admin answers:

admin answers:

admin answers:

admin answers:

admin answers:

admin answers:

admin answers:

admin answers:

admin answers:

admin answers:

admin answers:

admin answers:

admin answers:

admin answers:

admin answers:

admin answers:

admin answers:

Mpfffffff…..

A few things:

Running your entire house from solar panels requires a massive installation and battery storage for those times when there is no sun (night, rain, snow, whatever). Effectively, the installation will need to be at least three times larger than the house peak load. If you have a small house and few electrical requirements that is one thing. But if you cook, heat, cool and make hot water with electricity that is entirely something else.

The typical solar panel gives very roughly 15 watts per square foot (150w/square meter), so you would calculate the amount of power you need at peak load (water heater + stove + heat), derive the number of square feet to make that peak, multiply it times three and you would have the area required. If you can control and limit your load at some arbitrary level, use that.

So, assume that you want to be able to heat or cool and cook at the same time, run a refrigerator, have some light, but you can restrict your hot water use and other appliance use to times when you are not cooking. A stove will use about 8800 watts of power. A refrigerator will use about 800 watts. Heating/cooling in say…. Six rooms in a moderate climate will use about 18,000 watts.
800 + 18,000 + 8,800 = 27,600. Divide that by 15. That comes to 1840 square feet. Multiply that times three – that comes to 5,520 square feet of solar cells in order to create a self-sustaining system. That is the equivalent of a square 75 feet on a side.

The average cost per watt for solar power is about $4 – that is without any credits or subsidies. And you will have to add inverters and battery storage as well as the infrastructure. So, your cost for the installation will exceed US$100,000 – actually it will be very close to $150,000 when all is said and done. Deduct any credits and subsidies applicable for your final cost.

Our average power bill in Pennsylvania in an unregulated environment runs to about $140/month, or $1680/year. That works out to a payback at around 89 years – well past the expected service-life of the panels. With available subsidies and legislation pending in Harrisburg, that may be reduced to about a 25 year payback – about the life of the panels. And we would cover the entire roof + half of the rest of the property. Just not practical if the goal is to be off the grid.

admin answers:

To be able to calculate the drop in sea levels you would need to know the mass of hydrogen that would produce the energy required. From that you could work out the weight of water that would need to be electrolised. Ignoring heavy hydrogen, this would be if my memory serves me 5 times the weight of the hydrogen. Two hydrogen (atomic weight 1) one oxygen (atomic weight eight). All you need then is the surface area of the oceans. One cubic metre of water weighs a metric tonne approximately.

Considering the ratio between surface areas of ocean and land.
I’m guessing that the area of land required to store the hydrogen extracted from just a metre of ocean would be huge.

I wonder why we would want to store a years worth. To be sustainable we would have to be able to generate the same amount as we use. Without that capacity eventually any reserves would become depleted. The only extra that would be needed would be a small buffer to cover disruption in supply and the amount in transit from generation plant to distribution points.

On that point your question stated a usage of 10^17 kJ. Is that daily, weekly or annually?

Thanks for a really interesting question.

admin answers:

Biomass is not any single plant or organism.
All plants, animals are ‘Biomass’.

Biomass ; (in the energy production industry) ; refers to living and recently living biological material which can be used as fuel or for industrial production.

By the above definition ; ANY ORGANIC MASS IS A BIOMASS.

Most commonly biomass refers to plant matter grown for use as biofuel, but also includes plant or animal matter used for production of fibres, chemicals or heat.

Biomass may also include biodegradable wastes that can be burnt as fuel. It excludes organic material which has been transformed by geological processes into substances such as coal or petroleum. It is usually measured by dry weight.

The term “biomass” is especially useful for plants, where some internal structures may not always be considered living tissue, such as the wood (secondary xylem) of a tree.

Biofuels include bioethanol, biobutanol, biodiesel & biogas.

