Express your nature.

Upload, Share, and Be Recognized.

Join with Facebook
or join manually
X
Posted By:jchip
Comments:

Old Comments:

2008-08-15 14:03:44
Bullshit . . . that's all the band would play. Bullshit . . . they played it night and day.
2008-08-15 14:02:05
I must apologize to anon2; he was just parroting what you said, so he's just what he sounds like: a ditto-head. You're the bright fellow who wants to launch radioactive waste into space! So we can safely conclude that you have no facts to back up your other claims either.
2008-08-15 13:59:19
You know, you sounded almost reasonable, misguided, but reasonable until you pulled that "launching of waste into space" out of your ass. Now I know that you know nothing worthwhile.
2008-03-23 08:44:41
According to Wikipedia (Germany) this is not true. Rather the necessary energy for the production of the cells are compensated in 1.5 to 5 years (depending on the used type)
2008-03-22 23:32:39
The figure in the cartoon keeps saying "We own the coal", "we own the oil", et cetera. Kind of like the cliche we used to hear that the only reason we don't already have solar energy is that "they" can't put a meter on it. The truth is, for a decade the United States had a tax credit for 40% of the cost of solar energy equipment. The State of California added another 15% tax credit. The idea was to encourage solar energy development. Solar energy failed to catch on, though, because it wasn't cost-effective even when other taxpayers paid most of the price. Other experiments like the U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corporation turned out to be money-losers, too. That doesn't mean solar never will be viable. Other forms of energy have come to replace older ones, just as transportation now runs on petroleum instead of coal-fired steam. Thomas Edison once claimed that he invented the incandescent light because he wanted to compete with gas lighting. John Rockefeller made his fortune not by producing gasoline, which few people then needed, but by producing kerosene so people didn't have to depend on candles. Someday, a future Tom Edison is going to give us energy sources based on solar or even some other kind of power the rest of us lacked the imagination to harness.
2008-03-22 19:38:35
M0r = you forget about the byproducts of fisson! nuclear reactors can produce plutonium, which helps the life time of fuel rods. hell, the canadian CANDU reactors produce more fissle plutonium than fissle uranium used, but it's stopped and replaced, because it's a little too fissle =). And why haven't we heard about other energies such as geothermal or tidal? i heard a few years ago about a tidal generator on the east coast of australia, or was it only proposed?
2008-03-22 02:29:30
amen to sadass, but i would state it a little more harshly: it takes more energy to produce a solar panel than the device will ever generate in its lifetime. end of discussion. when you've got the balance shifted, then we can talk. the ignorance of people who push "green" solutions never ceases to astonish me. nuclear is where its at.
2008-03-21 17:36:06
If humanity would only get their power from nuclear, the uranium resources would be gone in 7 to 10 years. Launching into space would require more energy than you can get out of the material you shoot up!
2008-03-21 11:51:52
All sources of power on Earth are "solar" in their ulitimate origin.
2008-03-21 07:33:47
Nice. It's a realistic view, but unfortunately people have a stigma against going nuclear. It's all a NIMBY ("Not In My Back Yard") sentiment. I bet people would LOVE getting power at significantly cheaper prices (as well as reducing emissions), yet no one wants to picture the idea of having ANYTHING nuclear ANYWHERE near where they live (even though it's been shown that nuclear power can be safe). As for the launching of waste into space, I love it. Lots of ethical issues, but it's a functional idea: As long it doesn't return to Earth's orbit, we're highly unlikely ever to see it again.
2008-03-21 06:17:33
Anon: excatly to the point. nice. the rest: Sure, solar would be nice and useful, but it has nagging flaws that nobody in bussiness wants to touch. 1. It's expensive. 2. Production of solar cells is still way more energy consuming than what they will produce. 3. It's slow/stops production in cloudy weather and at night. Another thing. in a power supply grid, there's somthing called a base load. it's an average measure power needed to keep a particular grid suppling people with power. if you go under you can get blackouts. solar cells could never supply a consant base load. The only real step away from coal and gas would be nuclear. Nuclear power might sound scary, but they work on the same concept as coal plants. heat a large amount of water to generate steam to turn turbines. execpt by repacing coal with nuclear, it only emits steam. no carbon. only water. "but what about radiation?" one could ask. a Nuclear plant in good order produces less radiation than what you get from the sun. waste? well we could put it safely underground in bunkers, but people seem sacred and un-educated about the issue. so, i why haven't heard anyone suggest we launch it into space? call NASA about it. have fun.
2008-03-21 05:16:04
true but people need to by solar cells to produce energy and theres no reason the government cant get in the solar cell business is there?
2008-03-21 04:33:43
I think what it means is that since the power from the Sun is FREE that big money isn't going to back finding ways to use it.
2008-03-21 03:51:55
The cartoon is joking that solar power is unfeasable, Anon is saying it genuinely isn't feasable - counter-sarcastic. (it isn't feasable to get all our energy from solar, but you can get a hell of a big chunk of energy from it)
2008-03-21 03:05:57
Where is the connection between those?
2008-03-21 02:37:57
Just because the oil cartel is managed by douchebags doesn't make solar power feasible.