Jump to content
KJP

Global Warming

Recommended Posts

...Seriously though, why haven't we felt serious effects of global warming up until now? Is it that before we were such a clean society with no CO2 emmissions? The Earth will warm, storms and floods will happen just like they always have, and we'll get through it just like we always have.

 

Some more perspective for edale...

 

from the March 15, 2007 edition of Christian Science Monitor - http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0315/p04s01-sten.html

 

Sneak preview of big report: Change is 'already showing up'

The second report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts massive humanitarian crises.

 

By Brad Knickerbocker

 

Reports that the effects of global warming may be felt by the average person quicker and deeper than previously thought were reflected in a flurry of news coverage over the past week.

 

The Associated Press broke a big story last weekend, giving an advance look at the draft of an international scientific report due out next month. Among the findings, according to AP: "The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water...."

 

"At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels...."

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0315/p04s01-sten.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031207/content/01125116.guest.html

 

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

 

RUSH: Here's Ivory in Hayward, Wisconsin. Hi, Ivory.

 

CALLER: Hi, Rush. It's nice to talk to you.

 

RUSH: Nice to talk to you. How old are you? You sound young.

 

CALLER: Yeah, I'm a senior in high school.

 

RUSH: Ah, a senior in high school. I remember those days. You like it?

 

CALLER: Yeah, it's fun. But I'm going to be doing a persuasive speech on global warming for my class next week. I was just wondering, I'm going to be doing this speech on why global warming is not such a serious issue as people say, and I was just wondering what you would say to my class...

 

END TRANSCRIPT 

 

Unfortunately for Ivory, it's going to be very, very hot during summer school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Massive announcement with worldwide implications originating from right here in Columbus (yes, you read that correctly).

 

 

In a Test of Capturing Carbon Dioxide, Perhaps a Way to Temper Global Warming

 

WASHINGTON, March 14 — American Electric Power, a major electric utility, is planning the largest demonstration yet of capturing carbon dioxide from a coal-fired power plant and pumping it deep underground.

 

Various experts consider that approach, known as sequestration, essential to reining in climate change by preventing the gas from being added to the atmospheric blanket that promotes global warming.

 

The project, to be announced Thursday by American Electric Power, based in Columbus, Ohio, will use a new process — so far tested only at laboratory scale — that uses chilled ammonia to absorb the gas for collection. The process was developed by Alstom, a major manufacturer of generating equipment, and aims to reduce the amount of energy required to capture the carbon dioxide.

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/business/15carbon.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also...

 

AEP to pump carbon dioxide emissions underground

The Columbus Dispatch

Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:10 AM

American Electric Power plans to capture carbon dioxide from two of its existing coal-fired plants and pump the emissions underground by early next decade.

It would be the first commercial use of technology that some experts say is key in cutting down on global warming. The Columbus-based utility said it will install the systems on plants in New Haven, W.Va., and in Oologah, Okla., and begin commercial operation in 2011.

 

"AEP has been the company advancing technology for the electric-utility industry for more than 100 years," Michael G. Morris, AEP's chairman, president and chief executive, said in a statement. "This long heritage, the backbone of our company's success, makes us very comfortable taking action on carbon emissions and accelerating advancement of the technology."

 

AEP is also working to build new coal-fired plants in Meigs County, Ohio, and Mason County, W.Va. Those operations would strip away pollutants that create smog, soot and acid rain and could be retrofitted to capture carbon dioxide, a gas linked to global warming.

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=253386

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Won't work.

Let's see if I remember my junior year geography class.

First, it's already being done... by somebody in such and such place.

Second, it doesn't stay there. It does for about 100 years, but eventually the ocean releases it.

 

So, in 100 years everyone will be driving, or will have driven for some period of time, hydrogen powered cars - which release water vapor as exhaust - which will be trapped into the atmosphere - which will be joined by the release of millions of tons of Co2 previously stored in the ocean.

I think that's what we learned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Won't work.

Let's see if I remember my junior year geography class.

First, it's already being done... by somebody in such and such place.

Second, it doesn't stay there. It does for about 100 years, but eventually the ocean releases it.

