Skip to main content

View Diary: Ready for This? Last Month 100% of New Electrical Capacity in the US came from Renewable Sources (187 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It doesn't need to take 100 years (19+ / 0-)

    We could accelerate the process considerably. Biomass fuels are almost completely ignored and have incredible potential. We could be trapping methane and other greenhouse gasses produced by our sewage and garbage to grow algae that can be used for transportation fuels and for backup electrical generators. If we really committed to biomass energy along with solar and wind, we could be producing all of our energy needs locally which would produce millions of good green living wage jobs all across America.  

    Really don't mind if you sit this one out. My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT. I may make you feel but I can't make you think..Jethro Tull

    by RMForbes on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 05:56:57 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yep. All true. But the propagandists... (12+ / 0-)

      ...have convinced even many progressives that this can't be done for a very long time. Thus we have nonsense about building new infrastructure (like oversized pipelines) designed for decades of support of old energy sources, the very ones we should (and must) get rid of.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 07:10:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And we could still save a huge amount of (7+ / 0-)

      energy with an actual improvement in quality of life (insulation, better windows, ground-source heat pumps, led lighting, better public transport, etc.).  If we cut our consumption in half, which we could do fairly quickly, the fraction required to come from non-renewables would shrink.

      I'm truly sorry Man's dominion Has broken Nature's social union--Robert Burns

      by Eric Blair on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 08:53:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Biomass energy (0+ / 0-)

      With one exception of which I'm aware, there's no biomass candidate that is carbon negative (there's a TED talk on this). For biomass to be a critical part of reversing the carbon trend, that's what it needs to be. Otherwise it builds a carbon status quo that is not conducive to undoing the damaging processes we've set in motion.

      •  I'll settle for carbon neutral (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        As far as I can tell, we will need biofuel for aviation, and it might be necessary at least for a time in developing countries, for example those with a surplus of palm kernel oil. If we could get fuel and fertilizer rather than pollution out of hog factories, that would be several pluses. There are other possible candidates needing development.

        Other than that, I would dump corn ethanol in a heartbeat.

        Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

        by Mokurai on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 08:32:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Every source of biomass energy removes more (0+ / 0-)

        Carbon from the atmosphere than added back when combusted if no petrochemicals are used to produce the biofuels. Carbon solids are not greenhouse gases and are produced by complete combustion. A percentage of the carbon produced by the plants remains sequestered in the organic byproducts of the biofuel production which will take many years to be recycled in the environment.

        Really don't mind if you sit this one out. My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT. I may make you feel but I can't make you think..Jethro Tull

        by RMForbes on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 08:55:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site