Originally posted by @wildgrass
Is this calculation for all hours or just daylight hours?

How will you convince everyone in California to move? Are we going to raze the Sequoias and Yosemite and Lake Tahoe?

300,000 km squared at 20%. 80%, that is down to 75,000 square km. 273 km on a side or about 170 miles on a side. He said the size of California just for comparison. There is a lot of area in the deserts of the US and a lot of other places around the world.

The main problem there is getting power from those places that now have little in the way of the ultra high voltage power grid lines which in the US are more or less around the perifery of the US, not so much in the desert and that would be a significant cost, maybe a trillion dollars just to get the power from the desert to the edges of the US where most of the big cities are, Miami, San Fransisco, NYC, Chicago, Denver, Seattle and so forth.

The grid would be vulnerable to solar flares so significant engineering would have to go into limiting damage from flares if it can be done at all. a 2000 mile long antenna can pick up significant energy from solar flares.

ZERO emission from nukes? You perhaps are forgetting about Fukashima and Chernobyl and 3 mile Island?

Getting rid of nuclear waste IS a problem, big problem. Probably solvable, sequestering in glass seems to work but it is a big problem and it is getting politically less viable where whole countries are closing down their nuke plants. Still better than coal all in all.

Fusion is progressing and new discoveries are made every week. They are getting up to 100 million degrees for 100 seconds and that will only get better as time goes by.

Fusion will prove to be essential for real space traveling civilization needs.
Like he said, fission is 8000 times more power than coal kg for kg and fusion is more efficient yet and you can figure about that kind of difference compared to oxy/hydrogen rockets too. It doesn't really matter if it takes 50 more years, the space program will benefit the most. Fusion can be even easier than fission, just have an accelerator long enough.

Also, anti-matter rocketry is actually ahead engineering wise now, they know how to use anti-matter, the main thing is getting it. There are plans afoot to capture antimatter in giant 300 meter wide chicken fence spheres in space charged up to 100 million volts and capture technologies to safely sequester the stuff and transfer to other mag traps.

Get that going an nothing will be more powerful kg for kg.

Of course all that is pipe dream right now but 100 years from now, different story.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
1) Smarter, emissions-based land use policy. Fuel efficiency standards. Lots of nuclear power.

2) Nuclear power. Energy-efficient lightbulbs, heating, cooling, transportation. Nuclear power. Electric vehicles. Nuclear power. Solar rooftops.

Fuel efficiency standards should be included with #2.

Why not do all the things you listed in #2 with fuel efficiency standards as well right now? Why are we waiting to conserve if it can be done without a tax? As long as the poor are not disproportionately burdened isn't that something that should be done ASAP?

Originally posted by @mchill
News Alert: The sun is somewhat larger than earth, and so, has slightly more power to offer us.

1. Stop subsidizing oil and coal companies with grants, and other corporate welfare, and shift those resources to solar power and wind, they are cleaner, and more renewable than digging stuff up from the ground.

2. See item 1.

Grants? What grants? Please explain in detail.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
"Getting rid of the waste" is not a danger of nuclear. It's a problem. Newly constructed nuclear plants actually reuse some of the waste. There's still waste in the end but it's pennies compared to coal.

The real issue here (to Metal Brain's questions): What power source is the least impactful and most sustainable long term? Weigh the pros and cons. Ig ...[text shortened]... the amount of energy needed, the land use for many alternative energy sources is not practical.

"Coal is cheap but dirty, poisionous and unsustainable."

Wet scrubbers, or flue gas desulfurization systems, remove sulfur dioxide, a major cause of acid rain, by spraying flue gas with limestone and water. The mixture reacts with the sulfur dioxide to form synthetic gypsum, a component of drywall.

You said nuclear energy is cheaper than coal. I'm not sure that is accurate unless clean coal technologies make it too expensive. If you disregard co2 and only focus on poisonous compounds like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, is coal really too expensive to burn?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Wet scrubbers, or flue gas desulfurization systems, remove sulfur dioxide, a major cause of acid rain, by spraying flue gas with limestone and water.

what about CO2? Problem not solved. Consequences still unacceptable.

Originally posted by @humy
What about bird kills from birds flying into trees or moving cars etc?

Do I really need to answer this? What about birds who fly too close to the sun?

Originally posted by @humy
You seen to reject wind and solar and now even hydroelectric yet we must eventually provide some alternative to fossil fuels. Nuclear alone will not do it at least for many decades if not centuries to come. So, and this is what I don't understand, as we cannot do it with nuclear alone and if you reject solar and wind and hydroelectric, how do you suggest we should eventually go 100% without fossil fuels? You seem to suggest no solution to the problem.

