Do you think this is an accurate figure?

[Theophylact]

I don't understand what you mean by

power that isn't used is wasted

It's not as though it leaks out of the wall sockets. Solar power that's not used is stored by batteries or by pumping water uphill into reservoirs; Hydroelectric power that's not used is saved by cutting back on the flow of water through turbines; coal-fired generators just burn less coal as demand drops, and so on.

Yes, sure, if you're running a home gasoline-fueled generator, you'll use gas if you keep it running when you're not drawing any power from it. But much less than when it's in full operation, just as a car uses less when it's just idling, as opposed to driving at highway speed.

[PresterJohn]

Originally posted by DPA
Soo if you get more CO2 in the atmosphere, plants will begin to grow faster as there is more material to synthesize with water and sugar, and this results in more CO2 being absorbed, faster. And more plant life means more moisture to be evaporated...

you had better stick to computers, friend, because that explanation you posted is a load of bunk.

maybe you might believe all that, but the ecosystem & environmental balance does not work that way.

[radio1_mike]

Originally posted by DPA
I am sure that this source has some validity in the Electrical cost section, but i wouldn't believe the CO2 thing even if the plants thrived around my computer. Nobody has the time to waste to make up figures that sound within reason and post them up on the net to screw with people. I find it funny that someone would post up how many Tons of CO2 was released, and causes global warming.

Did anyone in here forget that this world and everything that operates here, operates in balance? Soo if you get more CO2 in the atmosphere, plants will begin to grow faster as there is more material to synthesize with water and sugar, and this results in more CO2 being absorbed, faster. And more plant life means more moisture to be evaporated, which means clouds, and clouds means cooler air, and clouds=rain, and rain=cooler air, and then the sun evaporates this water and evaporation=cooling. crap, id be more worried about global cooling than global warming. Not only that, but if any of you remember Science 101, the atmosphere is <70% Nitrogen, 2% CO2, 10% O2 (is that right?) and the rest is fluff. So techincally we should be dying nitrogen deaths rather than a massive 2 percent co2 death.

*breathes*

but we could also look at the other end of the power spectrum. What percentage of your power is nuclear/coal/oil/hydro? In my area we are 20%/65%/0%/15%; so this means that in order to power my computer, i might as well be using coal to burn. thank God we are using "clean" coal these days. and then a touch of Uranium 235 in my PSU too. so if we turned off our computers at night, we would be directly contributing to global pollution, rather, that power that isn't used is wasted, so would you rather waste or use?

That decision is up to you.

DPA you bring up a nice point about global cooling. 25 years ago people were thinking we were heading into another ice age. The historical data up until say 1980 (avg. winter temp, avg. precip, etc...) supported this. Then by the end that decade global warming had started to gather some "steam". Heh. (could not resist) Anyways, last year a few scientific papers came out Russia (a colleague had them) stating that there was evidence to support this.

So, at least in that context, our use of fossil fuels (and in turn global warming) may actually enhance our planet's habitability...

[DPA]

thanks for the back up mike, i didn't want to raz presterjohn just because he is usually right in other situations, and its that time of the year. Even though the ecosystem is a complete balance (and no prester, this does not mean that it is an immediate balance, it could take hundreds of years) we are currently in a nice wavy cycle of warm to cool, wet to dry. and i don't know about you guys, but its pretty cold here right now in misery, but last week, we had record highs. anyways, unfortunately here in misery, we have no mountains to pump our water up, nor do we have massive power backups, we have massive diesel engines that fire up when people in a city 120 miles away think that we need extra power. They run our coal plants at a constant average given the "projected" consumption of power for the current month.

[PresterJohn]

the general public is rather ill-informed when it comes to the problem of global warming. i was also one of them too...until i attended a 2-day conference earlier this year in NYC. i had to attend because our company was sponsoring the event (we're a financial services company, not greenpeace!) and they needed a IT guy there to make sure everything ran smoothly.

after hearing some key government/state officials and a number some noted scientists speak about it, it opened my eyes. GC is more than just the polar ice melting and the rise in coastal sea level...it's also about the spread of bacteria growth in the ocean (due to warmer median temperatures) and the movement of fish species (which changes the food chain balance) since some are quite sensitive to warm water incursions.

i don't expect to convince most people of the problem nor is this forum & medium the right way to do it...those of you who are really interested in it can do the research yourselves.

frankly, i don't worry about it too much. i'll be dead and buried before GC wrecks our habitat (or forces wholesale lifestyle changes) to the rest of the population. you can nay-say the dangers all you want...i am minded of the saying "ignorance is bliss".

[thronka]

Thank god for the trees or we wouldn't have oxygen! Remember trees tgake in CO2 and make O. Maybe thats why alot of folks are worried because we are cutting down rainforests and they aren't takin in much CO2 anymore?