an extrapolation about solar energy

Originally posted by twhitehead
I agree. But he did state what the figure referred to. However, I doubt he equally calculated the maximum theoretically possible wind energy, but rather the reasonably harvestable wind resources, and he should have attempted the same for solar.
Once could for example build a massive lake at the top of some of the best rain fed mountains (or even artifici ...[text shortened]... ologically harmful than farming on land. (not that I am claiming they will be properly managed).

The difficulty is that most life is found in the littoral zones and once you get away from them the problems with getting the electricity back to land start escalating.

I've got to agree about nuclear fusion. At JET they're going for ignition, probably as a way of trying to keep the project running past the end of it's useful life. But really to get anything remotely economic is a hugely tall order, especially considering that the fuel is deuterium and tritium which aren't trivially obtained. The industry joke is that nuclear fusion is the power source of the future, and always will be.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The difficulty is that most life is found in the littoral zones and once you get away from them the problems with getting the electricity back to land start escalating.

If we are considering continent size solar farms, then getting the electricity back to land will be the least of the problems. There may even be benefits. I would think well placed solar arrays could reduce the likelihood of devastating storms. This is similar to using wind farms for storm control. There is of course a danger of affecting the weather in unexpected ways.

The problem is when governements talk the talk, but never walk the walk.

The technology is known, why not just bring it into action? What are we waiting for?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The problem is when governements talk the talk, but never walk the walk.

The technology is known, why not just bring it into action? What are we waiting for?

Many renewables are being rolled out world wide. The main obstacle is entrenched interests in competing industries (mostly fossil fuels). South Africa has several large solar farms in operation and will have more soon, and one or two wind farms. But they are negligible in the bigger scheme. We also have a drive towards installing solar water heaters.
We should be doing a lot more in the solar and wind arenas.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The problem is when governements talk the talk, but never walk the walk.

The technology is known, why not just bring it into action? What are we waiting for?

not sure but I think governments just may be generally waiting for the initial setup costs of installing renewables to fall so dramatically that they can get an immediate short-term economic benefit from that which would benefit the political popularity short-term rather than have to wait for the renewables to pay for themselves well ofter the next general election and in the mean time, have to justify the short term costs to their voters.
If that is the case, one problem with that is what they are waiting for may never happen within our lifetimes. Another problem with that is that it may be not as hard as they think to persuade voters that it is worth a short term cost to themselves for the longer term benefits -politicians do sometimes have the tendency to think their voters are as stupid as they are as I have noticed this on several occasions here in the UK with their occasional outrageously stupid condescending propaganda near election time that assumes total ignorance and stupidity and that none of us can think for ourselves.

Originally posted by humy
not sure but I think governments just may be generally waiting for the initial setup costs of installing renewables to fall so dramatically that they can get an immediate short-term economic benefit from that which would benefit the political popularity short-term rather than have to wait for the renewables to pay for themselves well ofter the next general election and in the mean time, have to justify the short term costs to their voters.

My understanding is that in SA and Germany, the government does not invest. Instead, they guarantee to buy electricity at minimum price for a specified number of years, then private companies build the solar/wind farms at their own cost. In the case of coal/nuclear however, the government is the main investor.
I have also seen stats showing wind to currently be the most economical investment at present, so there is no good excuse for investing in nuclear or coal when wind is a cheaper option.
I do realise that replacing currently existing power stations is another matter, but at least we should not be building new fossil fuel power stations.

Originally posted by twhitehead

...but at least we should not be building new fossil fuel power stations.

I concur. If only the rest of the world would generally think like us scientists.

Originally posted by twhitehead
My understanding is that in SA and Germany, the government does not invest. Instead, they guarantee to buy electricity at minimum price for a specified number of years, then private companies build the solar/wind farms at their own cost. In the case of coal/nuclear however, the government is the main investor.
I have also seen stats showing wind to curre ...[text shortened]... ations is another matter, but at least we should not be building new fossil fuel power stations.

Every barrel of oil brought up to surface, every tonne of coal from the ground, every qubic meter of gas from the wells, every fossil fuel is going to be burnt, thus releasing huge amounts of CO2 and will be released into the atmosphere.

The only way to prevent a climate disaster is to ban the use of fossil fuels!

I know that this cannot be done over one night, but some countries, the bad guys of the world, especially those who actually can afford it, do near to nothing about it !!! They use more effort to point fingers at others than they do for reducing the CO2 emissions. Now even a highly pulluting method, fracking, are beginning to be used, to squeeses out even more from the ground, thus giving even more CO2 to the atmoshere. The same ones pointing fingers at others.

In Norway they are gradually replacing petrol cars to electrical cars. In Denmark they build up the worlds best wind industry. Other finger pointing bad guys countries think it's enough by just pointing fingers...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The only way to prevent a climate disaster is to ban the use of fossil fuels!

well, at least the burning of them. The idea of using fossil fuels but ban the burning them is not a new idea because, if my memory serves me correctly, someone of some historical significance suggested it a long time ago but I cannot remember exactly who. Someone suggested that fossil fuels are a far too 'precious' of a resource to just burn away.

Originally posted by humy
well, at least the burning of them. The idea of using fossil fuels but ban the burning them is not a new idea because, if my memory serves me correctly, someone of some historical significance suggested it a long time ago but I cannot remember exactly who. Someone suggested that fossil fuels are a far too 'precious' of a resource to just burn away.

Well, every carbon base fossil, minus an very small part, is intended to burn, thus filling the atmosphere with CO2.

And, yes, my idea isn't new, and certainly not invented by me. But the petro/energy industri say that it's impossible to quit, of course, they are getting rich of it. When the climat change is full blown, then they are dead anyway...

The ban idea is however a very provoking idea. People think it is a naïve idea. But people who think that the atmoshere can handle all this CO2 without affecting the climate are the one who is really naïve.

I don't like the Earth to have a Venus-like atmosphere. No Life possible whatsoever. The earthly bio era at end.