Hello, yes, emergency-- What? You are the 9-1-1 dispatch center where? Tulsa?"
Or just dial 404-658-6666, which is the direct line to City of Atlanta 911. (Useful to know when your cell phone happens to connect to a tower outside the city limits, and 911 routes your call to the county emergency services, but the county won't send anyone to your address, because you live inside the city limits, and your call is disconnected when the county operators attempt to transfer you to the correct call center..... four times in a row..... )
There are weight and altitude limits, but there's no limit against small (say, under 55 lbs) aircraft at low altitudes (say, under 400 ft above ground), flown by radio control viewed from the ground, or from downlink FPV video, or even partial or full autonomy if you can achieve it. Might want to browse the AMA for sanctioned fields, but you don't have to fly at a group-sanctioned nor government-sanctioned location.
Partly right -- but there are not yet defined weight limits and such for UAVs. If you are flying a UAV as a hobby, then it is allowed. If you receive any payment, then it is no longer allowed (under a strict interpretation of current regulations). New categories defining weight limitations and such are currently being drafted by the FAA -- should be published in 6-9months.
Yeah, the FAA has a system in place to introduce new UAVs in a legal fashion. Unfortunately, the current system requires that every new UAV go through this process. My company has been on the waiting list for ~2 years to have our UAV made legal. They specifically told us that they will only certify 4 UAVs per year, and they will give priority to "established" companies. Basically, Boeing or Northrup Grumman can get their UAVs certified, but a startup company has no chance.
New regulations are just around the corner -- it will establish rules like, "if the vehicles weighs X lbs and has an engine smaller than Y, then you can fly in Class G airspace". It will create defined categories, so it won't be necessary to certify on a per vehicle basis anymore.
the focus has generally been on helicopters, simply because you can get them to stand still... doing a good inertial autopilot on an airplane is significantly more challenging.
No, the focus has been on helicopters because airplane autopilots are a done problem. Most commercial airline flights can go from takeoff to touchdown without human intervention -- human pilots are pretty much the backup system these days. Not true for helicopters. The Bell 429 has an autopilot -- it smooths out inputs and cancels wind gusts and such, but it can't take full control. And I think Sikorsky might have something similar, but in general helicopters don't have autopilots. B/c it's a freaking hard problem, and there's still a lot of research going into it.
What he's describing is more complex than R/C but there won't be much additional regulation to comply with and the "Feds" won't be interested unless he does something that violates the existing laws.
There are no existing laws or regulations that allow UAVs to fly in US airspace. There are, however, specific exemptions for hobby aircraft -- the essential difference under the current regulations is hobby vs commercial. A hobby UAV is allowed, but a commercial UAV is not allowed.
My company designs small UAV helicopters and flight control computers -- technically, we break the law every time we have a flight test. Luckily, the FAA are under a mandate to develop draft regulations in the next 6-9 months that specifically describe categories for allowable UAV flight in the US (and since their funding is dependent on this requirement, you can expect to see new laws very soon). We flew at a recent FAA demo where they were taking notes to draft the new regulations, so the ball is rolling.
why take the bus when you have a perfectly good bike with you?
Perhaps because the GP didn't want to show up to work in the morning drenched with sweat and exhausted?
I got used to bike commuting when my trip was only 6 miles and I had shower facilities available at work. So it was easy to ride a bike to and from work.
Now my commute is 18 miles and I have no shower facilities available. Its just not practical to ride to work anymore. Instead of giving up bike commuting entirely, now I take the bus to work with my bike on the front and ride the bicycle back home at the end of the day.
Currently reading "Code Complete" on the bus in the mornings -- better use of time than merely sitting in traffic.
There is "North America" and "South America". I'm pretty sure that "North American" is universal understood to be someone from any country in North America.
Ever wonder why there are 5 rings on the Olympic flag? There's one ring for each continent: Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania, and America.
In the USA we're taught that there are seven continents -- but in some other countries they teach that there are five continents. So your concept of "North America" might not be as universal as you believe.
I'm pretty sure that "American" is universally understood to be someone from any country in America.