Biomass is grown from several plants, including switchgrass, hemp, corn, willow and sugarcane.The particular plant used is usually not very important to the end products, but it does affect the processing of the raw material. Production of biomass is a growing industry as interest in sustainable fuel sources is growing.

Though biomass is a renewable fuel, it can still contribute to global warming. This happens when the natural carbon equilibrium is disturbed; for example by deforestation or urbanisation of green sites.

Rice chaff.Biomass is part of the carbon cycle. Carbon from the atmosphere is converted into biological matter by photosynthesis. On decay or combustion the carbon goes back into the atmosphere. This happens over a relatively short timescale and plant matter used as a fuel can be constantly replaced by planting for new growth. Therefore a reasonably stable level of atmospheric carbon results from its use as a fuel.

Although fossil fuels have their origin in ancient biomass, they are not considered biomass by the generally accepted definition because they contain carbon that has been ‘out’ of the carbon cycle for a very long time. Their combustion therefore disturbs the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere.

admin answers:

We need to control global warming to reduce the future risk. Today RB comes with commonsense super tips to reduce global warming. Please read it, leave your feedback & share this story with your friends. Let’s work together to control global warming & reduce future risk.

#> Use Public Transport:

public transport Public transport, public transportation, public transit or mass transit comprises all transport systems in which the passengers do not travel in their own vehicles. While it is generally taken to include rail and bus services, wider definitions would include scheduled airline services, ferries, taxicab services etc. Any system that transports members of the general public. A further restriction that is sometimes applied is that it should take place in shared vehicles, which would exclude taxis that are not shared-ride taxis.

#> Use Renewable Energy Like Wind Power:wind power terminal

One means of reducing carbon emissions is the development of new technologies such as renewable energy such as wind power. Most forms of renewable energy generate no appreciable amounts of greenhouse gases except for biofuels derived from biomass.

#> Burn Methane:

Burning Waste Methane. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Burning one molecule of methane generates one molecule of carbon dioxide. Accordingly, burning methane which would otherwise be released into the atmosphere (such as at landfills, coal mines, waste treatment plants, etc.) provides a net greenhouse gas emissions benefit.

#> Use Smart Cooler, Heater & Air Conditioner smart air conditionning

About half the energy we use in our homes goes to heating and cooling. Changing air filters annually, having your system checked annually and useing a programmable thermostat are all easy things you can do. Just by using a programmable thermostat, you can save about 1,800 pounds of carbon dioxide a year and about $100 a year in energy costs. If you want to go the extra mile, see “Bonus Tips” below for how to purchase green power.

#>Tune up and maintain vehicles properly

Unscientific maintain of vehicle leads to environment pollution. Vehicles, regardless of category are increasing day by day all over the world. The smoke released by these vehicles damage ozone layer. But it is impossible to stop the arrival of new vehicles. What can be done to the maximum is, to maintain the vehicles properly. Adopting scientific method to maintain your loved cars and bikes will play predominant role in controlling global warming.

#>Clean the air in your house.home

Cleaning the air inside the house is most important thing. By doing so you will automatically contribute for global warm control. There are many things you can do to clean your house. Use proper vacuum cleaner for the purpose. Clean regularly and continuously. Put dust avoiding curtains and use houseplants. Do not keep the dustbin unchecked. Lso don’t mess the surroundings of your house. Even take maximum care while dispatching waste materials. Try to grow as much as saplings inside your compound.

#> Reduce electricity usage to the maximum

Switch off unwanted electric equipments immediately. Or do not use them if not necessary. Often we find shining tube, unning fan, running TV…etc. One may be sound enough to pay the electric bill in the end of the month, but what about the energy that has been wasted? Replace the old ones with energy efficient lighting. Also, improve the efficiency of ome appliances. If not possible, go for an energy saving appliances.

#>Prefer recycling
recycle Preferring reusable products instead of disposables will help in reducing the waste. When you buy a product, make sure that the packing is quite reasonable one. In other words, packing should not exceed the size of the product. Always try to recycle household waste. By recycling the household waste, one can save 2,400 pounds of carbon dioxide annually.Here both the entrepreneurs and public should join hands together for a cause. Always try to educate others on preferring recycling products…..

