Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ 5 days, 7 hours ago
    He said no and there isn't enough stock on hand to replace a 'grid' of them. It would take 5 - 8 months to restore electricity. Let's keep our oil.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by TheRealBill 3 hours, 56 minutes ago
    One of the things these types of claims always fail to take into account is the manufacture and distribution of these things, let alone where the energy to build and distribute them. Any acceleration at even a substantial fraction of the rate they claim is needed will produce a long term net increase over a short period of time to even theoretically happen. I've seen the math on some of it. It is insane.

    With current demands on the energy production, any attempt to replace current capacity in the next two decades would need to double (sometimes triple depending on assumptions) the existing capacity to have enough energy just to produce solar and wind to replace less than 2/3rds of our current capacity. That assumes all other demands remain completely flat for two decades.

    And even that assumes we could could even double our current capacity in that same two decades. How long does it take to get even medium sized plants designed, zoned, approved, tested, and actually built? California has delayed several large solar installations for years. California. Fully controlled by the left. Blocking solar.

    You can not use renewables for that because you can not produce them at a rate fast enough to do it. That means it can't work.

    For sake of discussion assume the claims about CO2 are correct. Bear with me, now. The energy requirements it would take, just the energy requirements, to replace existing sources with solar and/or wind would put out several decades more CO2 in those two decades than the top end projections of not doing it have for the next several decades.

    IF the claims were correct correct, doing absolutely nothing would be far better than trying to build out just the energy production they would need. That doesn't take into account the sheer local environmental damage or the other effects of mass building.

    One of the things decades of learning in regards to space travel has taught me is that energy budget is of primary importance. It doesn't matter what your intentions and motives are, or how big your dream is, if you don't have the energy, it isn't going to happen.

    This is partly why virtually every sci-fi that has fusion or better energy production is so wrong on how much that changes things (just like they get starships' size and crew capacity wrong). That said, solving the energy problem produces a new one: heat removal.

    The true "carrying capacity" of a planet isn't how many people you think it can feed, it is your thermal limits. With fusion or better we literally have the ability to enclose the earth in layers of mountain range high "floors" that would look at least as good as being outside today does. At that point the problem is the sheer heat that trillions of human bodies produces.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo