some numbers : http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/index.htm The sun radiates 174,423,000,000,000 kilowatt hours of energy to the earth per hour. About 1 to 2 per cent of the energy coming from the sun is converted into wind energy. That is about 50 to 100 times more than the energy converted into biomass by all plants on earth.
wind and solar are as limitless. the difference : COST. I don't see fusion becoming cheap. fission, after 3-4 decades is still very expensive, and it isn't getting cheaper; the reason : very complex technology, which means : difficult to maintain and secure. If we compare with wind on the other hand : you can let a turbine turn until the blades fall of, and then, you can put them back up with a few bolts here and there; nobody cares if a windmill collapses; if that happens on a nuclear power plant OTOH...
Yes, trees and plants convert CO2 + sunlight into sugar and O2; BUT at night, the opposite is true. There is however a positive leftover, but not nearly enough to offset 100000000 cars.
I would like to see the same amount of money poured into solar,wind and other alternative fuels. Currently, with just a small percentage of that kind of research, wind power is already very fast getting cheaper.
Re:Nothing inconvenient about the results
on
An Inconvenient Truth
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
surely man-affected climate change will slow down once that happens?
We are talking about ONE HUNDRED MILLION cars blowing CO2, polluting gasses, and particulates into the air every day. How is that amount of chemicals going to disappear ? I guess that sort of stuff happened long ago... over MILLIONS of years. Let's make it ourselves easier by changing now than in 50 years (when it can be too late). I say CAN BE, because the science isn't 100% sure, but whether or not it is happening, it's going to be cheaper and healthier to change now, than in 50(or 150 or 250) years when oil runs out. Cheaper ? yes, when the windfarms are 'turning' and the solar plants are 'burning' costs shift to maintenance, which is good for the local economy too (as opposed to big multinationals.)
Even 88 years after the end of WW1 (1914-1918), flanders(Northern Belgium) still isn't 100% safe, yearly tons of military material is still being laid bare...
that we'll damage the economy so much with half-assed solutions
that's what happens when you throw in a couple of politicians... anyway : It's not only ecological issues at stake here, the boundless consumption in the first world threatens the third-worlders in various ways, plus economic reasons too cut back on wasting resources (not only on fossil fuels, but also on building materials); health-reasons (cancer due to pollution); food-production;... So it's for various reasons important to develop technologies to protect ourselves. there are various ways to accomplish that : 1/fund research (that's not being done enough) 2/forbid polluting products (that works sometimes : see for example the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro4euro-4-norm, where europe has the cleanest vehicles on sale) 3/stimulate the economy with 'carrots'
the climate is SO complex that nobody really knows for sure what will happen. My guess is, we will never know enough to make a solid proof about climate change. If we wait until something happens, it'll cost a lot to repair the damage. If we take a more prudent route, it'll save us money (isolation, smaller engines, not needing to buy loads of fuel...). Your choice.
that's the beauty of the thing : it'll cost you LESS to be prudent than to keep burning oil like there is no tomorrow. Good isolation pays back in 3 to 6 years, driving in something else than a gas-guzzler costs you less, we don't need to keep invading defenseless countries to continue the oil-supply...
I think we have already burnt enough fossil fuels in a century to compensate for any ice age. It took millions of years to create those fossil fuels, and at the current rate, we would have completely used up all fossil fuels over a span of 250 years. (so anyways, we HAVE to switch to alternative fuels... )
Absolutely not, I can add another option to your list, you can't add a meaningful third option to my list: 3/ Don't give a flying fuck about religion, but adhere to humane values that are apparently rather close to the values given in any random religion, like : don't kill, care for other people, don't steal,...
make a choice: 1/ we wait until we see whether the earth warms up and take action... OOPS TOO LATE. 2/ we take the prudent side and try to cut emissions... not much happens, nobody knows whether a chance would have occurred
Slashdot Mirror
some numbers :
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/index.htm
The sun radiates 174,423,000,000,000 kilowatt hours of energy to the earth per hour.
