I still think my idea to recoup the energy people spend working out on treadmills/ellipticals and other machines at the gym and store it in a battery is a great idea.
Unfortunately, the "lunks" of the world don't think it'd be "cool", so it hasn't caught on.
As a whole, humankind is irrational and self-centered. The majority will continue to needlessly exploit fossil fuels until the earth is unable to support our pathetic species and many other life forms.
Reduce, simplify, conserve, re-use, recycle. Don't wait for that revolutionary technology to save you. Take the 15 year pledge, eliminate 10% per year of your footprint.
Above all, only buy from blatant consumerist sites like meh.com, if you can use your inate irrational logic to justify how it will help save the human species.
Damn, the solar chargers are sold out. That was a pivotal piece of technology in my quest to reduce my footprint. I would have reduced my carbon footprint by .000013 per year (after the 10 year recapture of manufacturing damage to the earth).
Look at what they say we need to do to save the environment, look at coral reef decay rates, look at what we have achieved on the destruction front. There is no reversing this without some unexpected invention. Or, at least, that's what they say. I think the earth is a tougher nut than we give her credit for.
@caffeine_dude I'm really hoping wind takes off. We bought a ton of cheap stock in some wind turbine company years ago. If it ever catches on, we'll be rich I tell ya!
Nuclear? Unless you are talking fusion, which no one has gotten to work yet, as opposed to fission, the stuff that leaves us with radiactive waste for thousands of years, then nuclear should not be part of our plan.
@ThatsHeadly assuming it is handled properly, but we all know that is not always the case. Better to completely avoid the problem altogether. Fusion is the way to go
@adr5 There is nothing wrong with nuclear and its one of our best hopes. The only reason we have so much waste is because of poor political decisions and a focus on light water reactors. And the only reason we aren't making progress and building new plants which would solve our problems is because of public fear mongering over radiation and waste that was primarly spurred on by the oil industry at the start of the nuclear age. We have had the answer in MSRs and Breeder reactors for a long long time. http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear%20Waste%20and%20Breeder%20Reactors.htm
@adr5 Fusion isn't going to be on line for 50 years. Coal pumps more radioactives into the environment every day than all the nuclear waste ever produced ever.
@ThatsHeadly@unksol Are you sure that was a law? I think it was just a presidential statement and not actually law that was approved by the house and the senate before being signed by the President. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=7316 I would be interested in knowing of the statute number of the law if you know of one.
@ThatsHeadly I don't think so. That was signed in 1968 but the letter from Carter was 1977. The treaty talks about safeguarding the material but nothing about reprocessing it. http://www.state.gov/t/isn/trty/16281.htm
@ThatsHeadly Did you happen to click the link @cengland0 included to the treaty on the State Dept.'s website, which very clearly states: 'Signed at Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968'?
@brhfl Yes. That was the Nuclear non proliferation treaty of 1968. I'm referring to the Nuclear non proliferation Act of 1978... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Act_of_1978 . I do know how to read ;-) Also this falls under the NRC and they have regulations about reprocessing too...
@ThatsHeadly My apologies. While I fully believed you to be capable of reading, many people just… don't. While eating my words, I am now reading your link, as I have only really associated 'nuclear non-proliferation' w/ the treaty. And yes, there is quite a bit of talk about reprocessing in the Act… http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg120.pdf
@brhfl No problem, sorry about the snark - I'm just posting bits between doing actual work. I'm very interested in this stuff, particularly liquid salt reactors. I also distinctly remember an audio recording of Nixon talkinag about reprocessing in the contect of not allow it, but becasue of the business impact to California - nothing to do with proliferation. If I find the video I'll post it.
@adr5 I see fission as cost reduction. Admittedly the way our fission plants work now isn't ideal, but it's better than continuing to burn fossil fuels and unlike other alternatives it's ready to go. Expanding nuclear doesn't mean stopping research in other areas.
@Pantheist there are problems with fission, so why keep going down that track? Solar and wind are both alternatives with few drawbacks. I prefer we went down that route.
