Skip to main content

View Diary: BREAKING: PG&E quits US Chamber over climate change (283 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The way the technology is right now (6+ / 0-)

    we'd seriously have to fuck up some beautiful landscapes to have enough power to get rid of nuclear and coal. In fact, I'm a big fan of nuclear as a transition power source while we miniaturize and improve solar tech.

    But your overall point is spot on. We certainly arent getting anywhere dicking around.

    "If you come to a fork in the road, take it." - Yogi Berra

    by brooklynbadboy on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 02:40:30 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Solar Roadways get around that problem (22+ / 0-)

      By turning already-existing paved roads into solar collectors:

      http://www.solarroadways.com/

      Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

      by Phoenix Woman on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 03:32:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Germany makes headway on solar by (0+ / 0-)

      having some of the most expensive electricty in the world, but still emits nearly 60% more CO2 per capita than France, which generates 80% of its electricity with nuclear power.

      Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

      by dinotrac on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 08:13:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I must disagree (0+ / 0-)

        Germany's electricity cost is roughly on par with France's -- 15.85 UK pence/kWh in the north, 11.45 in the west, and 13.75 in the southwest, versus 13.38 in France.  As for CO2, Germany also has 26% more people, a 28% larger GDP, and a historic stronger focus on heavy industry.  Furthermore, Germany is reducing their CO2 emissions much faster than France.

        •  That was per capita. (0+ / 0-)

          It adjusts for population.

          As to reducing emissions, Germany is also reducing its emissions faster than India, but still emits ten times as much per capita.

          By the same token, the United states is reducing emmissions more rapidly than Germany (both absolute and percentage) but is still twice German levels.  Easier to cut back from high levels than low.

          Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

          by dinotrac on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 05:14:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Not the answer. (4+ / 0-)

      There are far too many uncertainties with nuclear, one of the major ones being total cost.

      Utilities won't be so keen to get into more nuclear with the certain headaches they will have to face, along with increased liability, regulations, startup costs, NIBMY resistance, uncertain fuel supply, diminishing disposal options and the biggest cost kicker -- unpredictable decommissioning costs and the likely increasing reserves they will be required to come up with to offset them.

      Current decommissioning projects are costing many-fold original estimates, so whatever you come up with now, it won't be enough.

      Far too many risks for any business to undertake and I certainly don't want more of my tax dollars supporting it.

      A million people can call the mountains a fiction, yet it need not trouble you as you stand atop them. - Randall Munroe xkcd

      by Mountain Don on Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 09:25:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then you will have to generate (0+ / 0-)

        your own power or live in a cave.  You can't maintain technology and industry without baseload capabilities.

        Best Wishes, Demena Left/Right: -8.38; Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36

        by Demena on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 05:32:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you are wrong (0+ / 0-)

          Tidal power, wind power, solar power, etc. are viable now.  And don't forget about conservation and energy efficiency, we don't have the dino-fools in the White House anymore.

          "I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak." - Barack Obama, 3-24-09

          by MD patriot on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 06:44:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It doesn't provide continuity of supply. (0+ / 0-)

            That is why it is called baseload.

            Best Wishes, Demena Left/Right: -8.38; Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36

            by Demena on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 07:26:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  wind always blows somewhere (0+ / 0-)

              So wind could easily be 10% of the load, and with electric vehicles coming online with smart charging systems, the demand could be more readily matched to the load.

              Might need some HV DC trunk lines to spread some wind power around, but we have lots of places with reliable sunshine in the USA, and many sources of reliable wind, look at the areas 20 miles offshore.

              "I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak." - Barack Obama, 3-24-09

              by MD patriot on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 07:33:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  cover every office building with solar (0+ / 0-)

      So why not cover EVERY office building with solar panels as a start?  We have literally thousands of acres of rooftops that are just doing nothing, baking in the sun when they could easily support the solar panels for SHW or photovoltaic power.

      Get the easy things done while continuing to work on improvements to solar technology.  Imagine if we spent 1/10 the War Department budget on solar power, we'd be leading the world.

      "I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak." - Barack Obama, 3-24-09

      by MD patriot on Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 07:31:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not true. (0+ / 0-)

      Wind and solar are both more energy-dense forms of power than coal, when you include the area consumed by mining and transporting the coal.  And they're roughly an order of magnitiude more energy dense than hydroelectric when you include the reservoir.  Plus, wind doesn't consume the land -- you can still farm under it -- while solar can be used on top of buildings.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site