Comments on: Pickens learns the hard truth: Drill-only GOP hates alternative energy

By: sex hikayeler

sex hikayeler — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 02:53:37 +0000

ensest hikayeler

By: utanma

utanma — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:04:15 +0000

MANK, you mean 50.6% in 2000, and 48.3% in 2004. Those were the anti-Republican percentages. It is amazing how many people went over to the Dark Side from 2000 to 2004.

By: shop

shop — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:03:52 +0000

The U.S. could get all of its electricity from a small portion of the desert Southwest, if we had the HVDC lines to transmit it. For example, Ausra wrote,

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 02:33:00 +0000

MANK, you mean 50.6% in 2000, and 48.3% in 2004. Those were the anti-Republican percentages. It is amazing how many people went over to the Dark Side from 2000 to 2004.

By: MANK

MANK — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 01:58:03 +0000

What do they say about pay back??????
T Boone has come to know what 49% of us knew in 2000 and 2004.

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 23:01:23 +0000

Rosa, the Earth receives 3.85 YJ (yotta joules, yotta = 10^24) of sunlight each year. Current world energy use is around 500 EJ (exa joules, exa = 10^18) per year. Thus the sun provides 7700 times what we use. Sure, diverting 1 part in 7700 is likely to have some effect, but I think these numbers put it in context. More importantly, the impact is surely less than digging up Carboniferous remains and burning them.

I am not sure what you mean by too diffuse. The Earth receives a gigawatt of sunlight every square kilometer during the day. That sunlight can be converted into electricity at reasonable efficiency.

The U.S. could get all of its electricity from a small portion of the desert Southwest, if we had the HVDC lines to transmit it. For example, Ausra wrote,

Based on the current technology, a CLFR with SM3 and storage would require 1.5 square miles for 177 MW, translating a national land requirement equal to 23,418 km^2 or a square with 153 km sides.

By: Rosa

Rosa — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:46:48 +0000

I agree with your hope of shutting down coal plants and moving away from gasoline, but everything I’ve seen suggests that wind and solar won’t help much there.

The energy in wind and sunlight is simply too diffuse to make it practical to convert on a large scale.

And as an ecologist, one has to consider what the effect would be of taking for human use alone so much of the energy that supports life on this planet.

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:36:23 +0000

Rosa, “save, baby, save” is a great refrain. Energy efficiency is clearly the most important thing we can do, and Climate Progress promotes it loudly. Where I differ from what you wrote is that I hope wind and solar can together help shut down coal power plants and get rid of gasoline. We have no choice but to make this work.

By: Rosa

Rosa — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:27:33 +0000

Hello? What’s progressive about industrializing rural and wild areas, most often against the wishes of the people who have to live with it, with hundreds of thousands of 400-ft-high wind turbines — with new heavy-duty roads and high-voltage transmission lines — to hopefully provide only a small fraction of our electricity?

It’s not a fluke that Texas is the leader in wind power. It’s part and parcel of the “drill, baby, drill” mentality. Progressives should demand “save, baby, save” before supporting yet more building of supply. Especially since wind requires that the rest of the grid remain in place, i.e., no fewer coal or nuclear plants, and more natural gas plants to balance the intermittent and highly variable production from wind. What’s progressive about more degraded and fragmented wildlife habitat, altered wetlands, destruction of rural peace and quiet?

By: Anon

Anon — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 23:52:37 +0000

Before praising Tboone, look deeper into what he is really after.