I know you'll tell me "NO WAY", but how exactly do you plan to fly from NY to LA forth & back (which, BTW, already represents more than your yearly CO2 quota) once oil is depleted enough?
Since it will happen sooner or later, what about being responsible and stopping right now?
For my work, either I organize teleconferences or I take the train. I'll go from Stuttgart to Istanbul by train next month. With a good organisation 42 hours of train can be: - a great experience - a good occasion to read and work, and to generally do stuff that you would never do otherwise.
What exactly is "their way"? Why do you think global warming is a scam?
Do you really think scientists from all over the world, with no social/political/religion connection whatsoever, that are mostly interested in knowing more, enjoy telling us that we're all doomed if we keep burning fossil fuels?
IPCC scientists are mostly American. How could that be interesting for them to tell us that oil and coal are the worst things we could use to get energy?
If global warming is a crime, what is the motive?
From what you wrote, I suppose you could also be interested in :
Wow... so much crap and bad faith in this small paragraph, I must say I'm impressed!
I don't exactly care about diminished barley harvest... but if you want peer-reviewed articles about global warming, you'll find hundreds of them there: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/
Read some and come back later if you still want to talk about "mythical consensus" and no "peer-reviewed articles about global warming".
Is "164 gigabytes of download traffic within twenty-four hours" so huge?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's only about 2MB/s on average, which shouldn't scare any decent web-server. Sure enough, 2MB/s on average means bursts to some dozens of MB/s.... but what is the amount of data Slashdot has to deliver every day?
If you want to be more environmentally friendly, stop working in an airline company and stop bugging us with this "Hey look! We spew our yearly CO2 quota flying forth and back between LA & NY but it's cool because we replaced newspapers with Linux machines" crap.
But whatever we improve, IT still represents an ecological disaster. Take a look at every tech stuff around you. Where will they be in 5 years? Surely not around anymore!
Obviously, those "green drives" are better than nothing, but in some years, nobody will want to use any 1TB hard drive anymore, and this improvement in power consumption only took place because millions of hard drive have been produced. Just like for cars, we reduce the environmental impact of each product separately thanks to economies of scale, but what really matters is the global impact. And it sadly just keeps growing.
It only depends on what you want to call a "good first step".
Talking about energy efficiency and carbon footprint, this would rather be a "very good backward step". Anyway, I'm sure some dumbass wil have the idea to put biofuel in it, add 2m of photovoltaic panels and call it "the first green rocket ever!"
At that time, it wasn't unreasonable to believe the president. Yes, it was. Do you by any chance remember what "old Europe" told you?
A big FU to all those that called us weasels!
Anyway, for this post to be a little more constructive, did you know that French fries are not even French?
Are you going to create new regulatory agencies? No need to! They already exist, keep on growing every day, and are called:
- lack of water
- lack of food
- lack of fossil fuels
- lack of uranium
- lack of useful space
-...
You can be a free rider, but it's gonna cost you a lot, and you might end up not having enough self-esteem to look your children in the eyes and tell them:
"Too bad you don't have enough resources! But you know, Daddy's a free rider, thinks that environmentalists are damn commies and got modded +5 insightful saying it loud!"
Either we find intelligent ways to reduce our consumption or Mother Earth will find "not so clever ways" to get rid of greedy humans.
1. Yes, you got it right. Sorry for the km that should have been a km^2. I do think it *is* relevant that you got 5 times more energy for a given surface with photovoltaics. And yes, some % from windpower are always better than nothing, but once again, it won't have a big impact on the whole energy mix. For example, Germany and Danemark have the 2nd and 3rd worst value of gCO2/kWh of all the European Union, even though they have around 20% (power peak) of installed windpower. Those 20% only accounts for 6% of the total amount of energy produced.
In those countries, wind power is mainly a lame excuse to say "We're environmentalists", even though everyone drives a big SUV and uses electricity produced from coal and gas (~65%). Incidentally, wind power still have a pretty big amount of CO2/kWh mostly because turbines are produced in those 2 countries!
2. Don't get me wrong. I know that this 'Electrical wiring' exists. I just think that a renewable source only makes sense when used in a decentralized way. That's why putting solar panels right upon your roof seems like a better idea than having a wind turbine somewhere in the region. Plus, PV has no visual impact and no moving parts. I do think wind turbines are beautiful, but putting enough of them to get a decent share of the energy mix would have a severe impact on our visual environment.
3. Anyway, we shouldn't talk about Megawatts (either from nukes, windpower or PV...) before talking about Negawatts!
your SOURCE on that ? Well, mostly:
- the amount of PWh needed
- some common sense
- and the research center I work in.
I guess it's still not enough for you, so:
- hydropower is at its peak in many countries (e.g. in the EU) and comes with some massive environmental drawbacks (e.g. "Three Gorges Dam").