About 1 to 2 per cent of the energy coming from the sun is converted into wind energy. That is about 50 to 100 times more than the energy converted into biomass by all plants on earth.
yes, as much as a large forest, or a big city.
wind and solar are as limitless. the difference : COST. I don't see fusion becoming cheap. fission, after 3-4 decades is still very expensive, and it isn't getting cheaper; the reason : very complex technology, which means : difficult to maintain and secure. If we compare with wind on the other hand : you can let a turbine turn until the blades fall of, and then, you can put them back up with a few bolts here and there; nobody cares if a windmill collapses; if that happens on a nuclear power plant OTOH ...
Yes, trees and plants convert CO2 + sunlight into sugar and O2; BUT at night, the opposite is true. There is however a positive leftover, but not nearly enough to offset 100000000 cars.
I would like to see the same amount of money poured into solar,wind and other alternative fuels. Currently, with just a small percentage of that kind of research, wind power is already very fast getting cheaper.
that's a good joke.
We are talking about ONE HUNDRED MILLION cars blowing CO2, polluting gasses, and particulates into the air every day. How is that amount of chemicals going to disappear ? I guess that sort of stuff happened long ago
Even 88 years after the end of WW1 (1914-1918), flanders(Northern Belgium) still isn't 100% safe, yearly tons of military material is still being laid bare ...
that's what happens when you throw in a couple of politicians
anyway : It's not only ecological issues at stake here, the boundless consumption in the first world threatens the third-worlders in various ways, plus economic reasons too cut back on wasting resources (not only on fossil fuels, but also on building materials); health-reasons (cancer due to pollution); food-production;
there are various ways to accomplish that :
1/fund research (that's not being done enough)
2/forbid polluting products (that works sometimes : see for example the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro4euro-4-norm, where europe has the cleanest vehicles on sale)
3/stimulate the economy with 'carrots'
cutting back on oil-usage : is that wasting resources ? It's exactly the opposite.
that's exactly what we're doing : exhaust our resources.
good isolation pays itself back in just a few years.
control other people's lives ????
YOUR freedom ENDS where OTHER PEOPLE'S freedom begins
bullsh*t, and you know it.
the climate is SO complex that nobody really knows for sure what will happen. My guess is, we will never know enough to make a solid proof about climate change. If we wait until something happens, it'll cost a lot to repair the damage. If we take a more prudent route, it'll save us money (isolation, smaller engines, not needing to buy loads of fuel ...). Your choice.
not likely, current trends are slightly upwards, and even if temperatures are going down, we can still burn a lot of oil ...
that's the beauty of the thing : it'll cost you LESS to be prudent than to keep burning oil like there is no tomorrow. Good isolation pays back in 3 to 6 years, driving in something else than a gas-guzzler costs you less, we don't need to keep invading defenseless countries to continue the oil-supply ...
if we have to wait for science, it may be too late to make preventive measures
sea levels rise by x meter, arable land decreases a lot, desertification, mass migrations, ... and we would kill ourselves in a global civil war.
who cares about science and theories when civilization ends ?
what do those sides want ? You tell me. What have those 2 sides to gain ?
no: humans die out, the rest of the world will continue to live.
I think we have already burnt enough fossil fuels in a century to compensate for any ice age. It took millions of years to create those fossil fuels, and at the current rate, we would have completely used up all fossil fuels over a span of 250 years. (so anyways, we HAVE to switch to alternative fuels ... )
Absolutely not, I can add another option to your list, you can't add a meaningful third option to my list: ...
3/ Don't give a flying fuck about religion, but adhere to humane values that are apparently rather close to the values given in any random religion, like : don't kill, care for other people, don't steal,
make a choice: ... OOPS TOO LATE. ... not much happens, nobody knows whether a chance would have occurred
1/ we wait until we see whether the earth warms up and take action
2/ we take the prudent side and try to cut emissions