the distant horizon.

'...and raise you one "Way way cool, might make everyone immortal."'
Of course, there are some who wouldn't enjoy being rich or immortal if everyone were so; they can go die then, the poor things.

'I have been told that Isaac has discovered, and will now reveal to me, the Secret of Immorality!'
[Whisper, whisper, whisper]
'Oh. Well, that wouldn't be bad either...."
----half-rememberèdly stolen from Book two[?] of Neal Stephenson's Baroque Trilogy.

Not true. Just for starters, (and at the risk of repeating myself)..

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46415

Summary: Australia plans to build a 154MW solar plant which powers 45,000 homes. No info on cost or scalability (the government is contributing $120 million, but we're not told how much the total cost is). Is 154MW max energy, or average/expected energy?

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/worlds_largest_4.php

I don't go to "treehugger.com" for unbiased news about energy, but okay. Summary: They announced they would build an experimental 500MW plant over a 20 year period. Once they've built 1MW they'll see if it works, and if it does they'll continue to ramp it up to a potential 500MW in 20 years time. And is 500MW max energy, or average/expected energy? It's interesting, but it's not available here and now, and I question the 6c/kWh price too (which is coming from the people seeking investment).
See Wikipedia for information on why no-one is rushing to invest in the Stirling Engine.

Nuclear power, by contrast, is here now; ready, and waiting, and capable of taking on the entire burden of our energy needs.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/21/BUG9VJHBLB1.DTL

Summary: A company is investing $100 million in another experimental solar technology that hopes to solve the problem of our limited silicon resources. No mention of efficiency, timeline, or why we haven't heard anything about the technology since the article was published, as they said they would be pumping out "200 million" cells by 2007.
Again: Nuclear power is not an experimental dream or the idea of a gambler looking for investors; it's a tried, tested, readily available technology.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1321857,00.html

Summary: The worlds largest solar plant in 2004. $26.5 million, 33k cells * 150W/cell = 495KW = 5MW. It also uses silicon, which we don't have enough of to make enough of these to contribute a significant chunk of power. Is 150W/cell max energy, or average/expected energy?

http://www.pvresources.com/en/top50pv.php

A list of solar sites, no mention of costs. Topping the list is a solar site that generates 20MW (max energy, or average/expected energy?). Your average nuclear reactor generates 1000MW (max energy, but it can be maintained at max energy, unlike solar/wind power which depends on sunlight/wind). Did I mention nuclear is scalable, and ready now?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6031995.stm

Wind farm. 300MW *max energy, or average/expected energy?), $300million. It beats the $30 million for 5MW for the German plant you gave above, but it won't work too well in places which aren't as windy as Scotland. Nuclear power can be used anywhere, and in any amount. Things like hydroelectric power are good where there are canyons, and wind power is good where there's wind, and solar may possibly be good if you're a small town in the middle of a desert, and geothermal is good if you live near a volcanic site, but nuclear is good everywhere.

All of Americas power needs could be supplied by (for example) covering 100x100 km of the Nevada Desert with PV cells. Why not just bite the bullet and do it?

Because we don't have the silicon required, and it would be massively expensive even if we d

Ok, additional info to my original post..

You would need to build a solar plant of about 100 x 100 Miles in the Nevada desert to generate the USAs electricity. USA had around 743 GigaWatt (0.743 TerraWatt) installed generating capacity in 1998 - I will dig out a newer figure, but lets say about 1 TerraWatt today.. This scheme in Nevada:

http://www.reuk.co.uk/Nevada-Solar-One.htm

Delievers 64 Mw for 350 acres = 45 watts per sqr meter.
100 x100 miles = 26 000 000 000 m2.
* 44 (watts) = 1.17 TerraWatt supply. Is 100x100 miles too much? How does it compare to coal-strip mining?
It is true that the sun doesnt shine at night - so in reality you would have a mix - wind power, tidal, etc - backed up with ready-to-roll capacity, pumped hyroelectric storage, and new tech like very large SuperCapacitors. Technology is moving all the time..

Cost? Figures vary, but Nevada Solar quote about $0.07/Kwh, wind and others maybe a little less. With oil hitting $80 a barrel this looks good, its hard to compare to Nuclear because of the huge hidden subsidies it recieved, both in terms of research and hidden unknown costs like waste disposal and decomissioning..

More links on power schemes..

