From the Department of AGW Is Caused By Everything: Is Angry Birds Increasing Global Warming?
We are well aware that the Angry Birds causes plenty of damage to complex structures and greedy green pigs, but are they causing damage in real life?
The most successful mobile game ever seen may damage your eyesight after a frantic playing session or even your social life in extreme cases; however reports from Platform Nation suggest Rovio’s masterpiece is harming our mother earth. The theory sounds crazy but bare with us and we will explain how John McMahon has broken down the maths in his interesting article, or YouTube video.
Yes, an alarmist did actually take the time to investigate
The theory assumes that the game is being played on an iPhone 3GS with a 3 hour play time per download. The iPhone consumes 4 Watts when charging, with a full charge requiring 3 hours, giving 12 Watt*hours. The figure being used is 100 million downloads which yields 300 million play time hours. Since the playtime equals a full charge, 100 million full charges have been used for the sole purpose of playing Angry Birds.
So 100 million full charges * 12 Watt*hours = 1.2 million kilowatt*hours (kWh). Then assuming that 1 kilogram of coal = 2 kWh, 600,000 kg of coal is consumed to power Angry Birds. 1 kWh = 2 lbs CO2 produced, so 2,400,000 pounds of CO2 is generated. They estimate that carbon offset companies would charge $30-$50k to offset this.
Everybody panic!!!!!!11!!!!!!! Everybody must stop playing the game….oh, wait
I think it is an interesting experiment; however Angry Birds has been singled out and is no worse than any other game that is played when using up electricity. I am confident that there are far worse things out there that contribute far more to carbon dioxide emissions than a game of Angry Birds on a smartphone. I think it is safe to say that Angry Birds users will be able to play a little more before the world comes to an end.
Yet again, the alarmists whine about something, but refuse to change their own behavior.
Via Steven Goddard
I’m sorry, but giving Obama the middle finger is not an energy drain.
Sheez.
;)
Its funny how one takes a middle of the ground approach and he gets raked over the coals.
I work in the green energy field after being in oil/gas for 36.5 years.
The future of mankind is not in oil/gas and the only reason people oppose the development of green energy is because their political opponents favor it.
Really stupid way to be stupid about something. I do not oppose AGW because my political opponent agrees with it. I oppose it because its not sound science.
Tidal harness can create the same amount of electricity that a nuclear power plant can create. The problem is with the environmental impact.
If we build 50 nuke plants or 50 tidal harness plants we can have the same amount of electricity with the same amount of expensive dollars with no nuke waste to deal with as an aftermath.
If the Tidal plant breaks down or is damaged via a tsunami then we have……a plant that needs repair…not a national disaster of untold proportions.
Out in the midwest…….wind turbines dot the landscape for as far as the eye can see.
Green is the future…..because my political opponent is advocating for it does not make it less so.
We can hollar, scream, kick and fight them every step of the way but the fact is that 100’s of venture capital firms are lining up to invest in green technology……they simply need the tax breaks, loopholes and incentives that OIL has had for DECADES and the…..
Game is on.
The future of mankind is not in oil/gas and the only reason people oppose the development of green energy is because their political opponents favor it.
I have never seen anyone oppose the development of green energy because political opponents are for it. That is a baseless claim. What we do see is massive subsidies and low return on investments from so called “green energy.”
Your claim is false.
Tidal harness can create the same amount of electricity that a nuclear power plant can create. The problem is with the environmental impact.
Another false claim. The best sites for tidal energy produce anywhere from 100 – 250 Mw of power. The typical nuclear reactor produces 1000 Mw.
Did you ever think that one reason many of us don’t trust the “green energy” movement is because of lies such as you have put forth?
For example, in Florida, Florida Power and Light built a state of the art solar collection system on part of the Cape Canaveral National Wildlife Preserve. It opened to great fanfare and was said to provide power to thousands of homes.
When the actual figures came in, it turns out the field generates power to 100’s of homes – not thousands, and then only when it is generating power at all. Some estimates are that the field generates the equivalent power for less than 20 homes given the full needs and power of the home.
So why do people who promote “green energy” feel the need to lie about it? If it is such a great deal and such an economic benefit, it will stand on its own.
not a national disaster of untold proportions.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Out in the midwest…….wind turbines dot the landscape for as far as the eye can see.
Yes they do. They stand there silent a a testament to the folly of their implementation as a miracle cure for energy needs. We have seen the same thing happen in European countries where the predictions of power generated by wind turbines has been a miserable failure.
The key is not to dismiss alternative sources of energy, but to examine why they have failed.
Game is on.
