Wind Power Falls Under $0.01/kwh 1064
js7a writes "Colorado State University's Rocky Mountain Collegian reports that, "as of June [the price of wind power] dropped to 1 cent per kWh." Even without further expected improvements in turbine technology, the U.S. would now need to use less than 3% of its farmland to get 95% of its electricity demand satisfied by wind power. Plus, wind power is the only mitigation of global warming, because if the whole world converted to wind power in 15 years, the amount of power being extracted from the atmosphere would be more than the increase in greenhouse gas atmospheric energy forcing since 1600. Don't say goodbye to coal and oil, yet, though; unless cell technology increases substantially, when we run out of oil we will convert coal to synthetic fuel." Update: 09/15 13:40 GMT by T : Note: the "1 cent" figure refers to the premium paid for the power over conventionally supplied electricity, rather than the final per-kWh price.
Misleading title (Score:5, Insightful)
-AD
My 2 kwh (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the absolute least you could do is nothing - which most of the Colorado residents are doing it seems. While it doesn't surprise me that initial takeup is going slow, it is a little disappointing. Giving uni students the choice is a good start, but Mr. Citizen would probably be more likely to spend the extra money on a bigger TV - than cleaner electricity.
Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Does that take into account the amount of energy lost when transporting electricity from the point of generation (farmland) to the point of use (everywhere except farmland)? Also what would the monetary cost of doing this be?
Re:Misleading title (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hope (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Problem Is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I've actually... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Before you jump onto the Wind Powered Band Wago (Score:5, Insightful)
Not right now... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Problem Is... (Score:3, Insightful)
We need fusion. There is no excuse for the minimalistic funding fusion research gets. And in the meantime, we need to seriously consider fission.
Re:Misleading title (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't nuclear clean? Or any number of others? (Score:3, Insightful)
Heck, even Chernobyl only happened because they turned off all the safties; it was an inherantly safe reactor until they manually fucked it up.
Anyhow, nuclear plants don't have to be in farmland (Less power lost on transport), are clean (Perhaps a smaller effect on the environment than wind power?), are safe, and best of all, produce much more stable output.
That and hydro. Which, while it has an impact on the environment when installed, after that it seems to me to be pretty clean. Heck, Quebec serves all of it's millions of people with a few hydro dams, and we have some of the cheapest power costs in North America.
Oh, and there's also the ever increasing efficiency of solar. And heck, while we're at it, fusion will be around eventually, perfectly clean radiation-free energy, as I understand it. Yes, it's far off, but if you invest in a worldwide wind power network only to have fusion come out and be a much better option, that's a huge waste of money. In fact, take the money you would have spent on all those wind generators, and put it into fusion research
Just for the record... (Score:3, Insightful)
Statements like this just bug me, because it's such a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. And this attitude is SO pervasive among the enviro-people.
We will NEVER EVER run out of oil. Never. Ever.
What WILL happen is that eventually oil because more expensive to pull out of the ground as the reserves get lower. At that point, other sources of energy get more economical, and we inevitably switch over.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
ummm (Score:2, Insightful)
Just where did this emptyheaded "fact" come from I wonder. What does this person think happens to the electricity when it's used? Turns into magic pixie dust maybe? Almost all the electricity used today is CONVERTED TO HEAT! The miniscule amount of energy derived from electricity that is actually radiated off of the planet in the form of light(non-IR that is) which could potentially extract energy from the atmosphere and "get rid" of it is totally negligable. The idea that wind power can somehow reverse global warming is so far beyond asinine its hard to put into words.
Re:Bull! (Score:4, Insightful)
While your argument looks good on the surface, it relies on the assumption that all of these turbines would be quite close to each other. The larger the geographic spread of these windmills, the more assured you are to be getting at least *some* power *all* of the time. It's the same reason that investors like to keep a variety of stocks in their portfolios. The probability that a single area will not have sufficient wind to generate power is relatively high, but the chance that all the air in the entire country will suddenly just decide to stop moving is basically 0. Yes, this does require building alot more windmills, and thus invest alot more money, but that dosen't stop the concept from feasible.
Re:Not right now... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Isn't nuclear clean? Or any number of others? (Score:2, Insightful)
The power plants can be run safely, look at what the U.S. Navy has done.
Re:translation needed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Problem Is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just for the record... (Score:5, Insightful)
What WILL happen is that eventually oil because more expensive to pull out of the ground as the reserves get lower. At that point, other sources of energy get more economical, and we inevitably switch over.
That is what they mean when they say "run out of ouil". Oil that is too expensive to obtain might as well not exist. As for "switching over", look around you and notice how many of the goods you own are made out of plastic. When oil becomes very expensive, you will have to either pay a lot of money for those items, or find a way to make them out of some other material. Given that there is no obvious substitute for oil as a manufacturing ingredient, it would be best if we stopped burning it for electricity and saved it for uses where there is no substitute.
national beauty? (Score:2, Insightful)
National Beauty.
The main thing that causes me to think about this is when I am driving through the midwest doing photography, I get so annoyed at the powerlines ruining the landscape. Honestly they are really kind of depressing. At least with powerlines you can usually find a way to reframe the shot to cut them out, but these windmills are really big.
of course cleaner air would be pretty too.
it's just a thought
Re:Before you jump onto the Wind Powered Band Wago (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Before you jump onto the Wind Powered Band Wago (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Power Company Web Worth a Visit (Score:3, Insightful)
Young man, we obey the laws of thermodynamics in this household! Each time we convert the energy we lose a little (or alot depending on the method employed.) Therefore, these types of storage systems are suboptimal. Say you lost 2% on each side of the transfer, you end up with a net loss of 4%, and this is not including loss across the transmission lines and after a while these seemingly small losses add up and you're sitting at an overall efficiency somewhere in the 70-80% range.
So yes, you can store it, but you will lose alot of it in the process.
Uh...Who cares if we lose some energy in the process of storing it (which will happen with any solution, due to the laws of thermodynamics that you brought up yourself) when the source is nearly infinitately rewewable? If you come upon a magical tree that grows gold in the forest do you not bother taking any of the gold because you can't transport all of it?
Re:Misleading title (Score:5, Insightful)
The US dedicates so much of its military budget to that region (ignoring for now the additional costs of Iraq) because that region is the most likely to become unstable and it has a big fraction of global oil output.
Re:The Problem Is... (Score:3, Insightful)
It makes sense, if we burn coal, the acid rain tends to fall downwind. If we put in a wind farm down the road, we hurt ourselves, since our local climate dries up (and we all have to spend more money on skin moisturizer). Why should we put up windfarms that hurt ourselves when we could be using coal and causing problems to those folks 200 miles downwind?
Re:Just for the record... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps environmentalists should instead say "when oil becomes extremely scare", but that doesn't have quite the same emotional effect.
In either case we need to start thinking about ways to deal with the inevitable loss of cheap oil before it actually comes to pass. Otherwise we will be stuck in the position of having increasingly expensive oil and yet haven't put the time/money/research into alternative energy infrastructure. It is better for the economy to attempt a smooth transition over a long period of time.
-Spyky
Re:Misleading title (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, this isn't a back up link. It does, however, contradict you (which is so much more fun for me). The feds spend vastly more maounts on defense than they do on education.
According to the President's Office of Management and Budget [whitehouse.gov] , the President of the United States has requested approximately $57 Billion [whitehouse.gov] for the Deparment of Education. He has also requested approximately $401 Billion [whitehouse.gov] for the Department of Defense. That does not include any money that has been appropriated for the War in Iraq. That appropriation is considered "off budget" and is not part of the main budget request.
A few notes: a) This is not what Congress has appropriated for the past 30 years, this is just what the President has requested for 2005. b) I am not making any political statement on whether or not this is a correct policy. I'm just wondering if the AC above has ever actually looked at the federal budget? Or, does he define Education and Defense differently than the rest of us?