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46415
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/worlds_largest_4.php
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/21/BUG9VJHBLB1.DTL
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1321857,00.html
http://www.pvresources.com/en/top50pv.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6031995.stm

As for Three Mile Island, read this link. Years later, when they could actually inspect inside the reactor, they were horrified to see just what a mess it was in - a huge glob of melted reactor fuel nearly breached the containment vessel - it was very very close to a Chernobyl type meltdown..

http://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/tmi03.htm

Geothermal Power Plant Triggers Earthquake in Switzerland http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/geothermal_powe.php

Even environmentally friendly alternative technologies can have negative impacts which are difficult to predict. The citizens of Basel (Switzerland) learned this first-hand as they were shaken by an earthquake of magnitude 3.4 on the Richter scale, followed by 60 lesser aftershocks, including a quake of magnitude 2.5 a week after the initial quake, and another tremor of 3.1 as recently as 6 January, attributed to changes as underground pressures at the now discontinued project site return to normal. The engineers and officials of Geopower did inform the authorities and the public that the proposed Deep Heat Mining project posed a risk of triggering small tremors. Quakes of the magnitude actually experienced, however, were not anticipated.

Is it really going to be cheaper than (say) paving large areas of desert with ever-cheaper solar cells? Or building the really large wind-farm projects in the many available on/off shore locations?

Yes, with a capital 'Y'. Much, much cheaper, much, much more scalable, and also more environmentally friendly.

Nuclear is really the only option, and it's great that your government is going with what's right rather than what the misinformed majority think about nuclear power.

But, dammit, nuclear energy has no alternative for the moment.

Not true..

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46415
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/worlds_largest_4.php
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/21/BUG9VJHBLB1.DTL
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1321857,00.html
http://www.pvresources.com/en/top50pv.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6031995.stm

All of Americas power needs could be supplied by (for example) covering 100x100 km of the Nevada Desert with PV cells. Why not just bite the bullet and do it?

there are risks in nuclear energy production

Hmm.. People dont realise just how close 3 mile island came to being as bad as Chernobyl - by sheer luck the vessel held the molten glob of reactor fuel. For a little exersize, extrapolate a Chernobyl scale incident to the 3 mile island area..

http://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/tmi03.htm

I was using 89 billion per year...

I looked around for your 6.5 billion per week figure and could not find it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonh ardt.html?ex=1326690000&en=7f221bfce7a6408c&ei=509 0
The Times is known as a liberal paper and they are saying 700 billion total- at a rate of about 2 billion per week.

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast /archive/The_True_Cost_0720723.html
Kiplinger says about 2.5 billion per week:
The war in Iraq is exacting a large taxpayer toll that will fuel much debate and affect the ability of Congress to find funding for popular domestic programs. With 158,000 troops in Iraq, at least until September and probably much longer, the war costs $300 million a day -- or almost $10 billion a month.

Here...
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/10/selling_so lar_t.php

It looks like 1kw is 22,000 (for a non battery backed up system) so that's $33,000 for a non battery backed up 1.5kw system. That's lower than the $50k per house subsidized ($100k per house raw cost) I was using a couple years ago.

Its not clear that this is unsubsidized but I think it is before subsidies (and is MUCH cheaper than when I did my last rough calculation).

So say $40k for a battery backed system (and 7k per 10 years for replacing batteries and inverters but ignoring that).

At 40k, you'd get 6,200 houses per week or about 322k houses per year.

Per wiki..
In the year 2005, there were approximately 113,146,000 households in the United States.

So it would take 3 centuries to give them solar power.

Drop the cost factor to a 10th of what it is now and it would take 30 years (exciting!).

I think they are going to bottom out at about $5k per system + batteries if you want those and then inflate up after that.

The cool thing about solar is that it doesn't add energy to the environment. Burning coal/Nuclear/Fusion adds energy that was stored in the past. Solar just converts current energy that was shining on the house anyway.

While at Purdue one of my friends worked on a process to increase solar cell efficiency by etching TiO2 coatings into long, thin whiskers that helped 'whisk' photons down into the surface of the material. It basically doubled the efficiency of a 3% cell in the visible range. Solar hasn't taken off.

Glass typically blocks UV. Most glazings contain glass. If this only boosts (and 60%, while a large number, is still a tiny increment in efficiency) the UV efficiency then there may be limited use... unless you count concentrator applications.

The "Sun Cube" (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/04/sun_cube_ by_gre_1.php uses lenses to concentrate light onto small, very efficient space-grade solar panels. Each panel (if memory serves) was on the order of 1 sqcm, allowing these very expensive but very efficient (25%+) panels to be used. The overall effect was to to take 1 m2 down to 10 sqcm of chips.. and yet have the power output be about the same. Combine that concentrator technology with higher utilization of UV bands AND ultra-efficient space grade panels and you've got a winner (concentrators work ONLY in direct sun- no clouds).

