by Patrick ➕follow (60) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 104,451 - 104,490 of 117,730 Next » Last » Search these comments
That's major fear in the face of extinction.
crushing corporate power and establishing a socialist system.
Reparations for listening to Trump!
Good, because we have to do something.
By focusing on the choices in less overblown terms we can get closer to some practical solutions.
There are other choices, windmills don't really cause cancer, hydro not just from rivers but from ocean waves, tidal power, solar may fit into the picture too, perhaps the best is a blending of choices.
We need to look seriously at what the Europeans are doing that is working for them, instead of letting the rest of the world leave us behind so our rich pricks can keep their rate of returns optimal.
6rdB saysThe only practical solution that involves cutting CO2 emissions to nearly 0 and does not decrease life quality of "deplorables" of all races and nationalities is nuclear power,There are other choices, windmills don't really cause cancer, hydro not just from rivers but from ocean waves, tidal power, solar may fit into the picture too, perhaps the best is a blending of choices.
We need to look seriously at what the Europeans are doing that is working for them, instead of letting the rest of the world leave us behind so our rich pricks can keep their rate of returns optimal.
In short, poor people will be fucked because some scientifically incompetent utopians will make energy 5x more expensive, while not decreasing carbon emissions. One special interest - fossil fuels - will be replaced by another, so called "green" or "sustainable" or "clean" energy, whatever it means.
Windmills dude, how many you gonna build? That’s a lot of fields to cover, and they don’t always work. How do you connect it all? How do you manage VAR? You can’t!
If you look at link in #4 you will see that only countries with nuclear or hydro are extremely low-CO2 emitters.
You are FREE! to worship the FUHRER!
So do you think we maybe should heed all that wisdom of the ages???
The old rules of politics no longer apply. The only language understood by Donald Trump and his coterie of con artists, billionaires, generals, misfits and Christian fascists—and a Democratic Party that has sold us out—is fear.
I am not downvoting you - even though I disagree with you, we are having a reasonable conversation without any insults.
is that bio-diesel?
No, right?
Anyway because of the positive impact on the infrastructure and all, we should throw bio-diesel into the trade-off studies.
The solutions must come from the same top systems integrators that design all the other complicated systems we enjoy as a society.
So there is no need to consume organic material that can be otherwise useful as food or something.
Solar works in desert climates and covers up too much land
Sooooo..... 4e12 / 250 = 16 billion square meters = 16 thousand square kilometers . (remember, 1 square kilometer is 1000*1000 = 1 million square meters) . = 6150 square miles. It's about the area of Hawaii. It's a square 78 miles on each side.
SunnyvaleCA saysSooooo..... 4e12 / 250 = 16 billion square meters = 16 thousand square kilometers . (remember, 1 square kilometer is 1000*1000 = 1 million square meters) . = 6150 square miles. It's about the area of Hawaii. It's a square 78 miles on each side.
I've seen several times larger numbers
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/calculating-ivanpahs-solar-sprawl
http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/08/how-much-land-would-it-take-to-power-the-us-via-solar/
Of course, we wouldn't run 100% on photovoltaics because of storage issues, distribution, cost, load balancing, etc.
plant system uses less than 50kWh per ton
SunnyvaleCA saysSooooo..... 4e12 / 250 = 16 billion square meters = 16 thousand square kilometers . (remember, 1 square kilometer is 1000*1000 = 1 million square meters) . = 6150 square miles. It's about the area of Hawaii. It's a square 78 miles on each side.
I've seen several times larger numbers
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/calculating-ivanpahs-solar-sprawl
http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/08/how-much-land-would-it-take-to-power-the-us-via-solar/
Another issue with solar panels is that they are by no means carbon-neutral. And they emit much more of some heavy metals than nuclear. See Fig 3 in the paper.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es071763q
Solar is 50% worse than nuclear for lifetime CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour. Nuclear and wind tie for the best.
The study finds each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated over the lifetime of a nuclear plant has an emissions footprint of 4 grams of CO2 equivalent (gCO2e/kWh). The footprint of solar comes in at 6gCO2e/kWh and wind is also 4gCO2e/kWh. The best solar technology in the sunniest location has a footprint of 3gCO2/kWh, some seven times lower than the worst solar technology in the worst location (21gCO2/kWh). If we were running a civilization on ground based solar we would use a lot more bad locations.
In contrast, coal CCS (109g), gas CCS (78g), hydro (97g) and bioenergy (98g) have rela...
"not enough land" is certainly not one of them.
SunnyvaleCA says"not enough land" is certainly not one of them.
Prob true for US - we have enough sunny land for solar.
Where does the energy come from at night?
Batteries are helluva polluting. Batteries to cover night across the USA would be pollution crazy; and they don't last forever.
« First « Previous Comments 104,451 - 104,490 of 117,730 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,260,406 comments by 15,050 users - Maga_Chaos_Monkey, REpro online now