*sigh* - Show me some long term data, not cherry picked ranges. For example, when the five-year running average slopes down, it starts to become interesting. (the five year slope is pretty flat currently, so it could go either way next year)
Here's the same data source for 1979 through 2008. It's apparent that it has not been cooling for the last six years. At best you could claim 2 years, but that is not enough to claim a trend when you're talking about global climate.
Here's a comparison of satellite temperatures and direct surface measurements. All of the data agree that there is an overall warming trend, they merely disagree on the extent of the warming.
Let me be clear - I am not claiming that this is a doomsday scenario. My only point is that the data does not support the claim that we are in a cooling trend.
All your temperature records are from Nasa. Nasa changes old data mostly down and doesn't explain why. The result is a warming trend that isn't in the original data. I don't believe their temperature record anymore!
The raw data is also available if you are that suspicious. They correct for things like time of day -- it doesn't make sense to compare 9am samples directly against 12noon samples now does it?
I use the temperature record of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The temperature is measured by satellites. Therefore there is no heat island effect that distorts the data.
Good, b/c UAH data also shows a global warming trend, too. It just shows a bit less warming than does the nasa data. Both data sets agree that the overall trend is still warming (not cooling, as was asserted above)
But most importantly, none of the temperature shows an alarming rise in the global temperature.
Who gets to decide what level is alarming? See, I don't need to use qualifiers. On average, the measured temperature is getting warmer. Simple - no qualifiers needed. If the observed amount of warming is significant or not is an entirely different matter, I am merely pointing out that it is incorrect to state that there is a cooling trend.
If you take a trend line from 2002 or later to present, you'll notice a downward trend. That is "cooling".
You should learn to read graphs better. As you mentioned, the lowest value is 0.1 C -- which indicates warming. Any positive value indicates warming, any negative value indicates cooling. There are only positive values on that entire graph. The downward trend from 2002 in that graph only means that things are warming less rapidly than before. "Warming less rapidly" is still warming, not cooling (you might notice that I even mentioned that in my post).
The other graph is for one specific altitude layer. That's why I presented graphs depicting multiple altitudes, latitudes, hemispheres etc. If you are talking about a trend then you need more than one data point.
what gives you the slightest confidence their prediction for 2100 is worth a thing?
What are you talking about? I said nothing about predictions. Please don't confuse global warming with Global Warming - the former is merely a description of observed data while the latter is pretty much a religion. My point is quite simple: on average, the measured temperature around the world is increasing. To say otherwise is inconsistent with the observed data. Every dataset that I've examined is consistent in this (if you have seen other large data sets that contradict this, please refer them to me, I would like to see them).
The truth is that 2008 is the coolest year since 2000. Every year from 2001 to 2007 was warmer than 2008. Creatively spun, one can make it sound like things have been cooling since 2000. But in reality, the trend is still warming with merely one data point (this year) below the upward slope.
Perhaps you heard that 2008 is the coolest year since 2000? Well that's true. 2008 has the coolest temperatures of the past 8 years. But guess what? It's the 9th warmest year on record (since 1880). I'd wait for a few more data points before claiming a global cooling trend.
You can use a mobile phone in a car, which has damn near every function controlled by some sort of electronics (well, if it was built within the last ten years). Despite this, cars don't routinely have all sorts of weirdass control failures caused by people talking on mobile phones,
Gotta point this out, too. How old do you think the airplanes are? The average age of Delta's fleet is 14 yrs old. There's a couple thousand 20+ year old planes in the U.S. and they certainly were not designed with personal electronics in mind.
How the hell can a *wireless mouse* affect the elevator controls of an aircraft?
Easy. The power output at the satellite for GPS is around 50W at 1.57542 Ghz. 50W about 12,000 miles away - there's quite a bit of attenuation before that signal is received. The antenna for a GPS unit obviously must be sensitive to very low power signals. The wireless mouse, that nominally operates at 2.4Ghz, could easily produce a burst at power up that hit the GPS spectrum, resulting in bad GPS data received by the airplane. The autopilot then attempts to correct for the bad data. Thus, a mere wireless mouse could affect the elevator controls.