 

They're not talking about ocean sequestration.  They're sequestering in saline aquifers 2 miles below ground.  There are many cap rocks above the aquifers should any begin to bubble up, but much of the CO2 should dissolve into the saline water at those pressures and/or form hydrates (basically CO2 ice). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AEP to cut emissions at 2 plants

Reducing carbon dioxide may help environment

Friday, March 16, 2007

Paul Wilson

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

 

American Electric Power plans to pipe carbon dioxide from two of its existing coal-fired plants underground instead of continuing to release the emissions into the atmosphere.

 

Some experts see the technology as key in tackling global warming while addressing growing energy demands. AEP will capture the carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas and the leading culprit in global warming, from plants in West Virginia and Oklahoma.

 

Yesterday’s announcement could be one of the most significant events in the century-old company’s history, said Michael G. Morris, the utility’s chairman, president and chief executive.

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.dispatch.com/business-story.php?story=dispatch/2007/03/16/20070316-G1-00.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually...I lied.  The CO2 from the AEP plants will be sold to oil field operators to sequester in depleted oil fields and increase oil production...not saline aquifers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's ok musky.  I know what I'm talking about on this one.  ;)

 

Just call him Professor *SNAP*!

 

I need to find out for my own well being.

 

When and if I am mistaken, I will admit to it and gaze upon your snapness.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This story says as much about the media's grasp of global warming.  The reporter for AP spends as much if not more time talking about GORE the politician (blah0blah) than about his message to Congress.  Hopefully we can find better coverage.

 

Gore urges quick U.S. action to avert global warming catastrophe

Wednesday,  March 21, 2007 11:27 AM

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Al Gore, a Democratic favorite for the presidency despite pronouncements that he's not running, spoke out on his signature issue Wednesday, telling Congress that climate change poses a crisis that threatens civilization.

 

In a return he described as emotional, Gore testified before House panels that it is not too late to deal with climate change “and we have everything we need to get started.”

 

Gore's return to Congress marked the first time he had been in the Capitol since 2001 when he was the defeated Democratic nominee still presiding over the Senate in his role as vice president.

 

...

 

More at:

http://dispatch.com/dispatch/content/local_news/stories/2007/03/21/global.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans frosty on Gore's global warming warnings

POSTED: 7:20 p.m. EDT, March 21, 2007

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Al Gore, who has reversed his political fortunes to become a potential contender in the 2008 presidential race, made an emotional return to Congress Wednesday in an appeal for an even more dramatic rescue -- saving the planet.

 

Gore -- who is one of voters' top choices for the Democratic presidential nomination even though he says he's not running -- implored lawmakers to adopt a list of policy prescriptions to stop global warming.

 

Fresh off a triumphant Academy Awards appearance in which his climate change documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" won two Oscars, Gore drew overflow crowds as he testified before House and Senate panels about a "true planetary emergency" if Congress fails to act.

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/21/gore.ap/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sort of interesting article on Cleveland and environmental issues from OSU's student paper. The lead-off is sort of amateur, imo, but it seems surprisingly balanced when you read the whole thing.

 


Cleveland Ranked Third Best City Ever

Mark Jablonski

Issue date: 3/26/07 Section: The Melting Pot

 

Did I say best? Sorry. What I meant to say was "most polluted."

 

At least, that's what the Earth Day Network's 2007 Urban Environment Report says.

 

Scoring 72 American cities based on over 200 indicators, the report ranks Cleveland 70th.

 

...

 

More at:

www.csucauldron.com/media/storage/paper516/news/2007/03/26/TheMeltingPot/Cleveland.Ranked.Third.Best.City.Ever-2791747.shtml]http://media.www.csucauldron.com/media/storage/paper516/news/2007/03/26/TheMeltingPot/Cleveland.Ranked.Third.Best.City.Ever-2791747.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sort of interesting article on Cleveland and environmental issues from OSU's student paper. The lead-off is sort of amateur, imo, but it seems surprisingly balanced when you read the whole thing.

 

http://media.www.csucauldron.com/media/storage/paper516/news/2007/03/26/TheMeltingPot/Cleveland.Ranked.Third.Best.City.Ever-2791747.shtml

 

Cleveland Ranked Third Best City Ever

Mark Jablonski

Agreed, Jameic.  Sarcastic leads get pretty old.  Mark Jablonski is young, maybe he has not heard it all like old guys like me have. 