Just some food for thought.

FYI: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/08/zap_alias. php

Not that the power grids of most industrialized nations could withstand the introduction of fifty or sixty million electric vehicles anyway.

I'd say their engineering is spot on, given their goals.

General Motors does it much better. This is the proper way to do hybrids. No goofy transmissions needed.

Being one of those who can't stand light text on dark backgrounds, the first thing I was inspired to search for on Blackle was "awful background color". And the first hit returned was one discussing Blackle.

About damn time. The state of our energy and environment affect more people now and in generations to come than any other issues on the news, period. I challenge you to find anything of such widespread and serious interest.

Not so long ago India announced that it is serious about the space solar option. I'm glad there's enough good sense in Washington to do likewise. We should get Europe and China on board, because unlike the ISS, this is the real deal and more significant to our future than going to the Moon or Mars.

Plus, it's damn cool.

So this study was originally intended to "focus on the ecological impact of inkjet printing." Instead of focusing on that there's a diversion into the fact we're not getting all the ink we should out of our cartridges. Even the environmentalists are focusing on that it seems (ex. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/06/printers_g uzzle.php) Now, I'm no treehugger myself but find it odd that at the end of the day no one is speaking on exactly what is the ecological impact, what should one do with spare cartridges, etc.

Now, I understand why Epson spin doctors would want to flaunt the finding that less ink is wasted (regardless of the fact it does not imply they're more efficient, cost-effective or anything else) but why is no one talking about the greener side of the matter?

Flamebait? I think the mods are the ones smoking the stuff, sheesh. Someone revoke that moderators privileges, total abuse there.

Poster was actually completely on topic...though obviously too stoned to remember to provide any reasonable details. Maybe they'll fill in the blanks when they come down ;)

Links:
http://www.hempplastic.com/
http://www.treehugger.com/

http://www.hempmuseum.org/

Just for starters.

... and, here's a link to the story source - at least they referenced it in the article, but essentially its a rewrite of the treehugger item submitted as blogspam.

While I'm whining, is there a template for stories about huge technological advances in energy production? Like "A startup has developed a new form of [insert name of your favourite green energy production system here]. It takes the existing process of [current way to produce power] and optimises it by [super high level technical details of magical new system], resulting in an efficiency improvement of [insert random number greater than 1 here, without citing details about how it was measured or what the costs of the new procedure are]. Read more about it on [insert link to your blog].

Cool? I daresay this one will do! http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/the_hybrid _mini.php

This report generated quite a buzz in the green blogosphere when it was released (last year). There are some serious questions about the validity of the report.

1) I care about the internal components of my system and having my say as to what goes where to do what. I don't want a prebuilt system. I stopped buying premade's when I was in highschool, almost 10 years ago. 2) My PC works with anything I plug into it - sure I need to install the odd driver but when it comes down to it there's nothing I can't make work with my computer in Windows. 3) When it breaks I know where it broke and I am responsible for fixing it - none of this carry it into the store and let them fuck around with it bullcrap. 4) Software software software. Sure everything that I can run on a PC can run on a Mac, but lets be honest, playing games on a crappy emulator doesn't count. Sure, there are Mac versions of Word and shit, but I'd rather stick to a copy of Open Office anyways. 5) I make my PC look how I want it to look. http://i.treehugger.com/files/th_images/junnaMedia 2.jpg vs http://images.apple.com/ca/imac/gallery/images/gal lery1imac20060109.jpg ... No question in my mind.

Current research from CIGRE,(7) (International Conference on Large High Voltage Electric Systems), indicates that long-distance transmission can be made reliable and economically successful up to 7000 kilometers with HVDC, (High-Voltage Direct Current), and 4000 kilometers with HVAC, (High-Voltage Alternating Current). This permits inter-regional and even intercontinental power delivery from remote sites where large renewable energy sources are found.

Dozens of environmentalist blogs have picked apart this "study" and have found it to be lacking. Two responses. The gist of it is that they underestimated the Prius' lifespan and overestimated the amount of energy it takes.

And a big red flag for every Slashdot reader is that CNW is a "market research" institute. Do you trust marketdroids to make engineering assessments?