Hope that helped 🙂

admin answers:

Just so we start off clear:
“The word ‘veganism’ denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to end the idea of animals as property and exclude all forms of intentional exploitation of, use of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, research or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, including people and the environment.
In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”

Cannabis legalization is not a vegan or vegetarian issue and want to make that clear as well.

My personal position is it should be fully legal and has actual serious medical uses that can actually help people. Some people do use it for recreation and I don’t believe that is a good thing but I am not against them doing that so long as it doesn’t effect anyone else. I would rather see legalized “pot” then people popping pills all the time from big pharma, that are all tested on animals and made with unnatural ingredients and are not good for us. Plus it is better than smoking cigarettes and drinking and for sure better than synthetic cannabis marketed as incense/potpourri which is still legal and can cause serious health problems.

Plus hemp which has no Tetrahydrocannabinol (the substance in the cannabis plant that has psychoactive properties) is useful for a million and a half things and really the reason it cannot be grown here is because multi-millionaire William Randolph Hearst (who also supported Hitler early on and created yellow journalism) said it would stop people from making paper (which is where he was getting most of his money). Plus hemp is also a pretty sustainable crop and easy to grow.

Many people in jail and prison right now are in for non-violent “pot” related offenses. They aren’t a threat to anyone and are costing taxpayers billions of dollars to help fund the prison industrial complex. Some of those people are learning about crime and being “bad” people because of the anti-restorative nature of U.S. Prisons. If it was legal less people in prisons over non-violent drug “crimes” and less money being wasted on people who were never a threat.

So all in all legalize it, plus you can tax it and generate more revenue which could go towards education and ending homelessness and poverty, funding clean, green energy as well as building hospitals, fire stations and other things that help us. I have not heard of people dying from pot or because someone else smoked pot. It usually tends to mellow you out. I know people who have smoked and they are pretty normal people who except maybe a little less stressed and much more calm and relaxed.

I personally don’t smoke cannabis and have no plans to ever do so however if need be for medical reasons I might use a cannabis product but probably one containing less THC and more CBD which has more health benefits and less psychoactive properties. However hopefully I should never need to use cannabis or any drugs.

EDIT:
@Dion the problem with freedom is when your “freedom” effects someone else. Everyone has a right to freedom not just you and those who you want to have freedom. So eating meat is not a choice that someone who is pro-freedom would make as it takes away freedom from others.

Your little comment sounds like something out of the 1800s, some southerner with a plantation talking about how African people that were taken/stolen from Africa against their will are his property now and don’t deserve rights. Do you have any more gems? Maybe animals should be killed because they are quote “inferior” to the pure species (humyns) like what someone like Hitler would say. It is lovely when someone whines about freedom yet has no problem taking away someone else’s freedom because they view them as lessers just as every oppressor throughout history has done. You are helping the people who wish to take away freedom, the racists, the sexists, the nazis, the homophobes, the fascists, the slave owners, the terrorists…

Using animals as slaves and slavery are not connected…shoot, I guess we should call Websters and tell them that. You should also tell all the history book makers that slaves were not considered property. Of course all of that would be false but I guess facts and logic elude you.
I never said that your pic was a self portrait, I simply laughed at you for paying money for it or if not stealing it since you love your property.

So basically what you are saying is you are giving up because you have lost and trying desperately to save face. You refuse to see what is right in front of you and try and lie and avoid it as if the truth is going to kill you…rather sad in a way.

You talk about animals being property but you deny slavery? Doesn’t make any sense

admin answers:

Nope she has no place with this pro-life anti tax and spend conservative.

