NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
--Mark Hahn, <hahn@neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu>
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Re: green power (Score:1)
Hm, while we've got a regular contract with our local power dealer (electricity and gas (for heating and cooking)), at least the electricity should be mostly "green" (i.e. C02 neutral). Most of the power in Austria is generated by water power plants.
I haven't got a car (or a driving license...) and do nearly all of my daily traveling on my bike (about 50km per week, most of the year (unless it's raining very heavily or there is fresh snow on the streets). The rest is done with public transport.
I try to avoi
Cool! (Score:1)
A few of my personal choices:
* Own one car for 6 of us, including my in-laws
* Compact fluorescent bulbs everywhere
* Bike to work as often as possible
* Bus when biking is not feasible
* Subscribe to a local farm for produce
* Pay $5/month wind energy subsidy to power company
* Unplug rarely-used electronics (e.g. VCR)
* Buy
Re: (Score:1)
Because I'm in an apartment, I can't really compost or air-dry clothing (since the latter is against the rules, no hanging of clothing outside) and the farm thing is out (central city location).
The apartment comes with flurescent lights already (not normal lightbulb shape).
And the appliances are new, but it was the only reasonable choice in this particular situation.
As usual, I'm just trying to keep things in mind, while making it
GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX (Score:2)
What I really wanted to say is that whether or not global warming is caused by man, I don't believe that any of these measures to have "green" energy are worth anything. We'd do a lot better to put our efforts into nuclear power, or researching better advances in power than the same old "green" technologies that aren't poised to really solve anything, except maybe guilty consciences.
Re: (Score:1)
At some point, we are fundamentally limited by the total solar radiation hitting the planet.
These wind power initiatives generate genuine long term results, they do it immediately, they can be developed incrementally with low lead time, have none of the safety issues, use almost no land (since you can continue to use them as farm land in the NZ example), have no waste products whatsoever, don't require any water for steam, and since
Re: (Score:1)
Another indefinitely renewable resource: geothermal. The drawback is that it’s harder to exploit than wind as it requires digging up the place. On the other hand, it’s not subject to seasonal or meteorological variations. For a great instant introduction read Malcolm Gladwell’s post about it [typepad.com].
Of course, the ultimate source of energy would be The Other nuclear power: sustained H fusion. It too is fundamentally more limited on Earth than tapping the solar output, of course, but it’s a
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't need to be. It will last us a very long time.
These wind power initiatives generate genuine long term results, they do it immediately, they can be developed incrementally with low lead time
And they provide only a fraction of the energy that other methods produce, and while they take up "almost no land" they WOULD have to take up a TON of land in order to provide the same level of output. I am not against wind power,