Re:Not right now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oil is subsidised by the Govt. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oil has hidden costs that is never taken into consideration, because it's borne by the govt & not the oil company.
I am talking about the cost of fighting wars for
oil.
Geeks don't know power engineering (or economics) (Score:2, Insightful)
And, you can't store electricity (like someone suggested pumping water up hill) because if the site was viable for this purpose, it's already in use for it. Think about it: How many folks would want to live near a body of water where the level went up and down dramatic amounts on an unpredictable basis (i.e., non-tidal)?
Oh, and someone said something about 3% surface area gets you 95% power? Right. Try telling that to the 3% of folks who currently own that land. Think they're gonna give it up just like that? Hardly.
Lastly, for every environmentalist that advocates wind power, there's another one standing there bitching because the wind turbine interferes with the mating/migratory/feeding habits of owls/eagles/geese/ducks/bats/moths/butterflies/[i
So, the bottom line is: you have to have a diversity of energy sources that includes some wind, sure, but also includes coal/oil/gas/nuke/waste/bio/geo. Then, very few people are real happy, and very few people are real pissed, and everyone gets reasonably priced electricity anytime you flip a wall switch.
[/reality]
Re:Oil is subsidised by the Govt. (Score:1, Insightful)
What, you think I'm kidding? Nobody cares about oil for its own sake, or the Middle East. Oil isn't a demonic black ichor that carries intrinsic evil. It's the importance of oil to the economy that makes people care enough to fight over it. If wind were equally important to the economy, you'd still see lots of money changing handes, lots of haves and have nots, economic dominance of upwind countries, and fighting over the best wind generation spots and "downwind rights" based on prevailing wind patterns.
If you really want a fair comparison, you've got to consider all the side effects that come from utilizing an energy source on an industrial, planet-wide scale, not just from some little backyard experiment. And you'll find that most of those "hidden costs" will pop right back up with any other forms of energy. They're not inherent to the energy at all.
4) Go back to your hut in the woods (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Wrong. We cannot, at this point, build a mechinacly perfect device. Nanotechnology at least will be required to do that. We can build very good devices, and we DO. Perhaps (likely) you are too young to remember cars from the 40s, 50s, 60s, etc. They required an amount of matenence just unheard of today. You realise that for well made cars liek Accords, they frequently go 100,000-150,000 miles and require NO major service, just oil changes and the like? Try that with a 60s muscle car, not happening.
Further, as with most things, the cost of precision in parts (which is what leads to less wear) is linear for a bit, then steeply exponental. There is a certian point at which it just isn't worth it to make things better. For X dollars you can have a car that lasts on average 100,000 miles whereas it would take 4X dollars to make it average 120,000 miles.
2) You think companies make money off of flouride? I think my friend that YOU have been giving the chemical companies money, albeit of the small, illegal, methlab variety. Flouride isn't patented, is cheap as hell to produce and is added in very, very, very small quantities to the water. There is fuck all money to be made in it. The money is made in perscriptrion drugs that are patented.
3) Please don't. You are worse than most. You don't even start with a reasonable argument and then take it to absurdity, you just start off in lala land and get worse from there. There are arguments that we have an overly capatalistic society but flouride in the water is sure as hell NOT one of them.
Get a grip.
Re:Not right now... (Score:1, Insightful)
Other approaches to global warming besides wind (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not right now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I'd love a few more nuclear fission powerplants. I live in PA, near one (Limerick). Those suckers are great. Scares the tourists (always worth a chuckle), but its redeeming value is that those clouds hovering over the powerplant are white, not black.
Re:The Problem Is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Man, you're right! Every small thing we do could have an effect on *anything*! We'd better stop building skyscrapers. Hell, we'd better stop building any buildings altogether. Also, we better stop airplanes and other craft from flying around. In fact, why don't we all just stop moving altogether? It's the only way to keep the environment safe! Chaos theory says so!
Seriously: why do people always assume that "chaos theory" means "BAD THINGS HAPPEN!!"? All it means is that systems become unpredictable if they're complex enough.
ps: one bit of your ECC memory failing causing your computer to crash has virtually nothing to do with chaos theory.
Re:Misleading title (Score:5, Insightful)
(And the $85B, which I assume is your estimate for the Iraq war costs, isn't really the issue. The big factor is how much larger the US military needs to be to stabilize oil supplies worldwide, year in and year out. Over the decades, this has added up to hundreds of $Billions.)
Remember, the original poster was all upset because he suspected that wind power might be getting some kind of subsidy, therefore concluding that wind power is a total sham.
Sustainable fuel (Score:2, Insightful)
THE ENVIORNMENTALISTS ARE KILLING THE ENVIORNMENT (Score:1, Insightful)
Now I don't know the cost of fossil fuels per kwh but one has to ask if wind power is so cheap why isn't this the primary power source being built today? It isn't like companies are evil villians who want to deystroy the enviornment and they already get tax benefits for using eco-friendly approaches. My guess is that once you factor in the price to purchase the land, errect the turbines etc.. it is considerably more expensive. Furthermore you have the very significant issue of people objecting to it as an eye sore in their backyard. Moreover, if we were serious about truly getting rid of our energy dependence and polution problems we already have a tried and tested means, nuclear power. The french already use it for most of their energy.
So if we have these options, for instance nuclear power or even wind turbines, why aren't we doing something to stop global warming. After watching the media coverage and talking to many enviornmentalists I am forced to come to the surprising conclusion that it is the *enviornmentalists* who are primarily responsible for global warming. Sure they have done us a great service in bringing these things to our attention but their uncomprimising positions guarantee we stay with the worst alternative.
Every time someone proproses a solution to the energy problem, for instance nuclear power or even wind power enviornmentalists protest. In the case of nuclear it seems primarily based on fear of radiation (despite the fact that coal power plants release tons of radiation per year directly into the air). When someone proposes wind power they protest to save the birds who might be killed (even if these are only demands for bird safety measures this means it increases costs.)
Quite simply we need power and other resources which will hurt the enviornment. This means we MUST comprimise on those power solutions which hurt the enciornment the least. However, most enviornmentalist groups refuse to take this sort of realist stance objecting to any project which hurts the enviornment in any way. If the companies and the government take flak from greenpeace both ways what incentive do they have to do the responsible thing?
---
While offtopic another good example is yuca mountain. Enviornmental groups are now sueing to stop yuca mountain because they can't guarantee it's safety beyond several thousand years. As a result instead of storing nuclear material in a place which will be very safe we store it in pools all over the country. WTF!?
A responsible citizen doesn't just protest everything he thinks is harmfull. He delibrately considers the *realistic* options and supports the best one. Returning to nature and stopping our power usage is not one of the realistic options.
Re:That's a fair-sized wind farm (Score:3, Insightful)
But really, North Dakota is the windiest state in the nation, and there isn't that much to interrupt there...
Re:Before you jump onto the Wind Powered Band Wago (Score:4, Insightful)
Another poster has hit it on the head though. As it is, oil is being consumed just about as quickly as it is being extracted. Most suppliers are extracting oik as quickly as they can as it is, with too few new discoveries to make up for drying fields. Estimates vary, but pretty much all of them agree that the extractible oil will be gone a few decades before year 2100.
As noted before, the production limits are getting thin, with demand increasing. The cost of oil will have to go up as more people want it but less of it can be produced, a problem that could come to a head in a decade or two.
Re:4) Go back to your hut in the woods (Score:3, Insightful)
Overall I don't think the cost of car ownership has gone down significantly, cars are still expensive to fix, and they still break. They've just found newer more expensive ways to fail. For every few 100k mile accords from 2000 there's a grandma driving a 300k mile Ford from the 60s.
