Seriously though wind energy is a much better use for all of that land. What Apple is doing here is very wasteful of a very limited resource.
In what world? Solar is currently a far better usage of space in many places. And while I haven't asked, my bet is that the people at Apple are smart enough to consider which method of power generation gets the most kW per dollar on a given stretch of land before they dump a few million dollars on the project.
Quote:
As for nukes I've yet to see a rational argument for not expanding current production and more importantly researching more advanced techniques.
How about a deadly waste product that will last longer into the future than humans have existed? Is that a good argument?
Yes, if fusion ever comes online, that might be great, but we have been hearing that promise since the 50's. Solar is a current tech, that is already cost effective, often even cheaper than other sources, even before you figure the pollution into the equation.
And when oil spills it destroys entire ecosystems. When nuclear spills it has even worse long term damage though the short term can vary. When you have a solar spill it is called "a nice day."
Having said that, we need all the solar and wind we can get, where ever each is most productive. And I am all for fusion research. But the nuclear plants we have now need to be taken off-line ASAP.
The panels on my house are only 21% but they are about 80% of my electric use. I would love to see them improved, but they are perfectly viable right now.
Dont be so damn gullible here, CO2 has not been proven to be an issue in the quantities being produced. In fact the latest research from NASA shows no increase in global temperatures for a decade. The so called link between CO2 and the supposed temeorature increases is the result of a computer model that has failed repeatedly to produce results reflecting reality.
Yeah, you know, except for literally all the climate science. And the latest research from NASA? Sorry, but you are full of it. May was the hottest May in history. The second hottest was in 2010. The trend for record high temps goes up every year. You are either painfully misinformed or outright lying. Which is it?
Oh, and your failed computer model? There are actually dozens of current models, that all reflect past and current trends very well. So you are lying again.
Plus, the "so-called link" is actually basic chemistry. Get an education.
Quote:
As for life CO2 is required by all plant life on the planet! This is basic science. So ask yourself this, if Apple strips the planet of 500 acres of natural vegitation how does that impact CO2 levels.
Most certainly but not bad science. You really need to research the so called issues related to CO2 and what is actually happening to the planet. The conflicting stuff offered up as proof of man made global warming should at the very least cause you to say hey! For example polar region ice caps and other store house of water are increasing in size of late, in some cases significantly.
You require water. But you also require air. You can drown in too much water. Plant life already has plenty of CO2, but not enough nitrogen, or water. Both of which are shifting due to warming.
Your understanding of science is less than a third grade level... At best.
Quote:
To put it simply the more you look into the science, especially the research that conflicts with the fear mongering groups the more you will realize that there is much uncertainty in what is being offered up as proven science. That doesn't mean we should ignore the environment by the way, it just means that mistakes are made often in the world of science and you need to be careful about how much weight you place on anyone piece of evidence.
To put it simply, no. There is almost no uncertainty. As someone who visits an Apple site, you should know what FUD is. Stop spreading it.
Rational arguments:
1. Three-mile Island
2. Chernobyl
3. Fukushima Daiichi
1. Contained, wasn't a mass incident.
2. Really? We're going to use the example of Soviet engineering to explain why the American design is flawed? The Soviets used a completely different reactor design, known as the RBMK, versus the American PWR design that is used today.
3. An accident, and a mess, to be sure. Here's an idea: Don't build them in tsunami prone areas.
2. Really? We're going to use the example of Soviet engineering to explain why the American design is flawed? The Soviets used a completely different reactor design, known as the RBMK, versus the American PWR design that is used today.
3. An accident, and a mess, to be sure. Here's an idea: Don't build them in tsunami prone areas.
That's the biggest problem - no guarantees that someone won't do something stupid, like the siting, and saving money by not implementing the safety measures of the Fukushima (and Diablo Canyon in California) plants.
Sure, a wind generator can fall over, or a solar panel can explode, but it's not the same.
Comments
Seriously though wind energy is a much better use for all of that land. What Apple is doing here is very wasteful of a very limited resource.
In what world? Solar is currently a far better usage of space in many places. And while I haven't asked, my bet is that the people at Apple are smart enough to consider which method of power generation gets the most kW per dollar on a given stretch of land before they dump a few million dollars on the project.
How about a deadly waste product that will last longer into the future than humans have existed? Is that a good argument?
Yes, if fusion ever comes online, that might be great, but we have been hearing that promise since the 50's. Solar is a current tech, that is already cost effective, often even cheaper than other sources, even before you figure the pollution into the equation.
And when oil spills it destroys entire ecosystems. When nuclear spills it has even worse long term damage though the short term can vary. When you have a solar spill it is called "a nice day."
Having said that, we need all the solar and wind we can get, where ever each is most productive. And I am all for fusion research. But the nuclear plants we have now need to be taken off-line ASAP.
The panels on my house are only 21% but they are about 80% of my electric use. I would love to see them improved, but they are perfectly viable right now.
Dont be so damn gullible here, CO2 has not been proven to be an issue in the quantities being produced. In fact the latest research from NASA shows no increase in global temperatures for a decade. The so called link between CO2 and the supposed temeorature increases is the result of a computer model that has failed repeatedly to produce results reflecting reality.
Yeah, you know, except for literally all the climate science. And the latest research from NASA? Sorry, but you are full of it. May was the hottest May in history. The second hottest was in 2010. The trend for record high temps goes up every year. You are either painfully misinformed or outright lying. Which is it?
Oh, and your failed computer model? There are actually dozens of current models, that all reflect past and current trends very well. So you are lying again.
Plus, the "so-called link" is actually basic chemistry. Get an education.
Most certainly but not bad science. You really need to research the so called issues related to CO2 and what is actually happening to the planet. The conflicting stuff offered up as proof of man made global warming should at the very least cause you to say hey! For example polar region ice caps and other store house of water are increasing in size of late, in some cases significantly.
You require water. But you also require air. You can drown in too much water. Plant life already has plenty of CO2, but not enough nitrogen, or water. Both of which are shifting due to warming.
The polar caps are not in fact increasing. You shouldn't get your news from people who don't actually study these things. http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
Your understanding of science is less than a third grade level... At best.
To put it simply, no. There is almost no uncertainty. As someone who visits an Apple site, you should know what FUD is. Stop spreading it.
Did everyone see that Germany is producing (at peak) over half of its power by solar? Incredible to think how far this technology has come.
Not just Germany, but parts of Australia are doing well too.
http://www.permaculture.co.uk/news/0807145283/rooftop-solar-drives-electricity-prices-zero-australia
Unfortunately, some Republicans and Energy Companies in the USA are too greedy to embrace change:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/21/oklahoma-to-charge-customers-who-install-their-own-solar-power-panels-wind/
Rational arguments:
1. Three-mile Island
2. Chernobyl
3. Fukushima Daiichi
No, sorry. That in no way shuts out the argument for nuclear power.
1. Contained, wasn't a mass incident.
2. Really? We're going to use the example of Soviet engineering to explain why the American design is flawed? The Soviets used a completely different reactor design, known as the RBMK, versus the American PWR design that is used today.
3. An accident, and a mess, to be sure. Here's an idea: Don't build them in tsunami prone areas.
I thought it was more the earthquake. Still; natural disaster.
That's the biggest problem - no guarantees that someone won't do something stupid, like the siting, and saving money by not implementing the safety measures of the Fukushima (and Diablo Canyon in California) plants.
Sure, a wind generator can fall over, or a solar panel can explode, but it's not the same.