She is a democratic HACK
Called for impeachment of Bush & Cheney. (Feb 2008)
Long been a supporter of publicly financed elections. (Feb 2008)
End privately-owned and party-run voting machines. (Jan 2008)
Do better on gov’t contracting for small & minority business. (Dec 2007)
Proposed proportional or instant runoff voting for Congress. (Nov 2006)
Voted NO on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006)
Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers. (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on limiting attorney’s fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005)
Voted NO on banning soft money donations to national political parties. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
Election reform is #1 priority to prevent disenfranchisement. (Jan 2001)
Sponsored bill for IRV voting for Electoral College. (Mar 2001)
Allow same-day voter registration on election day. (Jan 2001)
Declare US carbon-free and nuclear-free. (Feb 2008)
Implement Kyoto; raise CAFE; oppose drilling ANWR. (Feb 2008)
Leave the oil in the soil. (Jan 2008)
Protect ANWR; fund sustainable power sources. (Dec 2007)
Voted YES on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted YES on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted YES on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Regulate wholesale electricity & gas prices. (Mar 2001)
Preserve Alaska’s ANWR instead of drilling it. (Feb 2001)
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)

A republican that isn’t praised by the leadership of the republican party.
Ron Paul. Palin(if she runs) Herman Cain.. Pawlenty.. Bachman Jim DeMint (if he runs) hard core right wingers that are 100% opposite of this woman.

admin answers:

Depends where you want it

Australia:
www.agso.gov.au/renewable

Canada: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/economic/renewableenergy/casestudy

ARKANSAS, LOUISIANA, OKLAHOMA, AND TEXAS:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/rpmap/rp_wsc.html

Some other US regions and States:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/remap/contents.html

admin answers:

It depends on what you mean by “sustainable”, so I will answer it in 2 totally different ways.

“Sustainable” as in “sustainable energy/environmental issues”: This really has to do with your host. If you pay a bit more you can find “green hosts” that generate at least a portion of the power from renewable sources and try to minimize their carbon footprint.

“Sustainable” as in “long-lasting and low rate of redesign”: This has to do with staying *far* away from trends. We have to keep in mind that marques and blink tags were once the hot, “in” thing. After that, Java applets were. And then sites stuffed with Flash content. All of these look amateur by today’s standards. While no one has a crystal ball, minimalism, semantic code, HTML5 and general web standards can go a long way towards creating a site that will require little redesigning in the foreseeable future.

I hope this helps. If I didn’t hit what you were talking about at all, please add more info.

admin answers:

No, the world with all of it’s “human” power and control structures will have to fail and be remade… 49% of the global economy is made up of souvenir nations, the other 51% is made up of corporations. When profit and domination is your main goal, everything else becomes an obstruction or an obstacle to over come.

For too many people, money is their only measure of value… Too many people are now disconnected from nature and the Planet and can easily live in denial of the consequences of how they live in urban areas, going from conditioned space to conditioned space… Only taking note of the out side world when it’s too hot or too cold or too wet for their preference.

Sustainable equals self sufficiency… That’s way too much work for most people.

Economic re-localization is a way to decentralize and reverse the dominate corporatist system of consolidating wealth and power for the few at the expense of the many. But how will they give up power and control without failure or a huge bloody fight?

The only thing that works is to deny the corporate world their control and power that they derive from profit. Don’t buy their crap any more. Let them starve to death, like this recession is doing! Grow your own food, barter, buy only second hand, nothing new… Go to garage sales, not a retail store like; Walmart, Sam’s Club or Home Depot.

You can buy a previously owned home and make it a net zero energy home cheaper than buying or building a new green washed home… Educate yourself!

The Planet is a living entity with a form of consciousness and knows who her friends are who her enemies are… If this does not make sense to some of you, it only shows how little you know and understand about the Universe…

admin answers:

It can really depend on what type of system your looking for. If you would like something small to start out with (which is the best way to start) then check out www.electricalsaver.webs.com I bought one about a year ago and it saves me about 20% a month on my electric bill.

admin answers:

Oil companies would not willingly work toward research renewable energy, because once a low cost solutions are made available they would be out of work, even we enact a law require them do it, they would find ways to work around it, remember the low efficiency wind power turbines? That was a total waste of money.