No solution? I did not say nuclear alone. In my opinion, nuclear is the most environmentally-responsible solution for the near term replacement of coal power plants. As we (hopefully) begin to rely more on electric over oil and natural gas, it will be even more important to advance nuclear as a compact, safe, zero emissions, and effective power source.

Thanks for reading the article I posted. All I'm asking is that we understand that the negative impacts of green energy sources can be significant and should be weighed against the positives. It isn't prudent to charge along in the name of carbon without addressing important negative consequences. Land use is an important consideration. Full windmill-based power doesn't make sense either.

Hydroelectric has serious negative impacts on the environment. Look it up.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
Fuel efficiency standards should be included with #2.

Why not do all the things you listed in #2 with fuel efficiency standards as well right now? Why are we waiting to conserve if it can be done without a tax? As long as the poor are not disproportionately burdened isn't that something that should be done ASAP?

I'm not waiting for anything, are you?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
300,000 km squared at 20%. 80%, that is down to 75,000 square km. 273 km on a side or about 170 miles on a side. He said the size of California just for comparison. There is a lot of area in the deserts of the US and a lot of other places around the world.

The main problem there is getting power from those places that now have little in the way of ...[text shortened]... e most of the big cities are, Miami, San Fransisco, NYC, Chicago, Denver, Seattle and so forth.

Yes. That's why I said it wasn't practical. Humy didn't understand this point.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Yes. That's why I said it wasn't practical. Humy didn't understand this point.

what is wrong with just solar and wind power being generated locally like in my area? And what is wrong with a supergrid if it isn't? It is practical.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
No solution? I did not say nuclear alone. In my opinion, nuclear is the most environmentally-responsible solution for the near term replacement of coal power plants. As we (hopefully) begin to rely more on electric over oil and natural gas, it will be even more important to advance nuclear as a compact, safe, zero emissions, and effective power source.
...[text shortened]... make sense either.

Hydroelectric has serious negative impacts on the environment. Look it up.

So what IS your solution if not going at least mostly renewable with a mix of mainly wind, solar, hydroelectric etc?

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Do I really need to answer this? What about birds who fly too close to the sun?

none fly too close to the sun. But birds are killed by cars and even sometimes by colliding with trees and yet nobody is objecting to cars and trees because of this; why should bird kills from wind turbines be treated as different? I would guess the same people that object to wind turbines because they kill a few birds probably on average collectively kill more birds themselves driving their own cars. Just like with all things in life, it is irrational to just focus on the cost/negatives to reject it without also considering the possible benefits/positives. Wind power is part of the solution to the problem of CO2 pollution and would probably indirectly save more birds in the long run than kill them; that is a benefit/positive to counter cost/negatives.

Originally posted by @humy
none fly too close to the sun. But birds are killed by cars and even sometimes by colliding with trees and yet nobody is objecting to cars and trees because of this; why should bird kills from wind turbines be treated as different? I would guess the same people that object to wind turbines because they kill a few birds probably on average collectively kill mor ...[text shortened]... more birds in the long run than kill them; that is a benefit/positive to counter cost/negatives.

It's a classic whataboutism False equivalency of course, as trees don't provide electricity for human consumption.

If this argument worked logically, there would be a lot less people in prison. "Excuse me your honor, my client only killed one person, but what about boats? Surely I don't see cancer standing trial here in the court room either. Why do you not object to that, but you object to murder?"

I am not focusing just on the negatives. I am weighing the pros/cons. If your scalable long term solution is wind turbines, you'll need to justify the land use. You'll need to chart out where you'll put these things to replace hundreds of coal power plants. It's going to take up a lot of space. Your "data" on scalable wind power is purely anecdotal. Do you anecdotally observe birds and windmills living in harmony? They look like bird-killing machines.

This data is from the NEI, so they have an agenda, but the data is the data [1]. How can you justify biting off an area of land the size of California for generating power, when the same result can be achieved using 200x less space?

[1] https://www.nei.org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/Policy/Papers/Land_Use_Carbon_Free_Technologies.pdf?ext=.pdf

Originally posted by @wildgrass
It's a classic whataboutism False equivalency of course, as trees don't provide electricity for human consumption.

If this argument worked logically, there would be a lot less people in prison. "Excuse me your honor, my client only killed one person, but what about boats? Surely I don't see cancer standing trial here in the court room either. Why do yo ...[text shortened]... .org/CorporateSite/media/filefolder/Policy/Papers/Land_Use_Carbon_Free_Technologies.pdf?ext=.pdf

If your scalable long term solution is wind turbines, you'll need to justify the land use.

