Organic farming is a pursuit of sustainable agriculture. There are many reputable articles that clearly points out the need for sustainable agriculture to prevent serious environmental degredation. Here one examples: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6898/full/nature01014.html
There are of course examples that clearly show environmental benefits (such as increased soil fertility, increased biodiversity, higher energy efficiency etc) from organic farming. Heres one: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/296/5573/1694
As a Ag. college student, you should already be aware of this.
a GraPhyx card? If they release a combo card that is. No one is gonna buy a seperate physics card, right? But a combo card could enable real time rendering of stuff like this: http://physbam.stanford.edu/~fedkiw/
There is a reason they do it this way, and its really simple to understand if you try (but from most of the posts so far i can tell that most people don't really want to). The first thing you would want if you are going to put preassure on companies to reduce their environmental impact is to have them declare what negative environmental impact they currently have and what they intend to do about it. That gives you the oppertunity to focus on following up on the companies own promises. If they declare nothing its quite difficult to prove that they have a negative environmental impact. It requires accurate data from the company that is very hard to get. So instead greenpeace creates a point system that rewards companies that divulge information (and hey, if they doing good they have nothin to hide right?) that allows them to focus on following up on the companies own promises.
Re:If you can't store it, you can't count on it
on
Google Goes Green
·
· Score: 1
And also lets not forget that there other renewable energy sources that are storable, such as bioenergy.
Jupp, the FAA didn't see any benifit for the american flight industry and therefore shunned the system and the security improvements it could have brought. The article refered to by slashdot is nothing more then a advertisment for the NextGen system. It askes no critical questions and totally avoids the subject of internationalization of the system. But of course that does not matter, cause its not like airplanes ever go between countries, right?
I agree. And the money earned from taxing gas could be used to finance better public transports, providing people with strained economies with a cheap fuelefficient alternative.
The/. editor must have deliberately written the title to make us believe that this is a story about how EA is going to start listen to their audience and make good games again. Well this "viewer" is disappointed.
What I would like to see is someone adding the ability to sync Thunderbird and Sunbird with Pocket Pc. If you want to sync now, you'r stuck with Outlook.
Funny how Sci-Fi Robots tend to be these shiny metallic looking machines while real robots most often seem to be these plastic looking overgrown toys.
I suppose it makes sense weightwise and such but why do they often chose to make them metallic in movies and comicbooks?
As i posted in another part of the thread, commercially acceptable breeder reactors might not be available before 2050.
And you do not remove the problem of waste management with breeder reactors. You still have to find high-level radioactive repositories to store waste, of wich none can be found today.
And as you point out, weapons proliferation will become a even greater problem with the widespread use of breeder reactors.
My point is that there are many problems with nuclear energy that need to be dealt with. Hopefully they can be overcome, by my bet is still on the fact that we will be able to harness the energy from the sun (wich is really fusion energy transorted to us through light:-)in an effective way.
The numbers i posted were not correct (my memory isn't perfect:-) The correct numbers regarding how long the supply would last are closer to: 88 years at current consumption rates and 20 years if employed vigorously world wide. These numbers are from Dean Abrahamson's article "Energy sources: Som environmental constraints" published in 1995. (I have not found an online copy if).
These numbers are of course based on the assumption that we are still using current reactor types in the future, not breeder-reactors. But as Abrahamnson also writes in this article; "The issue is not, however, wheter the present nuclear technololy can be expanded rapidly, for it is demonstrated inadequate and non-breeding reactors would quickly axhaust uranium resources. It is unlikely that the first advanced light-water reactors could be demonstrated before about 2020 and the first commercially-acceptable breeders before 2050" The last figure is apparently based on a MIT study published in 1993.
Abrahamson also points out the problem of weapons proliferation that haunts both regular and current breeder reactors.
Well, the problem is, as far as I have understood it, that nuclear energy is not a sustainable source of energy since it uses a fuel, uranium, that is limited and we have a very short supply of. If we were to exchange all the coal and oil powered powerplants to nuclear power plants, we only have about ten years supply of uranium left in the world that could be extracted in a reasonably economical way (and lets not forget that mining uranium is not easy and NOT environmentaly friendly). If you count the total resources of uranium we have maybe 15-20 years of supply. What do you propose we do then?
Even if we just count the amount of uranium that it takes to run the curren about 500 reactors in the world, we only have enough uranium to run them for 40-60 years. And lets not forget that no one in the world has a really good plan on what to do with the radioctive restproducts from nuclear powerplants.
We most likely have to switch to renewable energy sources. And the sun provides us with a lot of energy everyday. We only need to figure out a good enough way to extrac it and store it.
