Renewable energy is the future, people. It may be noisy or ugly at first but so were automobiles. It will improve with time and with funding and that's just what Intel is doing. I hope you all stop debating which energy source is better than another because any energy that requires fuel of some kind is inferior.
So what if it takes 200 years or more in some cases to recoup the costs of the equipment. Consider it an investment in the future of mankind instead of being so selfish and short-sighted.
Solar: besides that it is not consistent and relies on harmful and toxic bateries because of this, it's not necessarily all clean. Also, covering tons of suburban homes with solar power would create problems in the aviation (not just for planes but for many migrating bird species). Solar panels also add to the heat island effect (urban areas generate heat from expanses of concrete) which most pro-environmental people are trying to reverse.
Wind: I want to see someone go to the mountains and build wide swaths of wind mills that detract from the scenic beauty in which many people want to preserve. Wind power is routinely fought against by migratory bird protection groups. Several wind farms are being fought against with this premise in southern coastal Texas. Data they are using is based upon migratory birds being severely threatened and diminished from wind farms in California.
Hydroelectric Power: Perhaps the worst of the clean energies. Yes, the energy itself is extremely clean. No waste. But there is a an environmental hazard created by the lakes that get built up be the dams that are constructed. First wild life needs to be relocated and potential archaeological sites need to be explored before the flooding of the new lake. After the lake is created, all the plant life begins to rot. If not procedure is in place to clean this water or remove much of the plant life, the lake will become toxic to most marine life. It takes years before fish can thrive within the lake which then supports many other animals. Many young lakes have the sludge created removed and disposed of in various methods.
Geothermal: Again, a very clean method at first. But when vast quantities ofthis form of energy are used in an area, the maximum return is diminished. This industry also has to answer questions regarding aquifer disturbance for drinking water resources. Heavy government oversite (which is never a good thing) is actually needed to ensure that everyone gets an equally distribution of the energy potential.
Just spouting various forms of energy creation because you don't like fossil fuels or nuclear power isn't a solution. When one truly investigate each energy generation method, you realized that they all have their problems.
Also, so called big oil is the worlds largest generator of clean energy. How? Shell Oil Company is part of a larger company that produces the most solar energy on the planet currently. BP/Amocco is large researcher producer of wind farms. Exxon/Mobile invests heavily in solar and geothermal. Also, the top 5 biggest oil companies in the world are not even the companies you typically think of. The top 5 are companies run by government states. Saudi Aramco and PMex are two of the largest.
Your arguments against solar are poor. Very poor. After reading your anti-solar argument, I don't even think it's worth reading the rest. To show you what's wrong with your reasoning, I'll tear apart your anti-solar thoughts:
You said: "Solar: besides that it is not consistent and relies on harmful and toxic bateries because of this, it's not necessarily all clean."
My response: FALSE. Solar does not rely on batteries. You can put solar panels on your house, and keep your house tied to the regular electric grid. If you're producing extra solar energy, it goes onto the grid. Many electric companies actually PAY YOU FOR THE EXTRA POWER YOU GENERATE. If you need some extra electricity, you buy it from the grid. At night, you buy power from the electric company -- generally, night-time power is very cheap since it is "off-peak." This practice is fairly common, the fact that you don't now about it says a lot about your *actual* knowledge on this subject. I'll repeat SOLAR POWER DOES NOT REQUIRE BATTERIES.
Additionally, you say that solar power is "inconsistent" -- this is true. At night, you don't generate anything. Buy from the grid or get power some other way. During the day, clouds REDUCE the solar power generated. They don't eliminate it. As I posted above, even San Francisco, the city known for clouds and fog, has decided solar power can be good for them. Again, if you don't quite produce enough to power your house, buy from the grid.
And you know what? That grid power could still be nuclear if there's a nuclear plant in the area. You can imagine the grid to be powered by your favorite source, whatever that may be. Many of the commenters seem to think that nuclear power is the savior of the earth. Maybe it is...but having solar panels on each home backed up with a nuclear powered grid shouldn't be a bad thing in your eyes.
Next, you said: "Also, covering tons of suburban homes with solar power would create problems in the aviation (not just for planes but for many migrating bird species)."
My response: Okay, I don't even know where you came up with this. Can you explain further what you mean by it? Maybe you think solar panels are reflective and would shine up light that confuses pilots and birds? If that's so, then you should realize that solar panels operate by absorbing sunlight, not reflecting it. So, the more sunlight that goes in, the better. Maybe some solar panels you've seen are somewhat reflective, but there is active research going on to improve the surface so that almost zero light is reflected. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=solar+panel+surface+reflectance&btnG=Search
Next, you said: "Solar panels also add to the heat island effect (urban areas generate heat from expanses of concrete) which most pro-environmental people are trying to reverse."
Okay...so let me get this straight: sunlight hits an ordinary house roof. It gets absorbed and converted to heat. That's what happens. Put a solar panel on that roof. Now, sunlight hits the solar panel and gets absorbed. Some of it gets converted to electricity, some of it gets converted to heat. The fact that some of the sun's energy gets converted to electricity means that LESS gets converted to heat. It is simple physics. Energy must be conserved.
Additionally, by simply "shading" the roof below, a solar panel will keep the building itself slightly cooler. That means the air conditioner (which generates heat when it operates) will operate a little less, producing even less heat.
If any of the sunlight gets reflected, that's even less energy available to be converted to heat.