Re:Oil is subsidised by the Govt. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not right now... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Power Company Web Worth a Visit (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, hydrogen is quite difficult to store. Hydrogen is not very energy dense, meaning that it really can not store a lot of energy for the amount of volume that it takes up, even under fairly high compression. Add to this that compressed hydrogen is relatively dangerous and requires expensive tanks, this adds to the cost. Even morseo if the hydrogen is to be used for transportation.
However, some technical solutions may be found to facilitate storage, or even increase efficiency of electrolysis. The question would come down to this: is it more efficient to drive essentially the whole power grid by wind, storing it as hydrogen (or some other method) in times of excess in order to convert it in lean times, or might it be more effecient to build wind turbines so that at peak power, they provide most of the energy for the power grid, and at other times more easilly stored sources of energy (fossil fuels, bio-diesel, etc) are used to fill in the deficit.
Realistically, if we are to keep increasing our power consumption, we are going to have to utilize as many forms of energy as we can, and use them where they are the most appropriate. In places with steady winds, wind forms can be constructed. Places with very little cloud cover would be ideal for some form of solar energy. Geothermal energy where available. Biodeiesel can be made from waste organic materials, as well as fresh materials (E.G. corn oil + alchohol) grown specifically for that purpose. Nuclear power (both fusion and fission) both have the potential to produce incredible amounts of power, but they both have their drawbacks which may be overcome by technology. And then of course we have the old standby of fossil fuels, but those are a fairly limited resource, and should only be used where absolutely necessary (at least in an ideal situation,) or where the other energy sources are counterindicated for some reason.
And on top of all of this, we will have to develop more efficient ways of doing things. Design cities in a more efficient manner. Of course make vehicles and other tools more efficient through technology and consumer choices. Provide incentives for using electricity in off peak hours of power consumption (or rather penalties for using electricity during peak usage periods.)
There does not seem to be one magic bullet for our energy need problems. And I highly doubt that we will find one in our future. The real answer lies in careful evaluation of all the pieces and using every tool available to make the system work, and keep it working for as long as we want to keep society going as we know it. Now, some may question whether we _SHOULD_ keep society growing and growing, but I'll leave that to the philosophers. Or at least a different thread.
Re:Power Company Web Worth a Visit (Score:3, Insightful)
You will lose some of it, not a lot. A lot would be a significant amount, or perhaps "more than half" depending on who you talk to. Pumping water uphill and later using the downhill flow to drive a turbine or waterwheel can be up to 66% efficient using present technology, which means you're losing 34%, which is "one third" or "some" but not "a lot." (which is two words, by the way: a lot)
The power supply inside your computer is about 80% efficient at turning AC line voltage into the regulated DC voltages needed to run your hardware.
The internal combustion engine is about 20% efficient at turning gasoline into motive force. Now that is a lot of energy loss.
Re:Wind power MUST be moderated. (Score:3, Insightful)
The other issue is that with multiple wind farms in geographically diverse areas on a single grid, the spinning reserve from conventional generation really need to support only a smaller percentage of the load.
If real time capacity information is available to the consumer (or can be inferred from the grid frequency), control networks can reduce the load to further reduce the need for spinning reserves. (Ramp down a chiller, let the temperature coast up a degree or two; do the same for fans on VFD's. Dim the lights a little. If the grid can see a 10% drop in consumption as a result in the reduction in capacity, things are more efficient for everybody. Nobody wants to pay for spinning reserve...
Re:Not right now... (Score:1, Insightful)
Stupid question...why not just use the burned hydrogen (steam) to spin a turbine directly instead of trying to boil water with it?
Re:My suggestion is... (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, if you generate it where it's required, you don't have to transmit it over long distances. For example, if you put the turbines on top of tall buildings in a city, the buildings can use that power and reduce the load on the grid.
