You're correct about that. However, at this massive deployment level,
That isn't the way things work. People don't just get together one day and decide to cover an area equivelent to the size of Alaska with solar cells.
I'm assuming that a plastic-based solar cell technology or bioengineered photosynthesis medium would have an insignificant cost; the material would be spewed out like newsprint or plastic garbage bags are currently produced. My $30/m^2 WAG assumes that almost all of the cost is in the support systems.
What does WAG stand for? Wild Ass Guess? No offense, but we haven't even made the cells themselves generally practical, much less large deployments of them.
I'm not assuming that it has to be on an expensive floating platform. For example, individual self-contained ~1 meter spheres floating on the water could be coralled in large floating pens and managed with ships that work similar to combine harvesters. That needn't be much more expensive than land-based solutions.
Of course, why would you possibly assume that anything might be expensive or complicated? You "assume" that it would all be simple and cheap. Just print out solar cells on platic wrap, glue it to large styrofoam balls, put up some chicken wire fences in the ocean, run some wires back to shore... PROFIT!
There's not enough uranium available to provide 100%
Why does any one solution need to be 100%? Every geographic area has different needs and available resources.
I just got done explaining how they don't. Maybe you can provide some detail to back up your assertion.
As I mentioned in another rely to you, the estimated cost of solar power is almost always limited to the cost of the cell itself. Put the cells on a floating platform requiring extra resources and mainanence and the cost per square meter of solar power skyrockets.
Ok, so we're doomed once fossil fuels run out. Do you have any better ideas?
Well, there is nuclear power. Fossil fuels won't just suddenly run out. They will just gradually become more expensive to extract. Which will make alternatives more feasable by comparison. I do think we will see limited use of solar power where it is practical, but nothing on the massive scale you describe.
You mention wind power and wave power a lot. I agree that they won't ever add up to a large fraction of total energy supply, and that's because there is a limited supply of windy land area and shorelines.
You don't think there is a limited supply of sunny, otherwise unusable land? If solar platforms in the oceans is the solution, why not windmill platforms on the ocean? At least wind power has proven to be feasable in certain areas.
Solar collectors don't need to have that limitation.
But they do have that limitation.
I'm all for fusion power too, but IMO its technical feasibility is currently even more questionable than my "crazy" proposal.
Being less "questionable" doesn't make it realistic.
That sounds big, but get out a globe and look at it. Alaska isn't all that big compared to the size of the earth, and we already utilize much more than that space just to grow food. Just the amount of space we've allocated for paved roads and parking lots worldwide adds up to a noticeable fraction of this amount.
Area the size of alaska? Really, that does sound like a lot, even spread across teh globe. First of all, how much of the globe is actually usable for solar power? Now, how much of that usable area is land (or close enough to land)?
I can see selected areas utilizing cheap solar power such as areas in hot, dry deserts, but I don't think many people are going to start giving up fertile land to acres and acres of solar cells. And deploying at sea adds a lot of overhead. Remember, the price/kWh is based on just the cell itself. That doesn't include the cost of deploying floating solar platforms with maintenance. Solar power will have to get a whole lot cheaper to make that a feasable.
Java GUIs are traditionally slow and ugly. Also there are often problems with Java runtime versions. It is difficult to write a non-trivial Java application that will run on various different version of the Java runtime. Some people are going to have 1.2, some 1.3, some 1.4, etc. Using standard DHTML or even Mozilla's XUL provides a much more elegant application that looks and feels better than most Java GUI's. DHTML and XUL also integrate with the browser better.
Does anyone know how Ajax compares with JPSpan? I've been using JPSpan in a Firefox plugin that I am working on and it is really nice. Basically it takes a PHP class and presents it to your JavaScript as a JavaScript object (after you create an isntance of it). As far as your web application is concerned, the object exists in the local context, but actually, the code is running on a remote server. JPSpan takes care of the XmlRequest stuff for you.
Can anyone give an idea how often things like man in the middle attacks actually happen? I know it is possible, but it seems quite unlikely that anyone would go through the trouble when there are so many easily hacked things out there whether it is known exploits or just unencrypted links. The only way I can see it happening is if you were a target for a particular reason such as corporate espionage.
Has anyone here at slashdot actually been the victim of a hack as sophisticated as man-in-the-middle on an otherwise encrypted link? I'm curious.
I've read some articles that say corn-based ethanol is pretty much a scam to raise the demand for (and price of) corn. Apparently producing corn ethanol requires a shit ton of energy and fossil fuels. People are tripping over themselves to create "clean" and "renewable" energy, but they're losing sight of the big picture and the laws of physics.