 

From my "latest reading" on air pollution, 75% of Cleveland's bad air comes from coal fired power plants upwind, and from the huge amount of motoring in Ohio. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get ready to hear the conservatives touting this study:

 

Study: California being warmed by urbanization

By Dan WhitcombWed Mar 28, 5:50 PM ET

 

Average temperatures across California rose slightly from 1950 to 2000, with the greatest warming coming in the state's big cities and mostly caused by urbanization -- not greenhouse gases -- authors of a study released on Wednesday said.

 

The study found that average temperatures in California rose nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (nearly one degree Celsius) in the second half of the 20th century, led by large urban centers such as San Francisco and Southern California.

 

"Everybody's talking about the carbon coming out of the SUV exhaust or the coal plant, but in the past 50 years in California the bigger impact has been urbanization and suburbanization," said Bill Patzert of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, one of the study's authors.

 

...

 

More at:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070328/us_nm/california_warming_dc&printer=1;_ylt=AjaC4Ie9qVP11zvZ8XbF5RkXIr0F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From CNN:

 

 

Split court rules against Bush on greenhouse gases

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ordered the federal government on Monday to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming.

 

In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.

 

Greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the landmark environmental law, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his majority opinion.

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/02/scotus.greenhousegas.ap/index.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article above makes it sound like the transition away from our current crappy rankings is going to be cheap and painless.  It paints a rosy picture about how we'll be instantly better off.  I like this article better...

 

CARBON DIOXIDE

Emissions fight puts Ohio in tough spot

Wednesday,  April 4, 2007 3:36 AM

By Spencer Hunt

 

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

could find themselves paying higher electricity bills and more for their cars as the federal government begins to confront global warming.

 

Ohio-based power plants, cars, trucks, factories, businesses and homes spewed an estimated 287.3 million tons of carbon dioxide into Earth's atmosphere in 2003.

 

That ranked Ohio fourth worst among states for the key greenhouse gas.

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article above makes it sound like the transition away from our current crappy rankings is going to be cheap and painless.  It paints a rosy picture about how we'll be instantly better off.  I like this article better...

What I get out of the SCOTUS decision(s) is that it is now apparent to the automakers that CO2 pollution laws are forthcoming.  Hence, they should factor this into their business plans.  Actions will include:

1. planning for future regulations

2. investing in appropriate technology

 

The automakers now have "some expectation" that their investments in CO2 control technology will yield *some* benefit for them.  The technology will be necesary for them to participate in the marketplace.  For example, it would have been folly for the automakers to put hundreds of millions into lithium battery technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...we all need cars (sadly) and we all need electricity.  To think those costs to comply with new regulations will be born by the companies is shortsighted at best.  They are passed along to customers. 

 

The Dispatch article is saying that Ohioans are very dependant on cars, and use electricity that is very dependant on the combustion of fossil fuels (relative to other states).  Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Ohioans will pay more to comply with CO2 regulations than residents of other states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Ohioans are very dependant on cars, and use electricity that is very dependant on the combustion of fossil fuels (relative to other states).  Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Ohioans will pay more to comply with CO2 regulations than residents of other states.

Oh, yes, I agree with you on all points.  I foresee an era when locations that are far from markets or efficient transportation will fail due to high transportation costs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...we all need cars (sadly) and we all need electricity. 

 

We certainly don't need as much car or as much electricity has many of us use now.

 

"By 2009, iSuppli estimates that 71.5% of the North American market will be comprised of flat

panel televisions with screen sizes of 30 inches and above. Overall, many of the large screen, flat

panel televisions being purchased by consumers will consume double or more the active mode

power of the smaller CRT televisions that they are replacing. Much of this differential in power

consumption is simply attributable to the increased size of the products being sold now."

 

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/tv_vcr/TV_update_document_Final.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From National Geographic.com

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-second-flood.html

 

London, Tokyo Submerged by Rising Seas -- In "Second Life"

John Roach

for National Geographic News

April 4, 2007

 

 

Tokyo, Amsterdam, and the entire Mediterranean island of Ibiza were inundated with floodwaters today due to rising sea levels brought on by global warming.