I'm not saying that this is what did happen, but pointing out that there is a very plausible path for this to occur. (if a single bad reading could cause this, that is a very serious design flaw....)
IAAPP (private pilot) - your comparison to cars is terribly flawed, I won't even bother.
There was a ~10 year study on a single forest plot about 40 years ago. Those researches concluded that after 150 years a forest becomes carbon neutral. This study has been the guiding wisdom ever since.
Last week, a new study was published: Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455, 213-215 (September 11, 2008). It examined 519 forest plots around the world ranging in age from 50 to 800 years and found that most of them are carbon sinks. The analysis of a single forest should not have been generalized to all forests. Your assumptions are founded on information that is now outdated based on this new, more general, study.
1. Where are the trees putting the carbon? (Gaining additional wood weight I assume... but when they die and fall over, all the carbon is released again by bacteria.)
While carbon is stored in wood mass, a majority of the carbon is actually stored in the soil. http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/news/473
(I can't find any scientific article that supports your assertion that all the carbon is "released by bacteria")
2. How fast are they sequestering it, compared to the rate at which a clearcut/replant forest would do so?
According to this study, 60% faster than a plantation forest.
http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/37839
A huge amount of carbon is released when a primary forest is clear cut. Logging primary forests releases ~40% of their stored carbon.
Source: Green Carbon: The role of natural forests in carbon storage. ANU E Press (July 2008).
The lumber industry is greedy, remember? They want to grow the greatest amount of wood in the fastest possible time. They therefore are perfectly motivated to maximize carbon sequestration. And the way that they do it is: for most species, clearcut once every 25-50 years and then replant.
Your argument is flawed by assuming that plantation forests absorb more carbon than old growth forests. This assumption is not supported by current research. Additionally, it takes 5-20 years before newly planted forest begins to absorb more carbon than it emits.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080910133934.htm
I'm an EE, so I used some 'rule of thumb' type numbers.
US Department of Energy says 10,656 kWh per year household average.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/detailcetbls.html#total
Pick your region, my region happens to have higher than average, which is why I picked 12,000 kWh per year (homes in the south tend to use more electricity, conveniently they also get more sunshine)
I didn't consider gasoline/transportation - but a gallon of gas has ~115,000 BTU of energy, which is roughly 33kWh (1kWh = 3413BTU).
Your solar number is lower, so run with that. 380kWh * 365 days = 138,700 kWh. (pretty close to 130,000 eh?) Which equates to roughly 4,200 gallons of gasoline worth of energy.
So yeah, at 100% efficiency solar would completely take care of household energy usage, including transportation. Even 40% efficiency would cover it (using conservative numbers)
... anyone who can do math knows it because the energy density on a rooftop isn't enough, even with 100% efficiency which isn't going to be approached in our lifetime.
This bit is wrong. Not just a little bit, but orders of magnitude wrong.
The energy in sunlight is about 120 Watts per sqft. If you look at a small house in the US, say about 1000 sqare feet (assume roof area is the same) well that's 120 kW peak. Depending on where you live, you'll get 4-6 hours of peak solar energy per day. On the low end, that's roughly 500 kWh per day. In a year, you're talking about 130,000 kWh of energy.
The average energy consumption of a household in the US is about 12,000 kWh
So, with 100% efficiency, solar panels on the roof would more than cover the needs of an average household. Even at 10% efficiency, solar panels cover the energy needs of the average household.
Cost is a different issue, but quit spouting ignorant falsehoods.
Yes there are: tighter emission standards, higher safety requirements, America's penchant for higher performing engines.
Americans seem to believe that we have higher safety requirements - but its simply not true.
The transportation research board
http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf
(see page 17) shows that import cars are consistently safer for the occupants than are american vehicles.
Typical response at this point is, "But we've got SUVs on our roads, of course the foreign cars have better safety numbers"
This data is for import vehicles. that is, they were driven on the same roads, with the same conditions, with the same other vehicles, and came out with significantly better safety numbers.