In general, producing any kind of fuel is never going to more economical than just pumping it out of the ground. That is, until the fuel in the ground is all but gone. Fossil fuels are essentially free. I mean, you need to invest some money in mining and processing, but the energy is all there just waiting to be used. It is going to be extremely difficult for any renewable source to take hold until all the non-renewable sources are gone. It is all well and good to be looking for alternatives now, but people shouln't expect much. The best real action we can take at the moment is to steadily raise emissions and fuel economy standards and let the "market" figure out how to meet the standards. And hopefully we can close the loopholes like we have for SUV's...
And how heavy is a tank full of Ni and where does the initial heat come from to release the hydrogen? Why not just devise a better battery and store electricity? Sure would cut out an expensive conversion to electricity or combustion. Hydrogen is not a great fuel. Even if you can make it safe.
...Isn't it more cost effective to grow your own hydrogen with electrolysis and a solar panel back home?
Perhaps, if you could actually produce enough to run a car. The amount of hydrogen you could produce with solar cells at your home would be rather insignificant.
That's not my attitude towards science, it's my attitude towards global warming.
How does this work, exactly? When science agrees with what you believe, it is just good ol' reliable, objective science. When it disagrees, it is biased religion? Are you this skeptical of all scientific theories or just global warming?
Ever heard of the words "metaphor" or "hyperbole"?
"Metaphor" doesn't apply here, but hyperbole certainly does, which is why I don't really feel you are being objective. You are using hyperbole instead of facts.
You claim that humans alone are the cause of any perceived global warming. Since the temperature of the earth has fluctuated throughout history, claiming human responsibility for a naturally occurring event is extraordinary.
I made no such claim. You'd best keep track of who you are replying to. But I doubt the person you are referring to even made such a claim. Who said humans alone are the cause of global warming? Or is this just another one of your exagerations? Humans are, in fact, affecting the global environment. To say that it is the sole result of any previous natural cycle is just stupid. The carbon that we are currently releasing into the atmosphere was previoiusly safely stored underground. Where is all this carbon going to go without an increase in photosynthesis (rainforests, etc)? It is not extraordinary to think that this could be a problem. It would be extraordinary if it wasn't a problem.
Is English your second language or something? Because you don't seem to grasp the nuance of certain words and phrases.
I know enough English to know when someone is trying to manipulate language (and science) to support a bias.
1. (10) proof, cogent evidence -- (any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something; "if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to produce it")
This is a pedestrian term, not scientific. Science doesn't deal in "truth." Just theories and evidence. And both exist for global warming. If you have evidence to refute global warming or something that says that humans are not significantly impacting the environment, I'd like to see that. Where is all the carbon going to go? Could you at least speculate? Do you think it just magically disappears when the earth decides it wants to cool down?
Also, I don't think you are supposed to be able to make online purchases with gift cards. Perhaps for this very reason. My American Express gift card puts some restrictions on how I can use it. No gas, no online purchases, no car rentals, etc. Not sure about Visa though.
No, recognition of global warming is the modern equivalent of agreeing with the church...the church of science.
With that kind of attitude towards science, I can't imagine there will be any evidence that would convince you of global warming... or anything scientific in nature. You're the type who wouldn't notice until it is too late.
I am willing to look at that evidence, but you have to provide it and prove it has any merit. So far all the evidence I've seen is that things are slowly warming up. None of it says definitively what the cause is, and since the same doomsayers who predict global warming today were shouting about global cooling a few decades ago (remember we were supposed to be in an ice age by now?),
Who was "shouting?" Where do you get your information from? Guys standing on soap boxes in the streets?
I'm not going to waste my time until you can find some extraordinary proof to back up your extraordinary claims.
I have made no extraordinary claims. You are thinking of something else. FYI, there is no such thing "proof" in science. Only evidence and theories. You can have a mathematical proof or a logical proof, but those things don't necessarily have any bearing on physical reality.
The fact that most of the people most in favor of "curtailing emissions" (which would slow down or even destroy our economy)
Destroy the economy, eh? Who is doomsaying now? Personally, I'd rather have a destroyed economy than a destroyed planet. Not that either extreme will necessarily happen under any likely scenerio, but that is my preference. Economies rise and fall by the decade, but we've only got one environment.
are also a pack of socialists leads me to think they have an ulterior motive. But maybe that's just me being paranoid.
Sure, but in the end, it all works out to the same total number of connections for the server. The connections should average out as far as the server is concerned. Althought 30 connections does seem unnecessarily excessive, I will admit.