Damn - hit submit instead of preview. Crrect URL is http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/we_cant_be lieve.php

This is why solar powered flight is important:

"Called the Zephyr, it's an aircraft that can fly continuously using nothing but solar power and "low drag aerodynamics". The combination of solar panels on the upper wing surface and rechargeable batteries allows Zephyr to be flown for many weeks and even months. The first flight trial of the Zephyr were conducted recently by QinetiQ in White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.

Two aircraft were flown for four and a half and six hours respectively, the maximum flight times permitted under range restrictions. The maximum altitude attained was 27,000 feet above sea level. The ultra-light aircraft is designed to fly at altitudes as high as 132,000 feet (25 miles/40km), above normal commercial air-lanes and most weather.

QinetiQ believes that stratospheric platforms will rapidly become commercially viable and revolutionize future communications. High altitude platforms of this sort could provide a cheaper alternative to satellites in remote areas and developing countries. They can also enable observation of natural disasters and humanitarian crises."

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/solar_powe red_p_2.php

one good way to pull it out of the atmosphere is to stop whacking every forest within reach.

Or, if you are going to whack forests, whack THESE forests.

(Whack, Forrest, Whack! Whack, Forrest!!)

As usual, the Mythbusters experiment is inadequate and does not actually represent science.

Then we have to consider both the cost of recycling those which are recycled (since they have Mercury in them it is vitally important to recycle them)

Not sure I would agree that it is vitally important. The amount of Mercury that they prevent from going into the air over their life is far more than the amount of Mercury that is in the bulb since Coal plants dump a lot of Mercury into the atmosphere. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/06/what_about _merc.php There are plenty of other sources as well.

Still, it would be nice to recycle so you are correct that it should be included in the cost.

All in all this is a pretty pathetic alternative to just building a couple nuclear plants in California, and letting technology solve the lamp power consumption problem.

I read that more mercury would be released into the environment from the extra fuel burned to light an incandescent bulb, than is found in a CF bulb. This assumes that your electricity is from coal, or maybe oil. So you should not let the trace amount of mercury found in a CF keep you from using it with a clear conscience.
A quick google search turned up this discussion:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/06/what_about _merc.php

First of all .. In my neck of the woods, we pay 28 cents/KwH (1,6066 DKR) .. your 50 year ROI becomes a measly 8 years .. still longer than most people live in one place, but a battery of sun panels on the roof probably will up the value of a house (I wouldn't mind paying extra).
I can see why you disagree with my coment, I should have included the calculation before ..

There are some very interesting small turbines comming out that have a quite low ROI even compared with the price you pay..

Hydro and geothermal wasn't what I was refering to, but more the things you can do in your own home, to get around the electricity bill.
This guy is using a waterwheel .. normally I would consider hydro a huge (government type) investment, but hey .. you got to use what is at hand..

Which brings us to current events in Spain .. other countries in Europe has similar goals.

The rules are changing changing faster in Europe than in the States, at the moment.
(Higher prices => other thought patterns)

I have a background in this reality and would advise anyone reading the source of this thread to take a moment and look up the following 'word set' on any search engine:

Geothermal Injection Induced Earthquake

Due to increased seismic activity generated by injection (studies done in Colorado) Hawaii turned down geothermal power.

Here are a few links to get one started:

Man-Made Earthquakes & Press Coverage (Anderson Springs, CA, USA)
http://andersonsprings.org/

Anderson Springs is part of an USGS earthquake area known as "The Geysers"
http://quake.usgs.gov/recenteqs/Quakes/quakes0_fau lt.htm

Geothermal Power Plant Triggers Earthquake in Switzerland
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/geothermal _powe.php

Injection induced stresses in geothermal fields. (References)
https://pangea.stanford.edu/people/cv_nav.php?pers onnel_id=477

Since I choose to be anonymous and this will be marked down and to get something off my chest.

A number of years ago I provided information about a technology that only a hand-full of people are involved with and was called a troll by one of your moderators.

I am IEEE published in the area I mentioned in that post, your moderator obviously could not access, or did not take the time to access these records, and went into name calling.

I have waited for years for the following to show up on the Internet and somebody finally posted it. I believe all moderators should be required to read it (from 1981):

Fairwitnessing

The Case for a New Social Role

(From a talk presented at the FORTH Interest Group meeting, May 23, 1981.)

Four pages, starting here:

http://www.flyingsnail.com/missingbbs/ct15.html

The 4 Stages of Global Warming Denial. You, sir, are at stage #2.

Which makes me wonder why the local restaurants don't go out and get something like this and reduce both their electricity and disposal costs. My only guess is that a) regulations prohibit generator usage or b) the maintenance costs for the generator are higher than the savings.

