| mrstickball said: The other aspect of this is that ground-based renewables won't work. They aren't scalable to what we need. If we wanted enough windmills to power the globe, we would need so many, we would probably change global wind patterns that may effect global warming/cooling, as we're directly altering how our planet works. Likewise, with thousands of square miles of solar arrays, who is to say that it won't effect the energy that is sent to earth by the sun, causing unnatural global cooling? Hydroelectricity is a totally renewable source. That doesn't mean that it hasn't killed wildlife like salmon and harmed the earth. Us being here, at all, is hurting the earth. Sometimes the right solution isn't the solution that's best for right now...Which some of the people like Sarduk are advocating. It's better to have strong longterm solutions, rather than knee-jerk on fears about the end of the world. If you vouch that GW will end the earth, your as loony as the 2012 people. As others have said, the best 2 options are: - Nuclear Fission based on H3 mined from lunar regolith or other sources - Dyson arrays in the Lagrange points that do not directly effect earth ...And how the heck are we going to get either technology by funding solutions like windmills and geothermal energy? Such solutions are going to require multi-billion dollar investments from major companies. As I've been advocating: That US Stimulus money should have gone to a carbon nanotube or artificial diamond space elevator, and then look for otherworld solution(s)....We could easily have renewable or near-renewable energy for 100% of the earth if we were smart by putting money that'd go toward inefficient renewables into efficient renewables, and super-efficient non-renewables. |
Bold 1: Solar power isn't going to cool the Earth. Isn't the first law of thermodynamics stating that energy is neither created or destroyed'? Since Solar panels tend to capture energy by design it would heat up the planet if anything as more energy is retained and transmitted elsewhere from the desert to areas which have far more water vapour which retains the heat. Deserts get very cold at night and that energy is lost, but if you transmit that energy to say Florida where theres a high humidity that energy will be retained for longer.
Bold 2: Geothermal plants are 90-95% capacitance, meaning they are running flat out almost all of the time. As renewable energy they would probably be the best right now if it wasn't for the limited availability of good sites. Windmills in my country run at 42-46% capacitance, so if you've got a good site you can be sure to get good power from them half the time. They are actually beating out a few thermal projects for funding without subsidy and without incentives. The only issue with their deployment is really NIMBYism. Furthermore if you're looking at it on the longer term once the site is set up the maintenence/capital cost diminish to miniscule levels over a 50 year timespan (assuming 2-3 replacements with more efficient turbines) because once the nacelles are up and the cables are laid your electrical cables you're done.
Tease.