- biomass is surely interesting, but should not put more pressure on food supply chain and should be almost carbon-neutral. In Germany, customers already need to import wood pellets from Italy and France in good ol' diesel trucks. Biomass is not renewable anymore in this case!
- windpower provides between 2 to 5 times as less GWh/(km.year) as photovoltaics panels. Plus, you cannot use it right next to where it's needed.
- geothermal? use it wherever possible, but it does not represent so much either.
I go look for some more sources and I come back!
(I already have some, but are mostly in French or German...)
As you said, photovoltaics is surely not a silver bullet, for the simple fact that there isn't any. Actually, the only one that we could have would be the Negawatts obtained from energy savings here and there.
Anyway, solar energy appears to be the only scalable renewable energy source. You sure cannot obtain 100% of electricity production from it, but after some energy savings, 50% nukes + 50% solar panels could be a possibility for most countries. It is just impossible to obtain more than a few % with either biomass, hydropower, windpower or geothermal sources. Sure enough, those renewables should be used wherever possible, but they just cannot cover enough load. For what's left, we should use solar energy and nukes.
This must actually be the #237 reason why so few digital art professionals take it seriously.
Sure, there are good stuff in The GIMP, but I really have the impression that devs refuse to copy good Photoshop features just because they come from Photoshop. That's plain stupid, and it prevents any decent job from being done efficiently.
Meanwhile, my windows partition only survives thanks to Skype (video crashes on my Ubuntu 7.10) and Photoshop. Good wine support would be great!
But forget about considering heat generated from power plants, it's an epsilon compared to what comes from the sun (342 W every sec on every square meter). What's stupid though is to produce heat locally 5 km away from a power plant with huge cooling towers. => One solution would be to use district heating + heat exchangers + absorption cooling machine that would provide hot & cold water to the neighborhood, and lower primary energy requirements of the system.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I recommend you don't.
I know you'll tell me "NO WAY", but how exactly do you plan to fly from NY to LA forth & back (which, BTW, already represents more than your yearly CO2 quota) once oil is depleted enough?
Since it will happen sooner or later, what about being responsible and stopping right now?
For my work, either I organize teleconferences or I take the train. I'll go from Stuttgart to Istanbul by train next month.
With a good organisation 42 hours of train can be:
- a great experience
- a good occasion to read and work, and to generally do stuff that you would never do otherwise.
Yes, it's still bad.
I don't care (and the Earth either) about how efficient (better said, less inefficient) a plane is.
What really matters is how much will get wasted on a global level, taking into account every planed that has been produced.
Flying is sooooo 20th century! It's high time we realised this.
It's not like we have to pollute, and that we can either pollute a lot with small and old planes or pollute a lot with new and big ones.
Sorry, but burning hundreds of m3 of oil in a few hours isn't and should never be considered efficient.
for the environment.
French guys from 2003 just called, they want their arguments back!
What exactly is "their way"?
Why do you think global warming is a scam?
Do you really think scientists from all over the world, with no social/political/religion connection whatsoever, that are mostly interested in knowing more, enjoy telling us that we're all doomed if we keep burning fossil fuels?
IPCC scientists are mostly American. How could that be interesting for them to tell us that oil and coal are the worst things we could use to get energy?
If global warming is a crime, what is the motive?
From what you wrote, I suppose you could also be interested in :
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
Wow... so much crap and bad faith in this small paragraph, I must say I'm impressed!
I don't exactly care about diminished barley harvest... but if you want peer-reviewed articles about global warming, you'll find hundreds of them there:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/
Read some and come back later if you still want to talk about "mythical consensus" and no "peer-reviewed articles about global warming".
Why on earth would you go to /. if you don't want to talk to guys that are 43 years old and live with their mom????
Do you go to Russia and stop any conversation by saying "I don't talk to commies"?
Is "164 gigabytes of download traffic within twenty-four hours" so huge?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's only about 2MB/s on average, which shouldn't scare any decent web-server.
Sure enough, 2MB/s on average means bursts to some dozens of MB/s.... but what is the amount of data Slashdot has to deliver every day?
If you want to be more environmentally friendly, stop working in an airline company and stop bugging us with this "Hey look! We spew our yearly CO2 quota flying forth and back between LA & NY but it's cool because we replaced newspapers with Linux machines" crap.
Thank you.
I globally agree with you.
But whatever we improve, IT still represents an ecological disaster.
Take a look at every tech stuff around you. Where will they be in 5 years? Surely not around anymore!
Obviously, those "green drives" are better than nothing, but in some years, nobody will want to use any 1TB hard drive anymore, and this improvement in power consumption only took place because millions of hard drive have been produced.
Just like for cars, we reduce the environmental impact of each product separately thanks to economies of scale, but what really matters is the global impact. And it sadly just keeps growing.
ahah
It only depends on what you want to call a "good first step".
Talking about energy efficiency and carbon footprint, this would rather be a "very good backward step".
Anyway, I'm sure some dumbass wil have the idea to put biofuel in it, add 2m of photovoltaic panels and call it "the first green rocket ever!"