First off, thanks for not posting like the moron AC earlier. Reasonable discourse is always preferred.

If you were to lump together all the batteries consumed in 10 years, I'd suggest that your Prius would increase that number by a large percentage, probably as much as 100-300%.

True enough. My point was that nobody cares about all the AA batteries, or the 12v under the hood of your non-hybrid. People like to trot out the "huge batteries must be evil" chestnut whenever someone says hybrid.

Besides, Toyota has a recycling program for those batteries in place.

The only estimate we have, in my mind, would be cost - and it does take you a worrisome amount of time to recoup your added investment in the hybrid technology that makes the Prius different from the Toyota Yaris, which by itself gets a freakish 40mpg highway.

I'm not worried about my recoup costs. I *like* the Prius. The hybrid tech is dead silent on the freeway. It has wonderful fast pickup, since the electric motors are always 100% ready. Honestly, if you drove one you'd see there's more to love than the MPG.

Also, my wife will be getting a Yaris sometime within the next year or two. Also an awesome car.

Don't forget the added and possibly unnecessary tech besides the batteries - take a look at what disposing of used computer parts is doing to certain 3rd world nations sometime. Now, I'm not saying that driving a Prius makes you evil, far from it, but I think it's a long cry from sainthood as well, and people who drive them tend to act as smug as if the car were an instant holier-than-thou halo.

And I have a basement full of motherboards and other junk. Unfortunately, consumers these days tend to make tech waste. RoHS is working on helping that particular problem, though.

Also, just to pick another nit - in my original post you won't find any tree hugging there (despite my earlier link). I don't care if they make the batteries out of baby seals. My Prius is currently getting 52mpg. I'll be visiting a friend in Florida next spring, about 1000 miles away. Gas for the trip one way should cost me about $40. Couple that with the dashboard GPS and it'll be a fine trip.

Your other arguments have grievous flaws as well - such as comparing the mileage of a Prius vs. a Minivan, without regard for the capacity of each vehicle, in terms of mpg per passenger.

I am the only passenger, 95% of the time. Most of my driving is to and from work. Last year when I was driving my van I had a different job. It was 45 minutes away. I'd fill up every 4 work days or so, at a cost of around $50 (gas was >$3 then). I was spending around $300 a month on just gasoline. That's when I decided to get a hybrid.

Currently my job is much closer to home, so the numbers shifted and the van would now be cheaper. Gas is closer to $2, and the drive is down to 15 minutes. But you know what? Having the hybrid makes small trips nice too. I can go home for lunch if I want and not feel like I'm spending a lot of money to do so. It's nice having gas be an incidental expenditure again. I have no regrets with my Prius.

As for the passenger capacity, I think in 5 years I only had more than 4 passengers less than a half a dozen times. So yeah, the van from that point of view was wasteful. But - I bought the van when gas was cheap enough to where it didn't matter. Now that it does, the van is retired. I use it for camping, helping friends move and chores like that, and the occasional trip to the Home Depot.

You forgot #4:

4) Donate the profits

Your point, again?

Can you guess where the maximized profits are going?

Embodied energy is the energy consumed by all of the processes associated with the production of a building, from the acquisition of natural resources to product delivery." and as you can see from the graph, Concrete has far and away the highest of any material. It also has far and away the lowest value when it comes to recycling at the end of its life.

Yes you can, and they do. I can't find the link to the full story I read, but there is this which is being used now, partly to heat water and party to ensure that you don't need to de-ice the road in winter (as in this link, all originally designed by this Dutch company.

Alternatively, there is a bit about what you can buy and use today in your back garden (not for tarmac road heatpumps, but ground heatpumps) here

Though it isn't in the price range of the OP, this company here has demonstrated that the motors and control system (including ABS and traction control) to convert any small car into a 4wd EV can certainly be made available to DIYers:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/the_hybrid _mini.php

Some of this recyling program is already in place:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/09/computer_r ecycl.php

I've helped to puchase several Dells in the last few years. They have always offered to recycle my old computer for free, regardless of the brand.

They send a shipping label along with the new computer, and you ship it back to them in the same delivery box. Easy as pie, and I'm assuming they have facilities to deal with the extra styrofoam.

This is in California, so perhaps we had this system in place before the other states.

Both the movie and the book An Inconvenient Truth were carbon neutral (via purchase of wind power carbon credits from NativeEnergy). According to various interviews, Gore also has offset his personal carbon consumption.

Using public transit is a good thing, but it's not a realistic option for everyone (particularly celebrities, given how the rest of us react to them).