How do you say the US has higher safety standards AND say that SUVs create a more dangerous environment to drive in? Real safety standards would improve the safety of everyone.
"You have the ability to choose how much or how little content you want to see from each section. Further, you have the ability to choose if you want to view each type of article in 'Full Text' or 'Abbreviated' format."
I've heard that even the best organic crops only deliver half of what regular crops do, so if we can produce food for 8 billion today (there's enough but not in the right places) then say we could grow organic food for 4 billion.
Then you have heard incorrect information.
A 22 year study by Cornell, a survey of research by Berkeley (the longest of which is a 150 year study), and a study by the University of Michigan all say that organic farming techniques are at least as good as conventional techniques in terms of yield and often better. In addition to better yields, the organic techniques required less energy inputs, used less water/irrigation, improved soil conditions over time, and retained additional carbon in the ground!
To present a balanced view, this is not true for all crops. Notably potatoes and certain fruits have better results with petro-chemical methods (organic potato yield is roughly 60-65% compared to conventional). However, organic yields are approximately equal for important staples such as corn, wheat and soybeans, as well as many others crops like apples and tomatoes.
On the low end of the studies, a 20 year Swiss study concluded that organic farms produce 80-90% yields compared to conventional farms. And all the studies show that organic techniques have greater yields during drought years.
Slashdot Mirror
10 cars struck in the last 50 years.
over a longer timespan -
http://imca.repetti.net/metinfo/metstruck.html
Hello, yes, emergency-- What? You are the 9-1-1 dispatch center where? Tulsa?"
Or just dial 404-658-6666, which is the direct line to City of Atlanta 911. (Useful to know when your cell phone happens to connect to a tower outside the city limits, and 911 routes your call to the county emergency services, but the county won't send anyone to your address, because you live inside the city limits, and your call is disconnected when the county operators attempt to transfer you to the correct call center ..... four times in a row ..... )
There are weight and altitude limits, but there's no limit against small (say, under 55 lbs) aircraft at low altitudes (say, under 400 ft above ground), flown by radio control viewed from the ground, or from downlink FPV video, or even partial or full autonomy if you can achieve it. Might want to browse the AMA for sanctioned fields, but you don't have to fly at a group-sanctioned nor government-sanctioned location.
Partly right -- but there are not yet defined weight limits and such for UAVs. If you are flying a UAV as a hobby, then it is allowed. If you receive any payment, then it is no longer allowed (under a strict interpretation of current regulations). New categories defining weight limitations and such are currently being drafted by the FAA -- should be published in 6-9months.
Yeah, the FAA has a system in place to introduce new UAVs in a legal fashion. Unfortunately, the current system requires that every new UAV go through this process. My company has been on the waiting list for ~2 years to have our UAV made legal. They specifically told us that they will only certify 4 UAVs per year, and they will give priority to "established" companies. Basically, Boeing or Northrup Grumman can get their UAVs certified, but a startup company has no chance.
New regulations are just around the corner -- it will establish rules like, "if the vehicles weighs X lbs and has an engine smaller than Y, then you can fly in Class G airspace". It will create defined categories, so it won't be necessary to certify on a per vehicle basis anymore.
the focus has generally been on helicopters, simply because you can get them to stand still... doing a good inertial autopilot on an airplane is significantly more challenging.
No, the focus has been on helicopters because airplane autopilots are a done problem. Most commercial airline flights can go from takeoff to touchdown without human intervention -- human pilots are pretty much the backup system these days. Not true for helicopters. The Bell 429 has an autopilot -- it smooths out inputs and cancels wind gusts and such, but it can't take full control. And I think Sikorsky might have something similar, but in general helicopters don't have autopilots. B/c it's a freaking hard problem, and there's still a lot of research going into it.
What he's describing is more complex than R/C but there won't be much additional regulation to comply with and the "Feds" won't be interested unless he does something that violates the existing laws.
There are no existing laws or regulations that allow UAVs to fly in US airspace. There are, however, specific exemptions for hobby aircraft -- the essential difference under the current regulations is hobby vs commercial. A hobby UAV is allowed, but a commercial UAV is not allowed.