 

Or at least, that would have been the headline if events in the virtual world Second Life mirrored reality.

 

A rolling flood temporarily swamped several areas of the online world as part of a campaign to illustrate the potential environmental and financial impacts of climate change.

 

...

 

More at:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-second-flood.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global warming could pummel Lake Erie economy

Sunday, April 08, 2007

Michael Scott

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Lake Erie could suffer the ravages of global warming in the next century, while also buffering Northeast Ohio from the worst effects.

 

That's the opinion of some in response to dire warnings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which released its fourth report in Brussels last week.

 

In short, the IPCC report claims that if world temperatures rise even slightly, as projected, there will be increased mortality from heat waves, floods and droughts and 30 percent of the world's species will be at risk of extinction.

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1176021066311540.xml&coll=2


"Now you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you Buddy? It's the free market. And you're a part of it." -- Gordon Gekko.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Green building and sustainability are becoming such a hot topic with such extreme awareness of global warming as of late. But how does historic preservation fit into this? I haven't really learned much yet about what restrictions are put on historic houses and districts. At a time when we should be conserving as much energy as possible, do you guys see there being a lot of conflict between the preservationists and the people wanting America to go green? Do you get what I'm saying? Like, are there ways to alter the 1860s Italianate rowhouse with 15 foot ceilings to be more energy efficient without guidelines in the way, or are there ways of designing in-fill development that fits the context of historic structures? And at the same time, is it economically feasible or will it be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote from Al Gore

“The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,”

You would think that for someone who invented the internet, he could at least google "global warming skeptics"

 

Hurricane forecaster takes aim at Al Gore over global warming

 

05:49 PM CDT on Friday, April 6, 2007

 

Cain Burdeau / Associated Press

Bill Haber / Associated Press

 

Dr. William Gray, the scientist known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster, on Friday called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" for making the Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.

 

Dr. Gray takes issue with the suggestion that global warming is changing the world's climate and increasing the number of stronger hurricanes.

 

"For someone of his statue (stature), he's a gross alarmist," Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference, where he delivered the closing speech.

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.ap.org/

 

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype

Stuart Isett for The New York Times

Published: March 13, 2007

 

Al Gore’s film on global warming depicted a bleak future.

 

Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.

 

Don J. Easterbrook, a geology professor, has cited “inaccuracies” in “An Inconvenient Truth.”

 

...

 

More at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1176177600&en=a6de09d1be443ae1&ei=5070

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We certainly don't need as much car or as much electricity has many of us use now.

 

"By 2009, iSuppli estimates that 71.5% of the North American market will be comprised of flat

panel televisions with screen sizes of 30 inches and above. Overall, many of the large screen, flat

panel televisions being purchased by consumers will consume double or more the active mode

power of the smaller CRT televisions that they are replacing. Much of this differential in power

consumption is simply attributable to the increased size of the products being sold now."

 

The TV producer in me has to chime in on this one. People are buying larger televisions for one simple reason- HDTV. Truth be told, the larger the television, the greater the difference between perceived resolution of HDTV and SDTV. There's really no point in buying a 20" CRT television if your watching HDTV, because you won't notice the difference between HDTV and standard-definition formats. You should go big or go home. Also, many people with a basement entertainment room (where it's easy to achieve total darkness) are being smarter and buying a digital projector. In the short run, projectors are cheaper and give you much more bang for your buck (screen sizes are ridiculous), but in the long run, they cost about as much as a standard flat panel television (replacement bulbs for projectors are really expensive). A properly calibrated projector looks great too, and it's basically like having a small movie theater inside your house (as long as you have the sound system to back it up). When friends or family come over, they'll be shocked. On top of that, projectors save a lot on energy. They're far more energy efficient than their tube/plasma/LCD counterparts.