@brhfl From what I see in that later version regarding reprocessing is, "no irradiated fuel elements containing such material which are to be removed from a reactor will be altered in form or content, and no fabrication or stockpiling involving plutonium, uranium-233, or uranium enriched to greater than 20 percent in the isotope 235 shall be performed except in a facility under effective international auspices and inspection"
I'm not an expert but it seems like it's not allowed unless it's done in an authorized facility or you enrich it to 20% or less. This means that it can be done but it requires international oversight.
I voted biofuels, specifically ass fat. It's a largely untapped resource (sometimes it just all comes together folks) Hell go to any wally's on a friday nite, you could power a 3rd world nation on all that jelly. My ass fat kickstarter is coming soon.
Why not magnetic based energy?
@edguyver14 is it weird that my scam detector went off from just the question?
@edguyver14 Nearly every source of electricity we have is "magnetic based"
@edguyver14 if you end up with electricity, then it is magnetic.
Did anyone mention political hot air?
Fusion with antimatter sprinkles.
Fusion. We should be doing a Manhattan Project to perfect profitable fusion. It would change the world.
@droopus
@saodell Kind of sad that this is how he looks now.
Personal methane collectors.
@cercopithecoid I know a guy that has a patent on capturing the methane from cow droppings. To turn it into power.
I still think my idea to recoup the energy people spend working out on treadmills/ellipticals and other machines at the gym and store it in a battery is a great idea.
Unfortunately, the "lunks" of the world don't think it'd be "cool", so it hasn't caught on.
@pepsiwine
(they are making them however http://www.thegreenmicrogym.com/the-story-of-the-upcycle-eco-charger/)
As a whole, humankind is irrational and self-centered. The majority will continue to needlessly exploit fossil fuels until the earth is unable to support our pathetic species and many other life forms.
Reduce, simplify, conserve, re-use, recycle. Don't wait for that revolutionary technology to save you. Take the 15 year pledge, eliminate 10% per year of your footprint.
Above all, only buy from blatant consumerist sites like meh.com, if you can use your inate irrational logic to justify how it will help save the human species.
Damn, the solar chargers are sold out. That was a pivotal piece of technology in my quest to reduce my footprint. I would have reduced my carbon footprint by .000013 per year (after the 10 year recapture of manufacturing damage to the earth).
@mdbirnbaum whats it like to be so hateful and self loathing?
Look at what they say we need to do to save the environment, look at coral reef decay rates, look at what we have achieved on the destruction front. There is no reversing this without some unexpected invention. Or, at least, that's what they say. I think the earth is a tougher nut than we give her credit for.
@simplersimon The Earth is a tough nut. Its inhabitants, not so much.
Just continue to drink the kool aid and all will be well.
It seems that Lockheed is working on fusion power.
Wind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Iowa
and soon IBM Solar collector
http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/22/ibm-alliance-solar-collector-concentrates-power-of-2k-suns/
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/ibm-solar-collector-magnifies-sun-2000x-without-cooking-itself.html
@caffeine_dude I'm really hoping wind takes off. We bought a ton of cheap stock in some wind turbine company years ago. If it ever catches on, we'll be rich I tell ya!
@caffeine_dude Wind is just a very inefficient form of solar.
Geothermal is where it's at. Yay, magma power!
Anybody up for some hydrogen cells?
@jhdockett http://www.gizmag.com/hydrogen-plant-waste/36903/
Nuclear? Unless you are talking fusion, which no one has gotten to work yet, as opposed to fission, the stuff that leaves us with radiactive waste for thousands of years, then nuclear should not be part of our plan.
@adr5 It doesn't have to, really. In the 60s the Nixon administration put the kabosh on reprocessing.