My company designs small UAV helicopters and flight control computers -- technically, we break the law every time we have a flight test. Luckily, the FAA are under a mandate to develop draft regulations in the next 6-9 months that specifically describe categories for allowable UAV flight in the US (and since their funding is dependent on this requirement, you can expect to see new laws very soon). We flew at a recent FAA demo where they were taking notes to draft the new regulations, so the ball is rolling.
Perhaps because the GP didn't want to show up to work in the morning drenched with sweat and exhausted?
I got used to bike commuting when my trip was only 6 miles and I had shower facilities available at work. So it was easy to ride a bike to and from work.
Now my commute is 18 miles and I have no shower facilities available. Its just not practical to ride to work anymore. Instead of giving up bike commuting entirely, now I take the bus to work with my bike on the front and ride the bicycle back home at the end of the day.
Currently reading "Code Complete" on the bus in the mornings -- better use of time than merely sitting in traffic.
There is "North America" and "South America". I'm pretty sure that "North American" is universal understood to be someone from any country in North America.
Ever wonder why there are 5 rings on the Olympic flag? There's one ring for each continent: Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania, and America.
In the USA we're taught that there are seven continents -- but in some other countries they teach that there are five continents. So your concept of "North America" might not be as universal as you believe.
I'm pretty sure that "American" is universally understood to be someone from any country in America.
*sigh* - Show me some long term data, not cherry picked ranges. For example, when the five-year running average slopes down, it starts to become interesting. (the five year slope is pretty flat currently, so it could go either way next year)
Here's the same data source for 1979 through 2008. It's apparent that it has not been cooling for the last six years. At best you could claim 2 years, but that is not enough to claim a trend when you're talking about global climate.
Here's a comparison of satellite temperatures and direct surface measurements. All of the data agree that there is an overall warming trend, they merely disagree on the extent of the warming.
Let me be clear - I am not claiming that this is a doomsday scenario. My only point is that the data does not support the claim that we are in a cooling trend.
All your temperature records are from Nasa. Nasa changes old data mostly down and doesn't explain why. The result is a warming trend that isn't in the original data. I don't believe their temperature record anymore!
The raw data is also available if you are that suspicious. They correct for things like time of day -- it doesn't make sense to compare 9am samples directly against 12noon samples now does it?
I use the temperature record of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The temperature is measured by satellites. Therefore there is no heat island effect that distorts the data.
Good, b/c UAH data also shows a global warming trend, too. It just shows a bit less warming than does the nasa data. Both data sets agree that the overall trend is still warming (not cooling, as was asserted above)
But most importantly, none of the temperature shows an alarming rise in the global temperature.
Who gets to decide what level is alarming? See, I don't need to use qualifiers. On average, the measured temperature is getting warmer. Simple - no qualifiers needed. If the observed amount of warming is significant or not is an entirely different matter, I am merely pointing out that it is incorrect to state that there is a cooling trend.
At any rate, I claim there's a cooling trend based on data such as that presented at:
http://www.factsandarts.com/articles/no-significant-global-warming-since-1995/
If you take a trend line from 2002 or later to present, you'll notice a downward trend. That is "cooling".
You should learn to read graphs better. As you mentioned, the lowest value is 0.1 C -- which indicates warming. Any positive value indicates warming, any negative value indicates cooling. There are only positive values on that entire graph. The downward trend from 2002 in that graph only means that things are warming less rapidly than before. "Warming less rapidly" is still warming, not cooling (you might notice that I even mentioned that in my post).
The other graph is for one specific altitude layer. That's why I presented graphs depicting multiple altitudes, latitudes, hemispheres etc. If you are talking about a trend then you need more than one data point.
what gives you the slightest confidence their prediction for 2100 is worth a thing?
What are you talking about? I said nothing about predictions. Please don't confuse global warming with Global Warming - the former is merely a description of observed data while the latter is pretty much a religion. My point is quite simple: on average, the measured temperature around the world is increasing. To say otherwise is inconsistent with the observed data. Every dataset that I've examined is consistent in this (if you have seen other large data sets that contradict this, please refer them to me, I would like to see them).