Game over.
gita
Your comments are predictable. Short sighted but predictable to those who continue to defend the oil industry with a passion.
The facts of the matter are simple…if you look at oil/gas in this country 50 years ago you will find that the US government had to subsidize drilling in order for the oil companies to continue to produce enough oil to meet our needs.
Because oil was 8-10 dollars per bbl and barely profitable and there was little to no incentive to spend millions…in those days…trying to find more of the cheap oil.
This is the same situation that the Green industry is in today. Its hardly profitable and hardly capable of meeting the demand.
Usually I get these types of comments from younger people who do not remember 19 cent per gallon gasoline. Who remember gasoline stations who were full serve that checked your oil, cleaned your windows and the tire pressure in your tires…..
Usually people who wholeheartedly defend the oil business are the same people who fail to understand that the same subsidies that are being put into the oil industry are the same subsidies that are put into the farmers and ranchers to keep this country fed.
No matter how you cut it…..subsidies are needed in a competitive market place for innovation or to simply meet needs because without them….farmers will grow nothing but corn and the rest of us can go fuking hungry because their is no money in beans, spinach and soy beans.
There is no money in green……because their is not….no ones going to develop it without incentives…..
Thats capitalism and the fact that the right fails to comprehend this simple but important truth to free markets is beyond imagination.
So you can quote your oxymorons about Tidal not producing the same thing as a nuclear power plant as the reason why GREEN fails. Or that Solar wont produce when the sun goes down….or that wind wont produce while their is no wind…….
And you can pay 7-8-9-10 dollars for a gallon of gasoline because you dont want to subsidize research and development on battery technology that can use, coal, natural gas, solar, wind, geo-thermal, tidal and nuclear power plants to recharge those batteries while this nation returns….
750 billion to 1 trillion dollars in exported oil back into the pockets of Americans….
Or not…..
As you say…..game over……yes in more ways then you can ff’ing imagine with the rights absurd passion for all things fossil fuels.
Your comments are predictable. Short sighted but predictable to those who continue to defend the oil industry with a passion.
I did not defend the oil / gas industry in this post or any other post.
There is no money in green……because their is not….no ones going to develop it without incentives
That is the position that you wish to take and that is fine. It is a position that is defied by thousands of years of inventions and innovations, but feel free to keep putting it forth.
Thats capitalism and the fact that the right fails to comprehend this simple but important truth to free markets is beyond imagination.
No, that is not capitalism. Capitalism is the development and selling of products on the free market without government intervention and restrictions. Clearly that is not the case with green energy at this time.
So you can quote your oxymorons about Tidal not producing the same thing as a nuclear power plant as the reason why GREEN fails.
Wow. You mean that I am free to quote facts while you quote pie in the sky estimates that are not based in reality?
Gee thanks.
You were the one that said that 50 tidal generators produce the same power as 50 nuclear power plants. I just pointed out that your assertion is factually wrong.
Instead of saying “okay, I exaggerated a little” or “I am sorry, I made a mistake,” you responded with the words of a typical 5 year old that got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
And you can pay 7-8-9-10 dollars for a gallon of gasoline because you dont want to subsidize research and development on battery technology that can use,
This might be the biggest non-sequitur I have seen in quite some time. The two aren’t related and you know it.
As you say…..game over
Okay. We agree that the game is over on your ridiculous assertions. The question is “what is next?”
yes in more ways then you can ff’ing imagine with the rights absurd passion for all things fossil fuels.
The “rights obsession” is that we believe that we should develop energy sources within the US as companies develop alternative energy sources that are proven and sustainable. That is not an “obsession,” that is good, solid, correct thinking.
We can do both but people such as yourself are hung up on destroying the country through higher energy prices and subsidies on unproven or worthless technologies.
If you want to go out and develop an alternative energy source that revolutionizes the world, go for it. You will achieve great wealth and stature. I would support your efforts as well. However, when you say “I have an idea that is unproven, may not work, and I want you to pay for it,” no one should support that. Certainly taxpayers should not support it.
The difference is clear. While there may be tax incentives for oil companies and farmers, they are producing a viable, proven product.
Subsidies for “innovation” or “ideas” are not the same as subsidies for proven products.
No the only ridiculousness is on your part for wholesale condemnation of anything green because it cannot compete with oil and gas which has 100 years of development which was……..
HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED by governments around the world including our own.
But go right on spouting your subsidies are evil…….
As long as they are for things you dont agree with…..
But they are just fine for things you do agree with.
No wonder the left if pulling their hair out over the silly libertarian right who has lost their ability to rationally view whats happening in the world today.