By going Carbon Neutral in his personal life and business ventures, Gore is personally doing as much to fight global warming as anyone can reasonably do. I'm not going to judge him based on whether he uses compact fluorescent bulbs in his laundry room.

We have about half a dozen in our 20-bulb house (I counted - it's a small house).

I read some, "They whine and buzz" - might have been older versions.

"They're dark" - ditto.

"They have mercury in them" - true, but as TreeHugger.com put it:

"Ironically, compact fluorescent bulbs are responsible for less mercury contamination than the incandescent bulbs they replaced, even though incandescents don't contain any mercury. The highest source of mercury in America's air and water results from the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, at utilities that supply electricity. Since a compact fluorescent bulb uses 75 percent less energy than an incandescent bulb, and lasts at least six times longer, it is responsible for far less mercury pollution in the long run. A coal-burning power plant will emit four times more mercury to produce the electricity for an incandescent bulb than for a compact fluorescent."

But before you take all the wonderful things I've said about them at face value, there is something I learned the hard way: check the color of light the bulb produces.

From the Wikipedia,

        * "Warm white" (2,700 K) provides a light extremely similar to that of an incandescent bulb, somewhat yellow in appearance;
        * "Soft white" (3,500 K) bulbs produce a yellowish-white light;
        * "Cool white" (4,100 K) bulbs emit more of a pure white tone; and
        * "Daylight" (6,400 K) is slightly bluish-white.

I accidentally bought "Daylight" bulbs for the bathroom. It made the room a psychotic blue-ish tint (I imagined Jack was going to start chopping through the bathroom door with an axe - "Here's Johnny"). Warm white seems like the color to get. Unfortunately, I bought an 8-pack, but fine for utility lighting, etc.

From a site called Treehugger:

"Ironically, compact fluorescent bulbs are responsible for less mercury contamination than the incandescent bulbs they replaced, even though incandescents don't contain any mercury. The highest source of mercury in America's air and water results from the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, at utilities that supply electricity. Since a compact fluorescent bulb uses 75 percent less energy than an incandescent bulb, and lasts at least six times longer, it is responsible for far less mercury pollution in the long run. A coal-burning power plant will emit four times more mercury to produce the electricity for an incandescent bulb than for a compact fluorescent."

I'm sure most of you are aware of the many different types of Hydrogen Fuel Cell scooters out there on the market, or are about to make their debut.. Some time in 2006, the ENV Scooter is supposed to be released.. I really hope it pulls through, because the bike goes about 50mph and is super quiet.. supposedly you don't even scare the birds near the road away.. I read in a couple places that you can get a kit from this ENV company that will allow you to produce your own hydrogen, and when you have all your equipment paid for, it'll probably cost you about $2-4 for every 100 miles you drive.. thats not bad.. here's a link and some pictures

I saw another article about the same thing on Technocrat.net yesterday. They make the distinction that it's not related to the Sterling Engine:

"This is a thermodynamic cycle invented in 1995 by Jeff Sterling, It should not be confused with the unrelated Stirling engine invented in 1816."

There is some other info in the article that explains things from a different perspective, as well, so it might be good for compare and contrast.

A roof mounted wind turbine would take a lot less roof space than roof mounted solar panels (and be far easier to mount), and in the case of office buildings, make a much larger contribution (multi storey office buildings tend to have comparatively little roof space compared to floor space).

It's a common myth that wind turbines "slaughter" birds - a very small number of birds are killed by wind turbines: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/common_mis conce.php . Building microgeneration schemes are highly unlikely to be in bird flight paths - birds of prey don't generally congregate in urban areas!

Apparently some degree of attention was paid to recycling. A comment on treehugger refers to an assertion by the company that developed it that the cans have been awarded the Grune Punkt, which appears to have something to do with recycling in the EU.

you are mistaken. Honda is talking about cutting back on production of Accord Hybrids. The Civic Hybrids and Insight Hybrids are doing fantastically, but the Accord sales are not. Toyota is now making an Lexus Hybrid, and Nissan and Saturn have new Hybrids on the way as well. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/honda_may_ cut_a.php

The new Citroen Stop & Start is a great example of innovative energy efficiency in a normal car. Whenever you press the brake it kills the engine and then starts it within 400 ms when you release it. So, you're sitting in traffic for 30 minutes and you save 30 minutes of gasoline. It's only 15% more efficient than a regular car but it requires NO compromise from the driver in terms of performance or features- no fancy, legacy or expensive technology. Something like this should be mandatory in all new cars.