There's a skyscraper being built that uses three turbines to provide most or all of its power. I can't remember, since I read about it a few years ago. (It might be as realistic as a space elevator, but this is
Re:Before you jump onto the Wind Powered Band Wago (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no shortage of oil in this world, there is a shortage of cheap oil. That shortage is mostly artificial, oil companies have not been investing in infrastructure in the middle east for the last 15 years, and what's there is old and wearing out. That investment is not going to happen as long as there is the current level of political instability in the region. It's now been demonstrated, that invading and installing a puppet government actually decreases the stability of the region, and invites all kinds of attacks on foreign sponsored oil production infrastructure. In simple terms, the well has been poisoned.
There's lots of 'extractable' oil in this world, it just cant/wont be extracted for 25 dollars a barrel. Personally, I'd rather see us burning cheap middle east oil in the short term, and leave our own reserves in the ground for the grandchildren to enjoy, they can sell it to the usa for $100+ a barrel after the middle east has been sucked dry.
Re:3%? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not right now... (Score:4, Insightful)
Fluoride might not be perfectly safe, but confusing elemental fluorine with fluoride ions just makes you look like a retard. Learn some basic chemistry.
Why is it... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Whoa. Wait a minute. (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Having a company in financial difficulty do *anything* can be problematic. This issue is of significant concern.
3. On what do these sources base their conclusions? Studies [nationalwind.org] of bird deaths due to wind turbines show pretty minimal numbers, even with the old CA turbines that were unusually dangerous for raptors. Estimates are around two birds per year per turbine (compared to somewhere around 10/year per mile of road with average traffic). Maybe you should dig up your roads and walk everywhere instead--but that's no good, you need to get places, but electricity comes for free from nowhere! Er, wait.
4. If there's really not enough wind, then building these towers is really stupid. Building wind farms where there is no wind is a good way to bankrupt one's company once again. However, are the NWS stations on ridge-tops? You can have huge differences in wind-speed based on local terrain. You make a good case against building a wind turbine on top of the National Weather Service stations. You need to provide more information, however, to show whether the 30 year records are relevant. The company's [ene.com]
report claims that the ridge crest is a local wind corridor. Wind corridors are real, so your objection is only valid if they are wrong that it is a wind corridor, or if they are right but that even so there is insufficient wind. (Also keep in mind the difference in wind velocity as you go from ground-level to 80m above the ground.)
5. Ice is apparently a red herring [awea.org]. There simply isn't evidence that thrown ice is a danger, despite many installed wind farms in ice-prone areas. Besides, there are good physical reasons to think that ice would not be thrown a great distance (e.g. turbines are based on airfoils, and ice coatings don't preserve the airfoil shape, which is the whole problem with plane wings icing).
6. I have heard the new large 80m-ish Danish turbines. They're not that loud, and I don't personally find the noise that annoying. It's mostly sort of whooshing as the blades go past; the new designs have very little mechanical noise (unlike some of the old eggbeater designs in CA). It's hard to even hear them from a reasonable distance away (a few hundred meters). Why do you think that they are LOUD?
Anyway, it's nice that you're helping your dad out and all, and it's good for people to be involved in their community, but are you really arguing against it for the reasons you've given? Or is it instead because you don't like the look of giant windmills on the top of your ridge crest, and figure that if you can shoot it down you won't have to see a coal-fired power plant there instead?
People do this kind of thing all the time, often without realizing it. E.g. people where I used to live wanted to cut down all the trees for "fire protection", despite the fact that the shrub and annual grass that would have replaced the trees were a bigger fire hazard than the trees. Curiously, there was an extremely strong correlation between people who wanted to cut trees for "fire protection" and those whose views stood to improve the most, but only a weak correlation between people whose houses were near trees and the same desire.
Aesthetics are important. If that's the real reason you or your dad is fighting this, best to recognize it now so you can recognize when you're prone to believe something false because it provides an excuse for your position. Then if you still want to spread misinformation to the city council, or whatever, well, that's up to you. That happens all the time. At least you can be intellectually honest with yourself (and with readers here).
Re:That's the problem with wind power. (Score:4, Insightful)
At 150% production you get really cheap electricity without guilt because it's completely clean. We can then sell the electricity to our neighbors or invest it in interesting projects like hydrogen etc...
Then, when 50% of the turbines aren't turning because the wind aint blowing where they are, you still have 100% requirements coming from the rest of the wind turbine 'pool'.
Large. Decentralised. Network. That is how wind power will work.
-Nano.
Re:Before you jump onto the Wind Powered Band Wago (Score:3, Insightful)
Answer: subsidized wind farms
Answer: subsidized rooftop solar panels
Answer: subsidized biodiesel
Answer: higher investment in fusion research
Answer: tax disincentives for using energy-inefficient products
There are a lot of things that could be done by the government to wean people off fossil fuel, but inertia is a strong factor, and oil industry lobbying doesn't help.
Environmental damage?!? How about deaths? (Score:1, Insightful)
Environmental wind damage... RELATIVE to WHAT???
FARMERS DO NOT BLOW UP BUILDINGS.
On the other hand, rich Saudi oil sheiks do. With our money. Come to Manhattan sometime, and look at the FUCKING CRATER.
I'm sure the Fox News and the anti-American Arab crowd will team up to mod me down, but fuck them I *love* my country and people need to remember what REALLY happened!
please don't make that car (Score:3, Insightful)
ummm... Technology is constantly improving, if we built cars that lasted for ever none of us would benifit from new tech in our cars.
Suppose that 20 years ago they started to build cars that would last 100 years. How many more people would have died without ABS and air bags? How much more oil whould we have pumped out of the ground becasue we didn't have computer controlled fuel injectors. And how much dirtier would the air be without the improvments in polution control?
Even if we could build a car that would last for ever, I don't think we should...
Re:Why is it... (Score:2, Insightful)
I dunno, I think occams razor applies sometimes, people are just waiting for other people to break the ice on new technology. Remember when computers weren't common? 20 years ago I bet way less than one house in a thousand had a home computer in it, now it's well over 50% or higher probably.
Anyway, I think it's every geeks duty to get some alternate energy and become at least a small time producer as well as just a consumer. It's up to us to be the neighborhood new technology ice breakers. whether it's a hybrid car or solar panels or whatever, just *something* and do a little evangelizing about it.
Re:Funny You Should Say That... (Score:3, Insightful)
You just don't get it :-) To most "Greens," people are the problem. Paul Erlich typifies that attitude when he says something like, "I don't know that the planet can support two billion people, especially if they live like Americans." What an evil person. So many "Greens" want almost all people to live on the farm, till their 40 acres with hand plows and MAYBE oxen, eat only what they personally grow or breed, and kill half their children through disease and starvation. Just so long as the "Greens" can continue to live in their marble towers and dictate to the "rest of us" what is acceptable and what is not. After all, that's the "natural" state of humans (c.f. Africa). Lousy POS.
Re:Not right now... (Score:4, Insightful)
just mean that the planet ends up with a climate
like Venus that much sooner.
Global Warming (Score:2, Insightful)
Last time I checked, thermodynamics didn't work like that.
(See, it's all well and good to extract the energy from the atmosphere, but you're just storing the energy for later. As soon as you use it, it ends up as heat.)
Re:Misleading title (Score:3, Insightful)
DoE Nuclear Weapons $17B What Dept. of Energy weapons?
50% NASA $8B NASA is a CIVILIAN operation
International Security $8B
50% Homeland Security $16B
Ex. Off. Pres. $10B
And past military:
Veterans' Benefits $69B - And they complain about homeless vets below too
Interest on National Debt $280B and why do they include this under MILITARY AT ALL
we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated
And we'd all be speaking German, Japanese or Russian right now in the US.
Re:Funny You Should Say That... (Score:2, Insightful)