A big FU to all those that called us weasels!
Anyway, for this post to be a little more constructive, did you know that French fries are not even French?
- Sorry, you're too selfish to live on earth, please stop breathing.
- I don't have children either, but it doesn't prevent me from thinking about what we'll leave after us.
- Mother Earth should have read "Mother Earth". I also think that it's only a "ball of fucking rock".
- Still, 9B people on a ball of fucking rock might learn the hard way what they should do and what they shouldn't.
- lack of water
- lack of food
- lack of fossil fuels
- lack of uranium
- lack of useful space
-
You can be a free rider, but it's gonna cost you a lot, and you might end up not having enough self-esteem to look your children in the eyes and tell them:
"Too bad you don't have enough resources! But you know, Daddy's a free rider, thinks that environmentalists are damn commies and got modded +5 insightful saying it loud!"
Either we find intelligent ways to reduce our consumption or Mother Earth will find "not so clever ways" to get rid of greedy humans.
1. Yes, you got it right. Sorry for the km that should have been a km^2. I do think it *is* relevant that you got 5 times more energy for a given surface with photovoltaics. And yes, some % from windpower are always better than nothing, but once again, it won't have a big impact on the whole energy mix.
...) before talking about Negawatts!
For example, Germany and Danemark have the 2nd and 3rd worst value of gCO2/kWh of all the European Union, even though they have around 20% (power peak) of installed windpower. Those 20% only accounts for 6% of the total amount of energy produced.
In those countries, wind power is mainly a lame excuse to say "We're environmentalists", even though everyone drives a big SUV and uses electricity produced from coal and gas (~65%). Incidentally, wind power still have a pretty big amount of CO2/kWh mostly because turbines are produced in those 2 countries!
2. Don't get me wrong. I know that this 'Electrical wiring' exists. I just think that a renewable source only makes sense when used in a decentralized way. That's why putting solar panels right upon your roof seems like a better idea than having a wind turbine somewhere in the region. Plus, PV has no visual impact and no moving parts. I do think wind turbines are beautiful, but putting enough of them to get a decent share of the energy mix would have a severe impact on our visual environment.
3. Anyway, we shouldn't talk about Megawatts (either from nukes, windpower or PV
- the amount of PWh needed
- some common sense
- and the research center I work in.
I guess it's still not enough for you, so:
- hydropower is at its peak in many countries (e.g. in the EU) and comes with some massive environmental drawbacks (e.g. "Three Gorges Dam").
- biomass is surely interesting, but should not put more pressure on food supply chain and should be almost carbon-neutral. In Germany, customers already need to import wood pellets from Italy and France in good ol' diesel trucks. Biomass is not renewable anymore in this case!
- windpower provides between 2 to 5 times as less GWh/(km.year) as photovoltaics panels. Plus, you cannot use it right next to where it's needed.
- geothermal? use it wherever possible, but it does not represent so much either.
I go look for some more sources and I come back!
(I already have some, but are mostly in French or German...)
As you said, photovoltaics is surely not a silver bullet, for the simple fact that there isn't any.
Actually, the only one that we could have would be the Negawatts obtained from energy savings here and there.
Anyway, solar energy appears to be the only scalable renewable energy source. You sure cannot obtain 100% of electricity production from it, but after some energy savings, 50% nukes + 50% solar panels could be a possibility for most countries.
It is just impossible to obtain more than a few % with either biomass, hydropower, windpower or geothermal sources. Sure enough, those renewables should be used wherever possible, but they just cannot cover enough load. For what's left, we should use solar energy and nukes.
Nice, but could it display a 2D rectangle whose dimensions are 850 & 77.1?
This must actually be the #237 reason why so few digital art professionals take it seriously.
Sure, there are good stuff in The GIMP, but I really have the impression that devs refuse to copy good Photoshop features just because they come from Photoshop.
That's plain stupid, and it prevents any decent job from being done efficiently.
Meanwhile, my windows partition only survives thanks to Skype (video crashes on my Ubuntu 7.10) and Photoshop.
Good wine support would be great!
You got it 100% right.
It's refreshing to see such a POV in Slashdot.
Thank you!
Thank you.
Good point.
But forget about considering heat generated from power plants, it's an epsilon compared to what comes from the sun (342 W every sec on every square meter).
What's stupid though is to produce heat locally 5 km away from a power plant with huge cooling towers.
=> One solution would be to use district heating + heat exchangers + absorption cooling machine that would provide hot & cold water to the neighborhood, and lower primary energy requirements of the system.
Did you ever try it? I could write exactly the same for "_any_ KDE based app".
On the left panel of the file chooser, I got:
What else would you ever need? With all those options, I access any file I need in less than 2 secs.
Anyway, as usual in Gnome/KDE flamewar, the conclusion is:
use any desktop environment for more than 2 weeks, and you don't understand anymore how you could have used anything different.