We had a WARMING TREND.
Fixed that for you, it's been getting cooler the last 10 years.
Is that so?
The truth is that 2008 is the coolest year since 2000. Every year from 2001 to 2007 was warmer than 2008. Creatively spun, one can make it sound like things have been cooling since 2000. But in reality, the trend is still warming with merely one data point (this year) below the upward slope.
Not surprisingly, the global climate is also in a cooling trend.
Needs citation.
Global Temperature Land Ocean Index? -- Increasing
Global Temperature (meteorological stations)? -- Increasing.
Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands? -- Slight dip for low latitudes, but mostly increasing
Annual Mean Temperature Change for Hemispheres? -- You guessed, it, increasing.
Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change? -- All positive (thus, increasing)
Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States? -- Shocking! - also increasing!
Seasonal Mean Temperature Change? -- Don't let the dip fool you, just means it is warming less rapidly
Perhaps you heard that 2008 is the coolest year since 2000? Well that's true. 2008 has the coolest temperatures of the past 8 years. But guess what? It's the 9th warmest year on record (since 1880). I'd wait for a few more data points before claiming a global cooling trend.
Talk about inconvenient...
Indeed.
Bureau of Labor Statistics has the information you seek. http://www.bls.gov/
If 85% of white people voted for McCain, it would be considered racist.
Just saying.
There are 36 black delegates in the GOP. Out of 2,380. That's 98.5% white people.
What is that you were saying again?
You can use a mobile phone in a car, which has damn near every function controlled by some sort of electronics (well, if it was built within the last ten years). Despite this, cars don't routinely have all sorts of weirdass control failures caused by people talking on mobile phones,
Gotta point this out, too. How old do you think the airplanes are? The average age of Delta's fleet is 14 yrs old. There's a couple thousand 20+ year old planes in the U.S. and they certainly were not designed with personal electronics in mind.
How the hell can a *wireless mouse* affect the elevator controls of an aircraft?
Easy. The power output at the satellite for GPS is around 50W at 1.57542 Ghz. 50W about 12,000 miles away - there's quite a bit of attenuation before that signal is received. The antenna for a GPS unit obviously must be sensitive to very low power signals. The wireless mouse, that nominally operates at 2.4Ghz, could easily produce a burst at power up that hit the GPS spectrum, resulting in bad GPS data received by the airplane. The autopilot then attempts to correct for the bad data. Thus, a mere wireless mouse could affect the elevator controls.
I'm not saying that this is what did happen, but pointing out that there is a very plausible path for this to occur. (if a single bad reading could cause this, that is a very serious design flaw....)
IAAPP (private pilot) - your comparison to cars is terribly flawed, I won't even bother.
There was a ~10 year study on a single forest plot about 40 years ago. Those researches concluded that after 150 years a forest becomes carbon neutral. This study has been the guiding wisdom ever since.
Last week, a new study was published: Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455, 213-215 (September 11, 2008). It examined 519 forest plots around the world ranging in age from 50 to 800 years and found that most of them are carbon sinks. The analysis of a single forest should not have been generalized to all forests. Your assumptions are founded on information that is now outdated based on this new, more general, study.
1. Where are the trees putting the carbon? (Gaining additional wood weight I assume... but when they die and fall over, all the carbon is released again by bacteria.)
While carbon is stored in wood mass, a majority of the carbon is actually stored in the soil. http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/news/473 (I can't find any scientific article that supports your assertion that all the carbon is "released by bacteria")
2. How fast are they sequestering it, compared to the rate at which a clearcut/replant forest would do so?
According to this study, 60% faster than a plantation forest. http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/37839 A huge amount of carbon is released when a primary forest is clear cut. Logging primary forests releases ~40% of their stored carbon. Source: Green Carbon: The role of natural forests in carbon storage. ANU E Press (July 2008).
The lumber industry is greedy, remember? They want to grow the greatest amount of wood in the fastest possible time. They therefore are perfectly motivated to maximize carbon sequestration. And the way that they do it is: for most species, clearcut once every 25-50 years and then replant.