Is it possible that these older cites had the subways built into them...in the old days when it was more feasible both physically and monetarily?
We're talking about countries ravaged by two world wars. I hardly think they had a resource advantage over the US. Although they probably did have an opportunity to plan their cities better when rebuilding them. I hate to admit it, but their cities really are better planned and maintained.
To go into other modern cities today, let's say Dallas...it would be way to expensive to tear up city blocks, miles of concrete roads and highways to build a subway or elevated train. It would cost more in $$'s and lost productivity than could ever be made up for in what I would guess a 100 years...
I dunno, London and Paris, at least, have managed to build absolutely amazing underground rail systems without disturbing existing structures that have been around longer than those of any American city. London's "tube" is so far underground that I doubt they tore up much of anything up in the process.
The US isn't post industrial, it just moved it's industry offshore.
And child labor still exists in some of the new countries where the industry moved to.
The world isn't post-industrial, but the US is. Sadly, child labor does still exist, but you can't get rid of that kind of thing without international cooperation.
And why? Economic advantage.
It is an economic advantage for a country just going through an industrial revolution. But at some point, if they are to fully compete, they need to get those children in school and move into the information age.
I recall a time in "history," not a time in my "life." If you think I am wrong about my preception of that time, let me know. Otherwise, I don't know what you are getting at.
Most people do not live within walking distance of the services they need...groceries, stores..etc. Things are zoned here for residential areas, commercial areas..etc. They are not near each other. Unlike the older cities in the EU, that tend to be denser, with housing and commercial all mixed together largely...we don't have an infrastructure that lends itself to mass transit.
Is this an excuse for being more than twice as poluting per capita than Europeans? Maybe it is, I dunno, but I seems like we could do a lot better. CHicago (not including the suburbs), for example, isn't that much different than European cities as far as residential/commercial distribution and yet the public transportation here is worthless in comparison if you want to go anywhere besides downtown or an airport. In London, Paris, or Barcelona for example, you are rarely more than a couple blocks from a subway station. It has to do with politics. Americans simply are not willing to subsidize things like public transportation like they need to be.
I've only been to one European city: Barcelona, Spain. (I don't count cities I only spend two hours at the airport). My home city of Minneapolis has breathable air, they do not. Sitting in the (now non-existant) smoking section in our restaurants you still breath cleaner air than you do outside in Barcelona.
Well, Minneapolis only has a population of about 350,000 and Barcelona is about 1,500,000, so there is that. I live in Chicago and I have spent time in Barcelona. I didn't find Barcelona to be particularly unbreathable compared to Chicago. I've spent time in many other European cities including Berlin, Paris, London, Munich, and Zurich. And the only one that was noticably bad was Paris considering the size. But man, did Paris ever suck. I had a headache from the diesel exaust for just about the entire time I was there. In general, I found northern European cities to be the cleanest. But hot weather tends to accentuate pollution problems though, so that could be why.
In other words, the parent poster claimed that the U.S. population is more evenly distributed than the European population.
..which is incorrect. THe majority of the US population lives in urban and suburban areas. Have a look at a US map with population density. You'll notice that most Americans live on the coasts and in the northeast in particular. Population is clustered around large cities.
I think the poster in question is confusing the design of individual cities and towns with overall population distribution. It is true that American cities and towns tend to sprawl more, but they are still clustered.
Slashdot Mirror
That isn't the way things work. People don't just get together one day and decide to cover an area equivelent to the size of Alaska with solar cells.
I'm assuming that a plastic-based solar cell technology or bioengineered photosynthesis medium would have an insignificant cost; the material would be spewed out like newsprint or plastic garbage bags are currently produced. My $30/m^2 WAG assumes that almost all of the cost is in the support systems.
What does WAG stand for? Wild Ass Guess? No offense, but we haven't even made the cells themselves generally practical, much less large deployments of them.
I'm not assuming that it has to be on an expensive floating platform. For example, individual self-contained ~1 meter spheres floating on the water could be coralled in large floating pens and managed with ships that work similar to combine harvesters. That needn't be much more expensive than land-based solutions.
Of course, why would you possibly assume that anything might be expensive or complicated? You "assume" that it would all be simple and cheap. Just print out solar cells on platic wrap, glue it to large styrofoam balls, put up some chicken wire fences in the ocean, run some wires back to shore... PROFIT!
There's not enough uranium available to provide 100%
Why does any one solution need to be 100%? Every geographic area has different needs and available resources.
-matthew
As I mentioned in another rely to you, the estimated cost of solar power is almost always limited to the cost of the cell itself. Put the cells on a floating platform requiring extra resources and mainanence and the cost per square meter of solar power skyrockets.
Ok, so we're doomed once fossil fuels run out. Do you have any better ideas?
Well, there is nuclear power. Fossil fuels won't just suddenly run out. They will just gradually become more expensive to extract. Which will make alternatives more feasable by comparison. I do think we will see limited use of solar power where it is practical, but nothing on the massive scale you describe.
-matthew
You don't think there is a limited supply of sunny, otherwise unusable land? If solar platforms in the oceans is the solution, why not windmill platforms on the ocean? At least wind power has proven to be feasable in certain areas.
Solar collectors don't need to have that limitation.
But they do have that limitation.
I'm all for fusion power too, but IMO its technical feasibility is currently even more questionable than my "crazy" proposal.
Being less "questionable" doesn't make it realistic.
-matthew
Area the size of alaska? Really, that does sound like a lot, even spread across teh globe. First of all, how much of the globe is actually usable for solar power? Now, how much of that usable area is land (or close enough to land)?
I can see selected areas utilizing cheap solar power such as areas in hot, dry deserts, but I don't think many people are going to start giving up fertile land to acres and acres of solar cells. And deploying at sea adds a lot of overhead. Remember, the price/kWh is based on just the cell itself. That doesn't include the cost of deploying floating solar platforms with maintenance. Solar power will have to get a whole lot cheaper to make that a feasable.
-matthew
-matthew
-matthew
Well, that is a bit different. I was wondering about crypto in particular. Has it ever happened to you?
-matthew
Can anyone give an idea how often things like man in the middle attacks actually happen? I know it is possible, but it seems quite unlikely that anyone would go through the trouble when there are so many easily hacked things out there whether it is known exploits or just unencrypted links. The only way I can see it happening is if you were a target for a particular reason such as corporate espionage.
Has anyone here at slashdot actually been the victim of a hack as sophisticated as man-in-the-middle on an otherwise encrypted link? I'm curious.
-matthew
I guess it implies that it will be relatively easy to melt if we plan to warm the place up.
-matthew
If US citizens can't drink the water in Mexico, I seriously doubt we'll be able to drink the water on Mars. Hopefully for the same reasons...
-matthew
In general, producing any kind of fuel is never going to more economical than just pumping it out of the ground. That is, until the fuel in the ground is all but gone. Fossil fuels are essentially free. I mean, you need to invest some money in mining and processing, but the energy is all there just waiting to be used. It is going to be extremely difficult for any renewable source to take hold until all the non-renewable sources are gone. It is all well and good to be looking for alternatives now, but people shouln't expect much. The best real action we can take at the moment is to steadily raise emissions and fuel economy standards and let the "market" figure out how to meet the standards. And hopefully we can close the loopholes like we have for SUV's...
-matthew
And how heavy is a tank full of Ni and where does the initial heat come from to release the hydrogen? Why not just devise a better battery and store electricity? Sure would cut out an expensive conversion to electricity or combustion. Hydrogen is not a great fuel. Even if you can make it safe.
-matthew
Perhaps, if you could actually produce enough to run a car. The amount of hydrogen you could produce with solar cells at your home would be rather insignificant.
-matthew
How does this work, exactly? When science agrees with what you believe, it is just good ol' reliable, objective science. When it disagrees, it is biased religion? Are you this skeptical of all scientific theories or just global warming?
Ever heard of the words "metaphor" or "hyperbole"?
"Metaphor" doesn't apply here, but hyperbole certainly does, which is why I don't really feel you are being objective. You are using hyperbole instead of facts.
You claim that humans alone are the cause of any perceived global warming. Since the temperature of the earth has fluctuated throughout history, claiming human responsibility for a naturally occurring event is extraordinary.
I made no such claim. You'd best keep track of who you are replying to. But I doubt the person you are referring to even made such a claim. Who said humans alone are the cause of global warming? Or is this just another one of your exagerations? Humans are, in fact, affecting the global environment. To say that it is the sole result of any previous natural cycle is just stupid. The carbon that we are currently releasing into the atmosphere was previoiusly safely stored underground. Where is all this carbon going to go without an increase in photosynthesis (rainforests, etc)? It is not extraordinary to think that this could be a problem. It would be extraordinary if it wasn't a problem.
Is English your second language or something? Because you don't seem to grasp the nuance of certain words and phrases.
I know enough English to know when someone is trying to manipulate language (and science) to support a bias.