No, you don't. Farming and forestry etc can continue around wind turbines just like it does in my area.
I can see from my window sheep continuing to graze around them unimpeded just fine and nobody had to move and I still see plenty of birds.
Off-shore wind power certainly doesn't require justify land use nor even ocean use as they do little to interfere with marine life such as fish.
Roof-top solar panels also don't require justify the land use as most roof tops areas aren't used for much!

You still haven't said what is your solution if we don't go mostly renewable. Obviously it isn't yet feasible for the world to go mostly nuclear. Maybe 30% in the next 30 years with difficulty but then what? -I mean, how is the other 70% of the world's energy to be generated if not from nuclear nor fossil fuel nor renewables?
Obviously any realistic solution requires mostly going renewable, presumably mainly with solar and wind and hydroelectric mix, and there is no insurmountable technical barriers making that forever impractical.
Going mostly renewable must surely do less long term damage to life on Earth than continuing mostly with burning fossil fuels.

... so they have an agenda,

what? so it is all lies and mass conspiracy?
https://www.carbonbrief.org/bird-death-and-wind-turbines-a-look-at-the-evidence
"...
Several studies have compared the effect of different energy sources on bird mortality overall. One, published earlier this year, calculates windfarms killed 20,000 birds died in 2009 in the US – while nuclear plants killed about 330,000 and fossil fueled power plants more than 14 million. The research concludes that taken together, fossil-fueled facilities are about 17 times more dangerous per gigawatt hour of electricity produced to birds than wind and nuclear power stations.
..."
Is the above claim that this came from "Several studies " a lie?

and what about

"...the RSPB’s conservation director, Martin Harper, says a large body of scientific evidence shows “appropriately located windfarms have negligible impacts” on bird populations..."?
I mean, can the RSPB’s conservation director creditably have an agenda in favor of wind power if he 'knows' that windfarms significantly threaten birds?
Would he be paid or working for the windfarm industry? If not, what is his motive?

How about this;
https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm
"The vast majority of research shows that wind turbines kill relatively few birds, at least compared with other man-made structures. The statistics are shocking if you consider just how many people are crying out against wind power for the birds' sake."

The article then shows the table with the following statistics;



Man-made structure/technology | Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)

Feral and domestic cats | Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]

Power lines | 130 million -- 174 million [source: AWEA]

Windows (residential and commercial) | 100 million -- 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]

Pesticides | 70 million [source: AWEA]

Automobiles | 60 million -- 80 million [source: AWEA]

Lighted communication towers | 40 million -- 50 million [source: AWEA]

Wind turbines | 10,000 -- 40,000 [source: ABC]
:..."

Is that just all lies? If you don't believe me, just google it yourself and find out the truth for yourself. It is a myth that wind turbines are a serious threat to bird populations.

Originally posted by @humy
Farming and forestry etc can continue around wind turbines just like it does in my area.
I can see from my window sheep continuing to graze around them unimpeded just fine and nobody had to move.

Roof-top solar panels also don't require justify the land use as most roof tops areas aren't used for much!

Going mostly renewable must surely do less long term damage to life on Earth than continuing mostly with burning fossil fuels.

Obviously I said in my first post on this thread and I've already agreed several times that rooftop solar is great and should be encouraged and promoted. I don't know why you keep saying this as if it's something we disagree about. It's just clearly not enough.

Look up how many wind turbines are needed to replace a single coal power plant (hint: it's a lot). The numbers in the article I posted suggest that the largest wind farm in the entire US (9,000 acres) replaces one plant. Construction started in 2011 and is still ongoing. I've driven past it. It's impressive, awesome, and enormous. The second largest only replaces 1/3 of one coal plant. The numbers of turbines get staggeringly high when you try to get rid of coal using just windmills. And how do you produce all those hundreds of thousands of windmills? With fossil fuels of course. How long would it take? Decades of course.

If you want to keep going down the anecdote road, then tell me this: how many wind turbines are "in your area"? How many coal plants do they replace? How many times more of the turbines "in your area" would be needed to replace coal in the US? (Let's assume rooftop solar gets it's 15% of total, and despite our increased reliance on electric cars, our electricity consumption doesn't increase due to heating/cooling efficiency tech... even though it probably will)

No one (except Metal Brain) is suggesting fossil fuels as a solution. Realistically, I think we're much better off investing in lots of nuclear now, as a proven, safe, reliable solution to reduce GHG emissions.