It’ll be more efficient to tax oil companies heavily, drive the price of oil up. Once oil is very expansive (like now), investors will begin looking into developing renewable energy. Because the investors are putting their OWN money in, the projects will be better monitored, more efficient. Also, when oil price is high, consumers are more willing to switch, demand for renewable energy will be up, driving price up, supply will naturally move up.

Alas the world will be saved by capitalism

admin answers:

Hey T M Good Question.

Have a look at [Link 1] I think it will help flesh out your project.

Focusing in on the population curve: have you wondered why it’s shown to flatten out (sigmoid growth)? And more importantly do you believe that it will simply flatten out? [Link 2 & 3]

I think we’re in for a bit of boom and bust regards global population levels. Declining fertility rates (not contraception) and lack of access to basic requirements (clean food and water) will eventually mean that the population will reach equilibrium – a starvation equilibrium. But declinig natural resources, shifting enironmental conditions, competition for scarsening resources and habitable areas (leading to wars – and we’ve seen that in Iraq already) combined with the environmental impact of global warming; put all this together and I recon we’re headed for a population crash.

Best wishes LT

PS: Making statements that could possibly be construded as acknowledging the bleeding obvious, namely that we are trashing the planet big time and that we are, for example responsible for global warming – is a rather contentious area and as you have seen with at least one respondent, likely to lead to a ‘naysyaer’ back lash. Don’t be put off – you’re spot on with your observations – and remember the debate on environmental issue has now moved on – the debate is OVER, we are screwing up the environment and behaving irresponsibly, that’s now the offical position. However, for some people no matter how much evidence is brought forward, no matter how bad the weather gets or how many species go extinct, no matter how many people starve to death or are displaced from their homes due to rising sea levels or drought or other climatic changes, they’ll never believe that it’s us to blame – that’s because they have alterior motives (namely vested self interest, greed and/or stupidity) which are over riding their morals (assuming they have any) and common sense (again assuming they have any).

admin answers:

To some extent, WE THE PEOPLE are demanding it.
Given that we demand cars that accelerate 0 – 60 in a few seconds and
also SUVs that can carry the whole tribe + camping gear and still cruse
at 80 … We demand JET AIRLINE transport that makes possible
breakfast in L.A. And dinner in Miami on the same day.
We demand ever faster computer toys & ever larger HD TVs
( TV = Propaganda machine ) anyhow …

WE all know that consumerism is NOT sustainable, however
every “black Friday” there is a stampede to get into the mall and buy stuff!
Little plastic things & all sorts of crap! The modern world is overloaded!

The levels of consumption are appalling and nobody is backing down from their
level of consumption …. I got MINE & I’m hanging on to it, everybody else can
cut-back!

Its a sick sad world!

admin answers:

Nothing.

You might look at experimenting with Piezo technology- the technology of your microwave pressure transducer beeper, and more often stereo tweeters.

It is a family of compounds that compress or expand depending on alloy, and they will produce current when stressed as well- which is how your digital point of purchase scales work. (accelerometers)

admin answers:

The solution wouldn’t be as simple as just having them work on renewable energy. While part of the problem is the product they are offering (sales of SUVs and the like plummeted this year for instance), part of the problem is the CEOs of these companies. They have made bad decisions and have been greedy. They take home millions upon millions, but cry poor and close factories. I remember hearing that when Daimler and Chrysler merged, the head of Daimler was embarrassed or shocked when he found out what the head of Chrysler was making because that wasn’t how things were done in Germany.

They do need to work on products that can take us forward, but they also need to clean house.

admin answers:

City government would probably embrace your ambition. Then a job as a consultant to a City would be a next step.

admin answers:

Talk to your professors. They are likely to know where the best research is being done.

admin answers:

Well, I think that won’t be so profitable as you’ll spend too much for farming it. In my opinion the only future energy sources will be (solar, wind and hydro) maybe if we start farming in Africa and stop world hunger we can grow extra food for biofuels for our planes. Ships can go on nuclear energy, well if we’ll have enough they should run on bio-fuel. Cars and trains should go on electricity.

admin answers:

The cost of developing renewable technology at the moment if far greater than developing the current technology of coal, oil and gas. Because of these high cost the returns for developing renewable energy are not there yet. There are some renewable energy companies but the energy market is dominated by oil and gas companies.