 

Basically, if you have a dark room or basement in your house, buy a digital projector and screen. You'll save on energy costs, be helping the enviroment, AND enjoy the largest picture possible. With projectors, you can have your cake and eat it too. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The TV producer in me has to chime in on this one. People are buying larger televisions for one simple reason- HDTV. Truth be told, the larger the television, the greater the difference between perceived resolution of HDTV and SDTV. There's really no point in buying a 20" CRT television if your watching HDTV, because you won't notice the difference between HDTV and standard-definition formats. You should go big or go home. Also, many people with a basement entertainment room (where it's easy to achieve total darkness) are being smarter and buying a projector. In the short run, projectors are cheaper and give you much more bang for your buck (screen sizes are ridiculous), but in the long run, they cost about as much as a standard flat panel television (replacement bulbs for projectors are really expensive). A properly calibrated projector looks great too, and it's basically like having a small movie theater inside your house. When friends or family come over, they'll be shocked. On top of that, projectors save a lot on energy. They're far more energy efficient than their tube/plasma/LCD counterparts.

 

Basically, if you have a dark room or basement in your house, buy a projector and screen. You'll save on energy costs, be helping the enviorment, AND enjoy the largest picture possible.

 

I am building a media room in my lower level now and I am trying to help save the environment, so I have just one question...where can I get a deal on a projector?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have them at Circuit City and Best Buy...they're pretty popular now. I would pay attention to the resolution of the projector. The pixels on my mom's projector are huge. They are fun to watch though, especially with surround sound hooked up to it. Just make sure you turn off the projector after you use it. My mom had to replace the bulb in her projector after less than a year of use because no one knew it would be an issue. I think bulbs are several hundred dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^there are lots of HD options in the $1000 to $2000 range, some damn good ones too. We bought an InFocus package for $1400 with a 120" screen and 25-foot component monster cables. InFocus is not top-of-the-line, but once calibrated in a dark room, it looks great. Make sure to buy a widescreen HD model. SDTV will not look as good blown up, but HD broadcasts, HD-DVD's, and even anamorphic (higher resolution) standard DVD's will look amazing.

 

replacement bulbs are $300, but if you remember turn off your projector, you can get 2-3 years out of them. A normal household would replace a bulb every two years. Besides the initial energy savings of using a DLP projector instead of large screen plasma, you also will be turning off lights more often. The best image on a projector is only achieved in a dark room.

 

We replace a bulb every year, but we're a fraternity annex. :|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The TV producer in me has to chime in on this one. People are buying larger televisions for one simple reason- HDTV. Truth be told, the larger the television, the greater the difference between perceived resolution of HDTV and SDTV. There's really no point in buying a 20" CRT television if your watching HDTV, because you won't notice the difference between HDTV and standard-definition formats.

A technical article I read on HDTV said there was no point buying an HDTV with a screen smaller than 35", but I think that there is a lot more to it than that.

 

When I had Dishnetwork-satellite with about a 600 lines (of vertical resolution) video source, it looked fantastic on my 1995 27" Panasonic CRT TV.  Ball games were great.

 

I think that the difference that "someone" is selling us is when you get to the 1280 line sources.  1280 resolution is only two of the specifications in the HDTV lineup.  Most of the material is more like the 600 line, maybe 720.  I think the TV stations only broadcast in the highest resolutions on just a few evenings a week.  The Superbowl, for example.  Most people with these TVs don't get a broadcast off the air and use cable for more selection.  The add-on HDTV tuners are way overpriced with prices up to $800--for a humble tuner with no moving parts (!).  Even the cheapest set top box HDTV tuners are $300, IIRC from when I priced one.

 

Then there is the dearth of HDTV on cable.  Standard cable is just analog TV.   Digital cable is probably about 600 lines like Dish Network.  There are only a few channels on any cable tv system that source HDTV and that would probably be limited to HBO and the exciting Discovery Channel coverage of a cuttlefish opening a clam off Borneo.