1. (10) proof, cogent evidence -- (any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something; "if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to produce it")
This is a pedestrian term, not scientific. Science doesn't deal in "truth." Just theories and evidence. And both exist for global warming. If you have evidence to refute global warming or something that says that humans are not significantly impacting the environment, I'd like to see that. Where is all the carbon going to go? Could you at least speculate? Do you think it just magically disappears when the earth decides it wants to cool down?
-matthew
Also, I don't think you are supposed to be able to make online purchases with gift cards. Perhaps for this very reason. My American Express gift card puts some restrictions on how I can use it. No gas, no online purchases, no car rentals, etc. Not sure about Visa though.
-matthew
She was most likely buying for other people too.
-matthew
With that kind of attitude towards science, I can't imagine there will be any evidence that would convince you of global warming... or anything scientific in nature. You're the type who wouldn't notice until it is too late.
I am willing to look at that evidence, but you have to provide it and prove it has any merit. So far all the evidence I've seen is that things are slowly warming up. None of it says definitively what the cause is, and since the same doomsayers who predict global warming today were shouting about global cooling a few decades ago (remember we were supposed to be in an ice age by now?),
Who was "shouting?" Where do you get your information from? Guys standing on soap boxes in the streets?
I'm not going to waste my time until you can find some extraordinary proof to back up your extraordinary claims.
I have made no extraordinary claims. You are thinking of something else. FYI, there is no such thing "proof" in science. Only evidence and theories. You can have a mathematical proof or a logical proof, but those things don't necessarily have any bearing on physical reality.
The fact that most of the people most in favor of "curtailing emissions" (which would slow down or even destroy our economy)
Destroy the economy, eh? Who is doomsaying now? Personally, I'd rather have a destroyed economy than a destroyed planet. Not that either extreme will necessarily happen under any likely scenerio, but that is my preference. Economies rise and fall by the decade, but we've only got one environment.
are also a pack of socialists leads me to think they have an ulterior motive. But maybe that's just me being paranoid.
Yeah, sounds like paranoia to me.
-matthew
Sure, but in the end, it all works out to the same total number of connections for the server. The connections should average out as far as the server is concerned. Althought 30 connections does seem unnecessarily excessive, I will admit.
-matthew
Finally, my boneless chicken ranch and be a reality!
We're talking about countries ravaged by two world wars. I hardly think they had a resource advantage over the US. Although they probably did have an opportunity to plan their cities better when rebuilding them. I hate to admit it, but their cities really are better planned and maintained.
To go into other modern cities today, let's say Dallas...it would be way to expensive to tear up city blocks, miles of concrete roads and highways to build a subway or elevated train. It would cost more in $$'s and lost productivity than could ever be made up for in what I would guess a 100 years...
I dunno, London and Paris, at least, have managed to build absolutely amazing underground rail systems without disturbing existing structures that have been around longer than those of any American city. London's "tube" is so far underground that I doubt they tore up much of anything up in the process.
It can be done.
-matthew
The world isn't post-industrial, but the US is. Sadly, child labor does still exist, but you can't get rid of that kind of thing without international cooperation.
And why? Economic advantage.
It is an economic advantage for a country just going through an industrial revolution. But at some point, if they are to fully compete, they need to get those children in school and move into the information age.
-matthew
I recall a time in "history," not a time in my "life." If you think I am wrong about my preception of that time, let me know. Otherwise, I don't know what you are getting at.
-matthew
Is this an excuse for being more than twice as poluting per capita than Europeans? Maybe it is, I dunno, but I seems like we could do a lot better. CHicago (not including the suburbs), for example, isn't that much different than European cities as far as residential/commercial distribution and yet the public transportation here is worthless in comparison if you want to go anywhere besides downtown or an airport. In London, Paris, or Barcelona for example, you are rarely more than a couple blocks from a subway station. It has to do with politics. Americans simply are not willing to subsidize things like public transportation like they need to be.
-matthew
Well, Minneapolis only has a population of about 350,000 and Barcelona is about 1,500,000, so there is that. I live in Chicago and I have spent time in Barcelona. I didn't find Barcelona to be particularly unbreathable compared to Chicago. I've spent time in many other European cities including Berlin, Paris, London, Munich, and Zurich. And the only one that was noticably bad was Paris considering the size. But man, did Paris ever suck. I had a headache from the diesel exaust for just about the entire time I was there. In general, I found northern European cities to be the cleanest. But hot weather tends to accentuate pollution problems though, so that could be why.
-matthew
I think the poster in question is confusing the design of individual cities and towns with overall population distribution. It is true that American cities and towns tend to sprawl more, but they are still clustered.
-matthew