Thread: Global Warming
View Single Post
Old 08-31-2011, 05:15 PM   #47
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holy Emperor View Post
....

I'm not sure you actually understand how radiation works.
I know how radiation works. What I wasn't aware of were the effects of it on humans
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
Two words: Radiation Sickness.

Radiation poisoning is miserable and grave. It won't kill you outright, but it will dehydrate you and wreak havoc on all your organ systems. Sure, cancer is a likely outcome, but that's often not the actual thing that kills you - the dysentery-like symptoms and just the body-screwing-with that occurs is what will cripple you very quickly.
I see, thank you for educating me, I honestly did not know that much about radiation sickness. I knew being in a nuclear blast was fatal, and that intense radiation could burn/kill (for instance, concentrated Gamma Rays), but didn't know about the tertiary effects of overexposure.

It seems though, it's all dictated by how much and how long, you are exposed to high levels of radiation.
Also interesting:
Quote:
Radiation sickness itself doesn't cause long-term medical problems for those who survive the illness. However, the radiation exposure that caused the immediate radiation sickness does significantly increase a person's risk of developing cancer later in life.
It seems it's really a hit or miss here, and fatality only matters when you consider the actual intensity of the radiation. Which can be up for debate, especially since we're nowhere near Chernobyl, and lack the instruments to actually test it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
There are a lot of false claims being bandied about about the efficacy of solar cells. In particular, T-dos comments that:

...

This isn't true. Purdue University recently built a net-zero energy consuming house for under $250,000: here's our local news channel's article on the project from June when it was still under construction, but they completed the project before classes resumed and there was a community Open House held last week for students, city residents, tourists, whomever!, to come by and tour the house. The house was almost entirely built upon two things: (1) better building and (2) solar cells. "Net zero energy consumption" does not mean that the house is off the grid. What it means is that the house generates as much energy as (and usually more energy than) it consumes. Excess energy generated is sold back to the electric company (in our case, Duke Energy) for a nice little bonus. You can read more about the collegiate project sponsored by the Department of Energy here.
That's interesting. I admit, I have not done much research into the capabilities of today's technology. I don't deny that Solar cell technology can advance to net zero loss, but, if all you rely on is solar cells, if you run the unfortunate luck of being overcasted a couple days too many, you'll definitely be lacking power. Also, Solar technology really is only useful in certain locations. Don't expect to be running off solar in Washington State, where it's cloudy/rainy about 9 out of the 12 months of the year.

IMO though, Net Zero should only mean, your house relies entirely on the implements on it's territory for power generation (completely off the grid, and unwired to any power generator besides it's own), and does not have blackouts when unfavorable conditions arise (numerous cloudy days). Anything else is simply a word trick to make you think a certain way.

Quote:
One of my professors has a friend who lives in a net-zero energy consumption home in Colorado. According to the professor, the home will be paid off in 10 years' time at which point the friend will begin making $2,500/yr (at current energy pricings) by selling energy back to the power companies. He's already making that $2,500/yr now, of course, but since the home isn't paid off yet, we're not going to say that the home is yet turning profit for him. But he expects that it will. And that's pretty cool.

In New York state, there is a community called Green Acres which, according to Wikipedia:

Now obviously, there's a lot to be said for personal electric consumption and how that would affect these numbers. Someone who lives like a librarian from the 1880s isn't going to be using much more than A/C, lighting, and refrigeration while someone who lives like a typical UPNer may be running two televisions, two computers, and other various electrical appliances at the same time many hours a day. But for the record, Purdue's green home had these very sorts of amenities (cable TV, computer w/ hi-speed internet) and still broke even. So claiming that it can't yet work has already been proven false: not only can it work now, it does work now and is already being implemented.

You can read more about zero-energy buildings here on Wikipedia.

But to make a long story short, solar cells are already generating more energy than people are taking out of them for household living. The real issue, of course, is industry. Industry consumes ginormous amounts of energy. But a small victory is still a victory and we mustn't allow the dissemination of misinformation to stem that tide.
That's very interesting, and I appreciate you correcting me where I was wrong. Of course it does depend on the consumer's energy usage whether you're running at a profit or a loss, but if homes in certain locations can run their homes without the need to pay energy bills from electric companies, I'm all for that. Industry of course, requires something more.

The problems I've heard about with "Green" energy though, last I checked, is, it's not profitable for an electric "producing" company to use it, they require subsidies (loans) from our government to stay in business. That's our tax dollars, paying for someone else's electricity, that already costs them more to buy from then general fossil fuel power plants, and the only reason the green energy companies can stay in business, is by government regulations forcing fossil fuel company's costs to go up to so that prices are "comparable" and people don't outright refuse to pay the higher costs.

In fact, despite Government "help" in being made compete-able with Fossil Fuel energy companies, Green energy is seemingly going bankrupt anyway.
$535 million of our tax dollars down the tube.
$58 Million of our tax dollars gone

Last edited by unownmew; 08-31-2011 at 05:29 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote