Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Great... Instead of CO2 we get CO (Score 2) 133

Problem with that is, vegetation rots eventually, releasing methane - a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Sure, you can flame it off, but then you're still releasing that captured CO2 back to the atmosphere. Only by increasing the forest footprint of the world, or causing massive algae blooms in the oceans can you really sequester CO2 in vegetation.

Comment: Re:Sounds about right... (Score 3, Insightful) 441

by wiggles (#47350141) Attached to: Researchers Claim Wind Turbine Energy Payback In Less Than a Year

> Home owners can't really lose with solar PV

Unless, of course, you happen to live somewhere other than Southern California or Arizona, where weather conditions don't permit the sun to shine at sufficient intensity over the whole year. Here in the mid/upper midwest, the payback period for a solar installation on my house works out to be 17 years. Wind, on the other hand, can be cost effective if you have sufficient land space to put up a tower. I see a few of my rural neighbors with wind turbines on their properties.

Comment: Re:Temporary (Score 1) 274

by wiggles (#47309001) Attached to: China Starts Outsourcing From<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the US

Your timeline for that is a bit optimistic, I think. Robot factories - sure. Simple stuff like individual parts and toys from 3d printers - ok. For things like durable goods, there are too many dissimilar, complex parts made from varying materials, each processed in a different way, to make this a reality any time soon. You'd need a universal constructor - and that's at least 150 years out. We need to master far too many high level concepts first, like quantum physics.

If you fail to plan, plan to fail.