Reply With Quote
let's see, because carbon energy is so big, non-carbon energy is pointless. Gotta love that logic.
Like duyba's war logic, we have to keep wasting military lives to honor the military lives already wasted.
Here's that paper --> http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf
let's see, because carbon energy is so big, non-carbon energy is pointless. Gotta love that logic.
Like duyba's war logic, we have to keep wasting military lives to honor the military lives already wasted.
I'm not even reading this post, but any post posted by a blinded ignorant liberal at any liberal dominated message board in the heart of ihatebushiloveobama country should be taken with even a lesser grain of salt than a CEO of an energy corporation, yes folks...that's how ridiculous it is.
I'd suggest people not waste their time and instead watch this educational youtube video
Why would he pimp the carbon emissions of natural gas if it means nothing?
Keep in mind that I am not necessarily in favor of cap and trade, nor am I necessarily against nuclear power.
As a commencement speech, it sucked.
because it helps sell natural gas to the unconvinced greens.
He changes minds of those on the fence, but he also pimps his product to the naysayers.
a win win.
So he believes carbon emission levels are important or not?
unimportant in the science of climate change, important in marketing products to a green market.
So he intentionally contradicted himself and his message.
Ok.
I'm afraid there's more nuance than you think.
Nope, there isn't.
Talking with people who work in Fermi 2, Nuclear Energy is anything but clean.
Great speech. Earth is safe! Makes me laugh the ego some of our American citizens have. Like we could save the earth all by ourselves and/or the rest of the planet will follow our lead. Quit pissing money away on this green .
It's usefult o point out those numbers to counter against those who claim that reducing carbon emissions by 85%, or even better, moving to a carbon-free economy, while undergoing minimal sacrifices to our modern, affluent way of life, is in any way realistic.
Alternative energy is going to grow. I make my living from alternative energy. It is a huge growth market and I live pretty comfortably because of it. But I can see that even in our wild-eyed best-case dream scenario for making money hand over fist, fossil fuels aren't going away anytime soon unless we either go back to feudal agrarianism, or have a national lottery to decide who gets sterilized or killed off.
Holland is a small, windy country.
Are you trying to tell me that the US has higher energy demands than Holland and Luxembourg?
Do you sell residential solar panels? Just curious.
I'm curious about this as well. What are your thoughts on the solar ink that's being developed by Innovalight? It's supposed to be available to consumers within the next couple of years.
Since they're able to absorb solar rays outside of the visible spectrum unlike typical photovoltaic panels, will they be able to handle more power in a smaller form?
Forget Innovalight. Check out Konarka and the work they're doing with Alan Heeger using solar inks on plastic rather than silicon.
Different inks absorb different solar wavelengths. They also can work with indirect light.
Buisiness men work that way, they can sell you a pitch even if they don't agree with it, so long as the customer want's to believe in it.
Now I understand why you are a stupid twit. You ignore anything that contradicts what your masters say.
That obviously means you don't think. Have to listen to all sides of a topic to make an informed decision. It because of voters like you as to why we have so many ed up politicians.
So you disregard good information rather than take an example and try to verify for yourself.
That's why you are a Kool-Aid drinking Lemming.
Funny how I keep seeing footage of only two different Polar Bears in distress. Also, that it is only one group of polar bears out of 16 or 17 that is deemed in any trouble. Can you show that their problems stem from the breaking ice? Then can you show the ice is outside of any statistical norms?
Well, if you were a student of the sciences, you would find it interesting. You obviously have no concern or science.
No, you missed the logic.
How many square miles of solar and wind farms will we have to make to make a dent in energy production?
Going by the latest wiki entry on USA power usage, our current electrical production is 1,075,174 megawatts. Now make enough solar and wind power so that to 25% is solar and 25% is wind, we would have to use 22635.6 sq miles of land. That would be a rectangle 100 miles wide by 226 miles long. That's almost as large as the state of West Virginia which is 24230 sq. miles.
Please tell us. With your expert opinion, what energy would you like to use to replace CO2 emitting energy?
I took the wiki numbers and generated this in excel:
I wonder what the landscape of Holland looks like. Also, what does "19% of stationary electricity production" mean. I assume it does not mean of all electrical production. I assume it means production that does not require a daily/weekly trucked in fuel, which means it would be 19% of non fossil fuel electrical production.
Remember senator Kennedy resisting the wind generation that would be in his district? To achieve such numbers, you not only need the force of wind that living on the North Sea creates, but have to have a skyline of windmills everywhere.
I only looked up Konarka so far. Interesting concept, but I haven't been able to find the efficiency and life. Those would be very important numbers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
