| SpokenTruth said: (1): Why in the world are you using current usage figures to compare potential? That's like saying your first job pays minum wage and that's all the income potential you'll ever have. |
I just listed out the reasons ...
Reaping the most out of renewable energy requires following the geography of these sources of energy. The most populated parts of United states live in these coastal areas where wind or solar energy is not abundant ...
It gets very cold in the east coast of US state's such as New York where solar energy gets dimmed down and there isn't a whole lot of wind power either. For the west coast such as California, their biggest renewable source of energy is hydropower which has very little potential left to capitalize on ...
I guess for the liberal residence of these states they should move to less glamorous states such as Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Texas if they want to save the planet so badly where those places are a haven for republicans LOL ... (liberals should pack up and take an L for once since they can't ever have leadership in renewable energy in their own states)
| SpokenTruth said: (2): Not conclusive? Find me one reputable climatologist that says we should stick with coal forever and not use renewables. Just one. And you apparently don't understand astrophysics or what I wrote. I said the runaway green house effect would be a result of the sun's luminosity increase 10% in ~1 billion years. You even said that part yourself. But a green house effect is not the only wasteland you can achieve. Flood 50% of our population and crank the heat up a few more degrees to kill our oxygen producing algae and yeah, wasteland. |
Do I have to when I showed you that using coal is not an immediate threat ?
No, I'm willing to bet that the algae will be just fine if they could survive the Paleozoic and Mesozoic era where temperatures were very easily 10 degrees celsius higher in the past than it is today ...
There's almost no chance of your proposed wasteland scenario happening for at least 200 million years or we could even sit out for the whole billion years where earth will be done for as far as being a habitable zone either way ... (before the increasing output in solar energy from the sun becomes a threat, most of the CO2 will have been consumed by organic life which then die in anaerobic environments where more dead organic life accumulates thus forming these sedimentary rocks such as limestones in less than 20 million years)
I'd be surprised if we ever able to break the 1000 ppm barrier by ourselves ... (CO2 usually a retention tme of ~10 years in the atmosphere and of the 10 gigatons of CO2 produced by humans yearly, half of it gets consumed by the natural carbon cycle so in less than a 100 years we'd be able to return to pre-industrialization levels)
| SpokenTruth said: (3): That makes no sense at all. Besides, coal is a finite resource. You understand supply and demand, right? How is it possible for a finite resource with growing demand to maintain price parity with an infinite resource that is getting cheaper and more efficicent every year? |
Coal is finite but it is FAR more accessible than the likes of solar energy where you have to pay for expensive PV panels that usually have an MTBF of ~20 years so while you're just breaking even with solar energy, it costs almost nothing to burn coal ...
Coal is far more valuable than solar because of accessibility, energy density and is not intermittent which makes it a nearly ideal storage of energy since nature has optimized that aspect of coal over over millions of years whereas you have to pay for expensive batteries to store the solar energy ... (I just listed 3 advantages in favour of coal compared to solar for you)
The only renewable energy that can even compete with coal is hydropower (we've dammed every river we could get) and wind energy ...