The whole line-up consists of the $60 Amps in-ears and $100 Tracks on-ear headphones, which both also come in slightly souped-up and pricier HD variations at $100 and $130, respectively.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Renewable energy is the future, people. It may be noisy or ugly at first but so were automobiles. It will improve with time and with funding and that's just what Intel is doing. I hope you all stop debating which energy source is better than another because any energy that requires fuel of some kind is inferior.
So what if it takes 200 years or more in some cases to recoup the costs of the equipment. Consider it an investment in the future of mankind instead of being so selfish and short-sighted.
Solar / Wind / Hydro. / Geothermal is the way.
"Solar / Wind / Hydro. / Geothermal is the way"
Lets take each one:
Solar: besides that it is not consistent and relies on harmful and toxic bateries because of this, it's not necessarily all clean. Also, covering tons of suburban homes with solar power would create problems in the aviation (not just for planes but for many migrating bird species). Solar panels also add to the heat island effect (urban areas generate heat from expanses of concrete) which most pro-environmental people are trying to reverse.
Wind: I want to see someone go to the mountains and build wide swaths of wind mills that detract from the scenic beauty in which many people want to preserve. Wind power is routinely fought against by migratory bird protection groups. Several wind farms are being fought against with this premise in southern coastal Texas. Data they are using is based upon migratory birds being severely threatened and diminished from wind farms in California.
Hydroelectric Power: Perhaps the worst of the clean energies. Yes, the energy itself is extremely clean. No waste. But there is a an environmental hazard created by the lakes that get built up be the dams that are constructed. First wild life needs to be relocated and potential archaeological sites need to be explored before the flooding of the new lake. After the lake is created, all the plant life begins to rot. If not procedure is in place to clean this water or remove much of the plant life, the lake will become toxic to most marine life. It takes years before fish can thrive within the lake which then supports many other animals. Many young lakes have the sludge created removed and disposed of in various methods.
Geothermal: Again, a very clean method at first. But when vast quantities ofthis form of energy are used in an area, the maximum return is diminished. This industry also has to answer questions regarding aquifer disturbance for drinking water resources. Heavy government oversite (which is never a good thing) is actually needed to ensure that everyone gets an equally distribution of the energy potential.
Just spouting various forms of energy creation because you don't like fossil fuels or nuclear power isn't a solution. When one truly investigate each energy generation method, you realized that they all have their problems.
Also, so called big oil is the worlds largest generator of clean energy. How? Shell Oil Company is part of a larger company that produces the most solar energy on the planet currently. BP/Amocco is large researcher producer of wind farms. Exxon/Mobile invests heavily in solar and geothermal. Also, the top 5 biggest oil companies in the world are not even the companies you typically think of. The top 5 are companies run by government states. Saudi Aramco and PMex are two of the largest.
Just a thought
kjb434:
Your arguments against solar are poor. Very poor. After reading your anti-solar argument, I don't even think it's worth reading the rest. To show you what's wrong with your reasoning, I'll tear apart your anti-solar thoughts:
You said:
"Solar: besides that it is not consistent and relies on harmful and toxic bateries because of this, it's not necessarily all clean."
My response:
FALSE. Solar does not rely on batteries. You can put solar panels on your house, and keep your house tied to the regular electric grid. If you're producing extra solar energy, it goes onto the grid. Many electric companies actually PAY YOU FOR THE EXTRA POWER YOU GENERATE. If you need some extra electricity, you buy it from the grid. At night, you buy power from the electric company -- generally, night-time power is very cheap since it is "off-peak." This practice is fairly common, the fact that you don't now about it says a lot about your *actual* knowledge on this subject. I'll repeat SOLAR POWER DOES NOT REQUIRE BATTERIES.
Additionally, you say that solar power is "inconsistent" -- this is true. At night, you don't generate anything. Buy from the grid or get power some other way. During the day, clouds REDUCE the solar power generated. They don't eliminate it. As I posted above, even San Francisco, the city known for clouds and fog, has decided solar power can be good for them. Again, if you don't quite produce enough to power your house, buy from the grid.
And you know what? That grid power could still be nuclear if there's a nuclear plant in the area. You can imagine the grid to be powered by your favorite source, whatever that may be. Many of the commenters seem to think that nuclear power is the savior of the earth. Maybe it is...but having solar panels on each home backed up with a nuclear powered grid shouldn't be a bad thing in your eyes.
Next, you said:
"Also, covering tons of suburban homes with solar power would create problems in the aviation (not just for planes but for many migrating bird species)."
My response:
Okay, I don't even know where you came up with this. Can you explain further what you mean by it? Maybe you think solar panels are reflective and would shine up light that confuses pilots and birds? If that's so, then you should realize that solar panels operate by absorbing sunlight, not reflecting it. So, the more sunlight that goes in, the better. Maybe some solar panels you've seen are somewhat reflective, but there is active research going on to improve the surface so that almost zero light is reflected. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=solar+panel+surface+reflectance&btnG=Search
Next, you said:
"Solar panels also add to the heat island effect (urban areas generate heat from expanses of concrete) which most pro-environmental people are trying to reverse."
Okay...so let me get this straight: sunlight hits an ordinary house roof. It gets absorbed and converted to heat. That's what happens. Put a solar panel on that roof. Now, sunlight hits the solar panel and gets absorbed. Some of it gets converted to electricity, some of it gets converted to heat. The fact that some of the sun's energy gets converted to electricity means that LESS gets converted to heat. It is simple physics. Energy must be conserved.
Additionally, by simply "shading" the roof below, a solar panel will keep the building itself slightly cooler. That means the air conditioner (which generates heat when it operates) will operate a little less, producing even less heat.
If any of the sunlight gets reflected, that's even less energy available to be converted to heat.