AGW might be bunk but Green energy is the future….just as horses were on borrowed time the minute the first powered car hit the road or for that matter…….
The pony express collapsed in months once the transcontinental railroad was completed. The government subsidizes the Railroads because they provide a national security.
Seven dollar a gallon gasoline is a national emergency……Producing more oil is of utmost importance…..
But so is developing alternatives….the fact that you cant see that is why this nation is paying exorbitant prices at the pump today…..
There are too many like you……..incapable of seeing beyond their noses because of some pie in the sky libertarian, free market mentality that does not exist in this country other then in text books taught occassionally in colleges.
HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED by governments around the world including our own.
You still don’t see the difference between subsidizing a known, working, viable product and an “idea,” do you?
You mention the transcontinental railroad. It wasn’t as subsidized as you think as, but facts never seem to get in your way. Even so, railroads were already a viable method of transportation. They were already a viable product. The government did not subsidize the development of steam locomotion. The subsidy was for a proven product – not a pie in the sky idea.
(And by the way, the only government subsidy was for the right of way on the land. Even then the train companies had to pay something for the land. The government did not subsidize the building of the track, the engines or the required infrastructure. Your example fails miserably.)
No wonder the left if pulling their hair out over the silly libertarian right who has lost their ability to rationally view whats happening in the world today.
Rationally think like you do? If your thought process is the standard of “rational thought,” no wonder the left pulls out it hair. Actually, you are more of a leftist because you can’t deal with facts either. You seem to think that repeating the same things over and over makes them true.
Seven dollar a gallon gasoline is a national emergency……Producing more oil is of utmost importance…..
I agree. And have said so.
But so is developing alternatives…
Fine. Then develop them. This is what you don’t get. No one is stopping anyone from developing any alternative energy.
.the fact that you cant see that is why this nation is paying exorbitant prices at the pump today…..
No, the fact that we pay higher prices at the pump is not tied to development of alternative energy sources at all. Higher prices are based on the cost of oil. Or rather, the future price of oil and the supply of oil. In 2008 when gas was rising, Bush eliminated barriers to offshore drilling. The response was an immediate drop in oil and gas prices.
We have seen the same cause and effect from Obama. He has suspended drilling, oil production and development of new oil fields. Prices have risen due to that.
They have not risen because some solar project didn’t get funded.
In fact, what we have seen obliterates your position. Obama has thrown more money into the development of alternative energy sources than any other president in the history of the country and yet prices for gas still increase. If your theory of causation that gas prices are dependent upon alternative energy funding, we would see gas prices remain the same or decline. As they have not, your posit cannot be true.
Let me emphasis that for you. No matter how many times you wish to say that gas prices are tied to alternative energy development, you are still completely, totally, utterly wrong.
Your lack of logical thinking is truly appalling.
There are too many like you
And there are too many like you who think that the government is the answer to everything. You are more than happy to waste money because it isn’t your money being wasted.
incapable of seeing beyond their noses because of some pie in the sky libertarian, free market mentality that does not exist in this country other then in text books taught occassionally in colleges.
Really? Tell me, “Doomed,” how much of a subsidy did Microsoft get to develop Windows? Apple get for developing the Mac? Bell Labs for the transistor? Sylvania for the television tube? Ford for the model T?
Want me to keep going? How about your cell phone? It was developed without government subsidies. Cable? Ditto. How about the steam engine? Cotton gin? Incandescent light bulb? Plywood?
How about this very blog upon which you display your ignorance? Was it developed by government subsidy? Was the software that runs it subsidized? Were the modifications subsidized?
They were not.
Your position that innovation requires government subsidy is false.
The fact of the matter (and one that you will not address other than to cry like a little baby) is that we have seen massive subsidies for alternative energy sources in other countries. Those sources and subsidies have failed to produce. Now, contrary to the ol’ adage of “don’t throw good money after bad,” you want to give more money in the form of subsidies to companies that have no viable product and no proven track record of producing anything.
You are thrilled with the prospect of throwing money into a bottomless pit without a return on investment.
I am not.
Innovation does not need government support. It never has.
One more thing, Doomed:
The pony express collapsed in months once the transcontinental railroad was completed.
Once again, you have seem to have no issues with lying to promote your agenda.
The Pony Express ended in 1861.
The building of the Transcontinental Railroad took place between 1863 and 1869. The last spike in the completion of the railroad was at Promontory Summit, Utah, on May 10, 1869, a full 8 years after the demise of the Pony Express.
Geez it must suck to have your ignorance and lack of morals exposed on a forum that isn’t subsidized by the government.