Slashdot Mirror
Organic farming is a pursuit of sustainable agriculture. There are many reputable articles that clearly points out the need for sustainable agriculture to prevent serious environmental degredation. Here one examples: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6898/full/nature01014.html There are of course examples that clearly show environmental benefits (such as increased soil fertility, increased biodiversity, higher energy efficiency etc) from organic farming. Heres one: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/296/5573/1694 As a Ag. college student, you should already be aware of this.
a GraPhyx card? If they release a combo card that is. No one is gonna buy a seperate physics card, right? But a combo card could enable real time rendering of stuff like this: http://physbam.stanford.edu/~fedkiw/
There is a reason they do it this way, and its really simple to understand if you try (but from most of the posts so far i can tell that most people don't really want to). The first thing you would want if you are going to put preassure on companies to reduce their environmental impact is to have them declare what negative environmental impact they currently have and what they intend to do about it. That gives you the oppertunity to focus on following up on the companies own promises. If they declare nothing its quite difficult to prove that they have a negative environmental impact. It requires accurate data from the company that is very hard to get. So instead greenpeace creates a point system that rewards companies that divulge information (and hey, if they doing good they have nothin to hide right?) that allows them to focus on following up on the companies own promises.
And also lets not forget that there other renewable energy sources that are storable, such as bioenergy.
Jupp, the FAA didn't see any benifit for the american flight industry and therefore shunned the system and the security improvements it could have brought.
The article refered to by slashdot is nothing more then a advertisment for the NextGen system. It askes no critical questions and totally avoids the subject of internationalization of the system. But of course that does not matter, cause its not like airplanes ever go between countries, right?
Couldn't they just watch daytime tv and learn all that? Not as much of a sport though.
Ok, just make sure not to cross the streams. It would be bad.
Your dream world is my private hell
So what your saying is....it's a trap?
I once built a fridge, it was pretty cool...*drumroll*!
/Kristofer
Thank you very much, I'll be here all week.
Ps. the "please type the word in this image" word I got today was condom.
...watching Americans arguing FOR higher gas prices gives me some hope for this world.
I agree. And the money earned from taxing gas could be used to finance better public transports, providing people with strained economies with a cheap fuelefficient alternative.
The /. editor must have deliberately written the title to make us believe that this is a story about how EA is going to start listen to their audience and make good games again. Well this "viewer" is disappointed.
Blue is a overated color anyway.
...I found this neat box. Check it out!
Why don't we just ask them? They should know, they are probably talking to each other all the time.
"Eve2 was developed to work with Adam and to incorporate many improvements that have been requested since Eve1 was written."
I bet many men wish that God would considered this.
And suddenly all circles became spirals
What I would like to see is someone adding the ability to sync Thunderbird and Sunbird with Pocket Pc. If you want to sync now, you'r stuck with Outlook.
Well, it's a bit of science and then the journalists added a huge slab of fiction, so yeah, it does sound like science fiction.
Funny how Sci-Fi Robots tend to be these shiny metallic looking machines while real robots most often seem to be these plastic looking overgrown toys. I suppose it makes sense weightwise and such but why do they often chose to make them metallic in movies and comicbooks?
Thought it said:
Jomad Nukebox
Sounded alot more interesting
As i posted in another part of the thread, commercially acceptable breeder reactors might not be available before 2050. And you do not remove the problem of waste management with breeder reactors. You still have to find high-level radioactive repositories to store waste, of wich none can be found today. And as you point out, weapons proliferation will become a even greater problem with the widespread use of breeder reactors. My point is that there are many problems with nuclear energy that need to be dealt with. Hopefully they can be overcome, by my bet is still on the fact that we will be able to harness the energy from the sun (wich is really fusion energy transorted to us through light :-)in an effective way.
The numbers i posted were not correct (my memory isn't perfect :-) The correct numbers regarding how long the supply would last are closer to: 88 years at current consumption rates and 20 years if employed vigorously world wide. These numbers are from Dean Abrahamson's article "Energy sources: Som environmental constraints" published in 1995. (I have not found an online copy if).
These numbers are of course based on the assumption that we are still using current reactor types in the future, not breeder-reactors. But as Abrahamnson also writes in this article; "The issue is not, however, wheter the present nuclear technololy can be expanded rapidly, for it is demonstrated inadequate and non-breeding reactors would quickly axhaust uranium resources. It is unlikely that the first advanced light-water reactors could be demonstrated before about 2020 and the first commercially-acceptable breeders before 2050" The last figure is apparently based on a MIT study published in 1993.
Abrahamson also points out the problem of weapons proliferation that haunts both regular and current breeder reactors.
Well, the problem is, as far as I have understood it, that nuclear energy is not a sustainable source of energy since it uses a fuel, uranium, that is limited and we have a very short supply of. If we were to exchange all the coal and oil powered powerplants to nuclear power plants, we only have about ten years supply of uranium left in the world that could be extracted in a reasonably economical way (and lets not forget that mining uranium is not easy and NOT environmentaly friendly). If you count the total resources of uranium we have maybe 15-20 years of supply. What do you propose we do then?
Even if we just count the amount of uranium that it takes to run the curren about 500 reactors in the world, we only have enough uranium to run them for 40-60 years. And lets not forget that no one in the world has a really good plan on what to do with the radioctive restproducts from nuclear powerplants.
We most likely have to switch to renewable energy sources. And the sun provides us with a lot of energy everyday. We only need to figure out a good enough way to extrac it and store it.