Giving the firms subsidies will not solve the problem because the firms will still not get the return they want and it would be very costly for the government. We don’t know how long it would take to develop a reliable renewable energy technology that could replace oil, coal and gas.

Necessity is the mother of invention and we do not require large and expensive R&D projects in renewable technology yet. When it becomes economically viable they will all be jumping to renewable energy. In the not to distant future energy companies will find it more difficult in securing energy resources and it will be these companies that will invest money and develop renewable energy that can be sustainable.

admin answers:

Depends what type of renewable energy you are talking about.
Are you interested in biofuel, hydrogen fusion, solar, wind, wave generators?
Chemistry engineering would probably be the best way to go if you are undecided. Because most processes involve conversion into electricity, electrical engineering probably would be good too. Mechanical engineers can get into optimizing wind turbines and such, but I think there’s more potential in chemistry and things on the atomic level.
Environmental engineers can help reduce the environment impact of harnessing energy.

Summary: ENGINEERING!!

admin answers:

Hy check www.biotec-international.co.uk or greenbuilding.ro
Biotec main objective is to reduce and eliminate energetic costs. They are manufacturer of vertical xes windturbines no china ware european original manufactured product with 10 years warranty from Germany not from china!

We are the Biotec International Romania the subsidery of Biotec Germany one big known name in green Building engeneering is Cundall there from you get the requested details.

Good Luck

admin answers:

Hydroelectric has two parts. Construction and maintenance. Both are heavy engineering fields.

Try calling the TVA or Washington state’s power company, or whoever owns the Hoover Dam.

Or look for Micro-hydro start-ups, there are some.

admin answers:

First, it would solve 51 percent of the problems right there. It would eliminate the dependence of all nations on oil.

Second, it would result in all of the oil producing nations going bankrupt. That would leave them at the mercy of the rest of the world until they could gather up a new industry or industries to employ all of their people and create revenues to run their own governments.

Third, it would definitely leave everyone employed in the energy sector well … Unemployed. But I think the number of people working in the energy business are puny statistically compared to just the people starving in the third world much less across the globe.

Fourth, it would free up human resources to pursue humanitarian and technological efforts by reallocating all of the resources, engineering skills and professionals to other existing problems like creating new systems for health care, alleviating issues around growing food and things of that nature. So whatever unemployment would result would be short-lived.

Fifth, it would help in repairing and increasing infrastructure on every continent and for every nation on earth.

Largely I think it would be a good thing for most, but initially a bad thing for the rest.

Which is probably why the oil companies would likely assassinate anyone that came up with free energy alternatives that were immediately viable.

admin answers:

One issue at a time: Common sense does not just come to you, either you have it or you don’t. The actions of this Congress has shown little in the common sense area over the last 19 months. They will do with immigration what furthers the agenda that Obama desires to fulfill. Maybe you think that full Socialism is a great idea, but be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it.
The millionaires of which you speak are people like Soros and Buffet that are big Democrat supporters. They will not be placing taxes on these people who spend millions in support of the party. Like most of the Democrat rich, most very well to do have their monies buried in tax free investments that generate no taxable revenue. You once again have fallen for the old class warfare scheme that Marx, Alinsky and other Communist style proponents use to gain power.
Your disdain for Reagan is evidently a political bias that ignores the fact that it was a Democrat Congress that passed the Reagan tax cuts into law. To blame Reagan is to also blame the Democrats for the trickle down economy, which by the way worked very well on behalf of the total economy. Do some research and add some reality to your arguments, it just might change your outlook when facts are used. Furthermore, if you speak of the rich, how that $2 million dollar wedding for Chelsea? The rich are not just conservatives.