@ThatsHeadly assuming it is handled properly, but we all know that is not always the case. Better to completely avoid the problem altogether. Fusion is the way to go
@adr5 There is nothing wrong with nuclear and its one of our best hopes. The only reason we have so much waste is because of poor political decisions and a focus on light water reactors. And the only reason we aren't making progress and building new plants which would solve our problems is because of public fear mongering over radiation and waste that was primarly spurred on by the oil industry at the start of the nuclear age. We have had the answer in MSRs and Breeder reactors for a long long time. http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear%20Waste%20and%20Breeder%20Reactors.htm
http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/what-is-molten-salt-reactor-424343/
@ThatsHeadly It was Carter not Nixon, and Carter is the only reason we have nuclear waste instead of reprocessing it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/rossin.html
@unksol Yeah. Nixon was opposed to it for completely different reasons - Carter is the one who signed the law. It's a bad, bad law.
@adr5 Fusion isn't going to be on line for 50 years. Coal pumps more radioactives into the environment every day than all the nuclear waste ever produced ever.
@ThatsHeadly @unksol Are you sure that was a law? I think it was just a presidential statement and not actually law that was approved by the house and the senate before being signed by the President. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=7316 I would be interested in knowing of the statute number of the law if you know of one.
@cengland0 I think it was in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act.
@ThatsHeadly I don't think so. That was signed in 1968 but the letter from Carter was 1977. The treaty talks about safeguarding the material but nothing about reprocessing it. http://www.state.gov/t/isn/trty/16281.htm
@cengland0 1978 not 1968
@ThatsHeadly Did you happen to click the link @cengland0 included to the treaty on the State Dept.'s website, which very clearly states: 'Signed at Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968'?
@brhfl Yes. That was the Nuclear non proliferation treaty of 1968. I'm referring to the Nuclear non proliferation Act of 1978... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Act_of_1978 . I do know how to read ;-) Also this falls under the NRC and they have regulations about reprocessing too...
@ThatsHeadly My apologies. While I fully believed you to be capable of reading, many people just… don't. While eating my words, I am now reading your link, as I have only really associated 'nuclear non-proliferation' w/ the treaty. And yes, there is quite a bit of talk about reprocessing in the Act… http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg120.pdf
@brhfl No problem, sorry about the snark - I'm just posting bits between doing actual work. I'm very interested in this stuff, particularly liquid salt reactors. I also distinctly remember an audio recording of Nixon talkinag about reprocessing in the contect of not allow it, but becasue of the business impact to California - nothing to do with proliferation. If I find the video I'll post it.
@adr5 I see fission as cost reduction. Admittedly the way our fission plants work now isn't ideal, but it's better than continuing to burn fossil fuels and unlike other alternatives it's ready to go. Expanding nuclear doesn't mean stopping research in other areas.
@Pantheist there are problems with fission, so why keep going down that track? Solar and wind are both alternatives with few drawbacks. I prefer we went down that route.
@adr5 the drawback right now is storage... but we are making strides in that area too.
@brhfl From what I see in that later version regarding reprocessing is, "no irradiated fuel elements containing such material which are to be removed from a reactor will be altered in form or content, and no fabrication or stockpiling involving plutonium, uranium-233, or uranium enriched to greater than 20 percent in the isotope 235 shall be performed except in a facility under effective international auspices and inspection"
I'm not an expert but it seems like it's not allowed unless it's done in an authorized facility or you enrich it to 20% or less. This means that it can be done but it requires international oversight.
@adr5 "few drawbacks" clouds. no wind. night.
Fusion is fine, but I'm more of a jazz purist. It's the future.
Despite all the optimism the seeds have already been sown. The human race has started the beginning of the end.
@1wally1 Have an apocalypse cookie; we have the dark side.
Solar and nuclear are the same thing, just slightly different ways of going about harnessing the energy produced.
@Charcoalwolfman similar situation for biofuel and petroleum. How long ago did the biomass die?
@thepink (http://romanticallyapocalyptic.com/57) The biomass never died, it's simply dormant.
Interesting read regarding the environmental impact of the manufacturing of solar panels.
Fusion is the way to go.
I voted biofuels, specifically ass fat. It's a largely untapped resource (sometimes it just all comes together folks) Hell go to any wally's on a friday nite, you could power a 3rd world nation on all that jelly. My ass fat kickstarter is coming soon.