 

So, to sum it up you could save a lot of money on the purchase price and a lot of power buying a TV that is smaller than 35".  The other products are oversold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

digital SDTV is generally delivered in the 480i format. It is not 600 lines of resolution. HDTV comes in 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. There is a huge resolution difference (HD is 3-6 times the resolution), but you generally sit far enough away from the screen that it's not terribly noticeable unless you have a massive television or projector. Hence why I say "go big or go home." On my projector (120" screen), the difference between a SD digital TV broadcast and HD digital broadcast (like Discovery HD) is MASSIVE. Now the difference between a progressive scan anamorphic SD DVD and HD broadcasts is not so noticeable, even at 120 inches. The reason for this is because anamorphic DVD's are higher resolution than regular DVD's. A normal 1.85:1 DVD will have a resolution of about 360x720 pixels. An anamorphic 1.85:1 DVD will have a resolution of about 480x854 pixels. That's enough to make a difference. Moral of the story- if you bought anamorphic DVD's, replacing them with HD DVD's might not be worth the money. You can look at the back of your DVD case and it will say "enhanced for 16:9 televisions" if it's anamorphic. Hold onto those.

 

I have yet to try HD DVD's, but I'm sure they will look amazing, perhaps pushing the resolution limits of older 35mm film transfers. HD will set the home standard for likely the next century (possibly for all time). There will never be a need for higher resolution than HD in homes, because there will never be enough space in your home to put in a large enough projector to make a noticeable difference. Beyond HD, modern 35mm film in a movie theater is all that can best it in terms of resolving power.

 

Analog TV usually looks like crap (well, actually, it can vary). Most analog broadcasts are only 300 lines of resolution. A SD digital broadcast will blow that out of the water since it's 500 lines. It's about the difference between analog television and normal DVD's hooked up through component or S-video cables. To tell the truth though, very few broadcasters use full resolution HD even when they advertise themselves as such. Some mix in SD video with HD video all the time (like ESPN HD). Discovery HD and PBS HD are in a league of their own...no one else matces that resolution. You must remember that HD has not fully reached its potential. Many "HD" broadcasts are only half the resolution they lead you to believe, hence why on some networks, the difference between digital SD and digital HD may be hard to notice. In the future though, you can be damn sure the gap between SD and HD will grow larger...potentially up to six times as large one day. That's the difference between those mediocre 6-megapixel DSLR's sold at Circuit City today and the 36-megapixel cameras that could possibly compete with medium format film. Again, all this is still a good amount of time away...

 

The main thing HD will allow is a high quality image at much larger screen sizes. At 25 inches, you probably won't notice any difference...

 

Digital cable is probably about 600 lines like Dish Network.

 

No, it's usually delivered in 480i NTSC which is about 500 lines. Perhaps you're thinking of PAL, which is the European system.

 

So, to sum it up you could save a lot of money on the purchase price and a lot of power buying a TV that is smaller than 35".  The other products are oversold.

 

I'd say if your TV is under 50 inches, just get standard digital cable. You will hardly notice a difference between a SDTV and HD broadcast since you probably sit six feet away from the screen. HD costs a lot more money, and most people don't have the equipment to take full advantage of it. Only massive televisions and projectors really make a big enough difference to justify the expenditure.

 

But back to my original point. If you are looking to upgrade to HD, the DLP projector is the best way to go. It's the most bang for your buck, and you will be saving energy. If everyone buys projectors, the switch to HD will not require more energy consumption. If everyone buys 60 inch plasma TV's, we're in trouble...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But back to my original point. If you are looking to upgrade to HD, the DLP projector is the best way to go. It's the most bang for your buck, and you will be saving energy. If everyone buys projectors, the switch to HD will not require more energy consumption. If everyone buys 60 inch plasma TV's, we're in trouble...

I agree with your points and your conclusions.  You know the resolutions and offerings better than I do!

 

Your point about a (modern) projection TV being the energy* and consumer satisfaction "winner" is very insightful.

 

*the global warming tie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't buy the global warming "tie". No one has really talked about specific stats with power reduction. Anyone have any figures on how much power is saved using a digital projector vs. 20" CRT TV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't buy the global warming "tie". No one has really talked about specific stats with power reduction. Anyone have any figures on how much power is saved using a digital projector vs. 20" CRT TV?

I think the real question is, if I buy a larger flat screen, say in the 60'' range, how many trees do I have to plant for a carbon offset?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's beside the point. I don't think Johnny Appleseed would buy an SUV because he did his share of offsetting his emissions! We should be planting trees anyway. You're all wasteful! All of you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...