Originally posted by humyI'm not sure what they think the percentage of the total comes from solar but paving 19,000 square miles or 13 million acres would provide only about 5 gigawatts of energy. A pretty high sum but I think the US uses something like 17,000 gigawatthours a day or close to a terawatt 24/7. Doesn't sound like 0.005 tw production of solar would go very far. Correct my math if I am wrong.
This is just the first part of the link:
"...Engineers develop state-by-state plan to convert US to 100% clean, renewable energy by 2050
One potential way to combat ongoing climate change, eliminate air pollution mortality, create jobs and stabilize energy prices involves converting the wo ...[text shortened]... n."
Lets just hope the usual incredibly corrupt stupid politics doesn't block this plan.
Originally posted by sonhousehttp://thesolutionsproject.org/
I'm not sure what they think the percentage of the total comes from solar .....
Originally posted by twhiteheadI thought the idea was to get away from CO2 production, I think biomass is the direct conversion of biomass to Methane which will turn directly to CO2 when burned. Maybe less of other undesirable stuff like NO or NO2 or CO but still, it is emitting greenhouse gasses.
Oddly enough there is no mention of biomass which is one of the largest sources of renewables in European countries that are going green. Admittedly Europe has less sunlight, but still, the US could produce a lot of energy from biomass.
Originally posted by sonhouseBiomass is when you burn rubbish or convert animal manure and other waste into biogass which gets burnt. Because the sources are renewable and not fossil fuels they are largely carbon neutral. Also important is the fact that without burning them, they usually release methane into the atmosphere which is an even worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Also, you can save an awful lot of land from landfills.
I thought the idea was to get away from CO2 production, I think biomass is the direct conversion of biomass to Methane which will turn directly to CO2 when burned. Maybe less of other undesirable stuff like NO or NO2 or CO but still, it is emitting greenhouse gasses.
Doesn't seem like it should be in the 'Green' category.
Originally posted by twhiteheadBecause renewables are not cheaper, quicker to build, and seem to have about the same political hurdles.
Why? Renewables are cheaper, quicker to build and have fewer political hurdles.
Originally posted by John OsmarGlobal warming was proven beyond reasonable doubt WAY before Al Gore 'discovered' it was a problem.
I'm sure that by "stupid politics", you are referring to Global Warming Deniers, but that is not the first "stupid politics" involved. Twenty years ago when the US media first jumped on global warming, Al Gore and the Democrats immediately proposed a Cap-n-Trade wealth redistribution plan to "solve" the problem. This led to the predictable circle-the-wago ...[text shortened]... nd propose workable solutions like Stanford has here, we would not have wasted 20 years arguing.
Originally posted by John OsmarKeeping in mind that 'global warming deniers' that count are the fossil fuel industries.
I'm sure that by "stupid politics", you are referring to Global Warming Deniers, but that is not the first "stupid politics" involved.
Originally posted by googlefudgeThey are cheaper, and quicker to build, that is hardly disputable. The political hurdles depends on what type of nuclear you are talking about. In the US, the regulations for new nuclear technology is enormous, so they would almost certainly have to continue the same old ancient designs.
Because renewables are not cheaper, quicker to build, and seem to have about the same political hurdles.
Originally posted by John Osmarthe theory was already proven by 20 years ago and even way before then because basic understanding of physics tells us that CO2 should cause global warming and, even back then, it would have been an incredible massive scientific mystery if it didn't! But, predictably, it took a long time before politicians merely accepted let alone responded to the scientific facts of the case.
'...Twenty years ago ...If the politicians had waited for the scientists to prove the theory ....
Originally posted by googlefudgeGlobal warming was proven but the claim that global warming is primarily man made has not been proven.
Global warming was proven beyond reasonable doubt WAY before Al Gore 'discovered' it was a problem.
Basically what you just said is that republicans are stupid.