Your argument is flawed by assuming that plantation forests absorb more carbon than old growth forests. This assumption is not supported by current research. Additionally, it takes 5-20 years before newly planted forest begins to absorb more carbon than it emits. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080910133934.htm
The only forests that do liberate oxygen and store carbon are young, growing forests. Mature forests are done -- they are in carbon equilibrium.
A study from 40 years ago reported that info. More recent studies have shown that even mature forests continue to absorb CO2.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/09/11/ap5412821.html
I'm an EE, so I used some 'rule of thumb' type numbers.
US Department of Energy says 10,656 kWh per year household average. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/detailcetbls.html#total Pick your region, my region happens to have higher than average, which is why I picked 12,000 kWh per year (homes in the south tend to use more electricity, conveniently they also get more sunshine)
I didn't consider gasoline/transportation - but a gallon of gas has ~115,000 BTU of energy, which is roughly 33kWh (1kWh = 3413BTU).
Average gasoline consumption (US) is 1,143 gallons per household. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/nhts_survey/2001/tablefiles/page_a02.html
Your solar number is lower, so run with that. 380kWh * 365 days = 138,700 kWh. (pretty close to 130,000 eh?) Which equates to roughly 4,200 gallons of gasoline worth of energy.
So yeah, at 100% efficiency solar would completely take care of household energy usage, including transportation. Even 40% efficiency would cover it (using conservative numbers)
This bit is wrong. Not just a little bit, but orders of magnitude wrong.
The energy in sunlight is about 120 Watts per sqft. If you look at a small house in the US, say about 1000 sqare feet (assume roof area is the same) well that's 120 kW peak. Depending on where you live, you'll get 4-6 hours of peak solar energy per day. On the low end, that's roughly 500 kWh per day. In a year, you're talking about 130,000 kWh of energy.
The average energy consumption of a household in the US is about 12,000 kWh
So, with 100% efficiency, solar panels on the roof would more than cover the needs of an average household. Even at 10% efficiency, solar panels cover the energy needs of the average household.
Cost is a different issue, but quit spouting ignorant falsehoods.
Yes there are: tighter emission standards, higher safety requirements, America's penchant for higher performing engines.
Americans seem to believe that we have higher safety requirements - but its simply not true. The transportation research board http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf (see page 17) shows that import cars are consistently safer for the occupants than are american vehicles. Typical response at this point is, "But we've got SUVs on our roads, of course the foreign cars have better safety numbers" This data is for import vehicles. that is, they were driven on the same roads, with the same conditions, with the same other vehicles, and came out with significantly better safety numbers. How do you say the US has higher safety standards AND say that SUVs create a more dangerous environment to drive in? Real safety standards would improve the safety of everyone.
Help & Preferences -> Sections
"You have the ability to choose how much or how little content you want to see from each section. Further, you have the ability to choose if you want to view each type of article in 'Full Text' or 'Abbreviated' format."
Idle -> Never
I've heard that even the best organic crops only deliver half of what regular crops do, so if we can produce food for 8 billion today (there's enough but not in the right places) then say we could grow organic food for 4 billion.
Then you have heard incorrect information.
A 22 year study by Cornell, a survey of research by Berkeley (the longest of which is a 150 year study), and a study by the University of Michigan all say that organic farming techniques are at least as good as conventional techniques in terms of yield and often better. In addition to better yields, the organic techniques required less energy inputs, used less water/irrigation, improved soil conditions over time, and retained additional carbon in the ground!
To present a balanced view, this is not true for all crops. Notably potatoes and certain fruits have better results with petro-chemical methods (organic potato yield is roughly 60-65% compared to conventional). However, organic yields are approximately equal for important staples such as corn, wheat and soybeans, as well as many others crops like apples and tomatoes.
On the low end of the studies, a 20 year Swiss study concluded that organic farms produce 80-90% yields compared to conventional farms. And all the studies show that organic techniques have greater yields during drought years.
I think it's hilarious that you consider Atlanta to be densely populated. It's very telling of the American perception of things.