His point that some of our attempts at managing our environment have had adverse consequences is true. But in doing so, he makes perfect the enemy of good. Of course we should try to keep our nest as clean as possible for as long as possible.
Not everyone is doom and gloom every hour of every day. Knock a few back and relax, bro.
I think you're confused. I'm not doom and gloom at all. GC was all about "we're all going to die so what the hell." Did you listen?
OK, "20 million years from now, no one will know the difference." I remind myself of that every once in a while.
www.kbtx.com
Based on what? The "energy density" of solar and wind are horrible compared to nuclear-the amount of land area that must be covered for the same power output is orders of magnitude larger. Add to that, nuclear of course is not an unstable, intermittent source, that depends on weather, latitude or if it's nighttime, or the wind isn't blowing. We still, desperately need nuclear, more than ever with the ever increasing demands for electrical power. We had the technology 60 years ago to produce nuclear plants that made far less waste, and that could process and used existing waste as fuel. Had we not wasted decades, we would have a clean, stable grid and not cover tens of thousands of acres with wind and solar farms.
First of all if the difference in land area doesn't include the required exclusion zones for nuclear plants and the land area required for processing and storing nuclear fuel and waste it's not accurate. More importantly though is the simple fact that land area is not a constraint for renewables especially when solar can easily be installed on already occupied land area such as rooftops and parking areas. Wind can also be installed off shore, using no land at all. "Energy density" is not an argument for nuclear power.
Why would it be more expensive to put panels on an existing roof than having to build a complete support structure on the ground?
And then there is the real world. I did a little digging-it would take 22,000 square miles of solar panels (an area roughly the size of Lake Michigan) covered in solar cells to provide for the power needs just for this country. That's assuming that the resources to build them was even available. It takes a square mile or more of panels to power a small village. The largest nuclear power plant in this country outputs 3.9 gigawatts, and can do so essentially continuously. The largest solar farm in the world is located in India, covers nearly 16 square miles, and at peak output 2.2 gW (and of course none once the sun goes down). We need nuclear, now more than ever, if we want to reduce CO2 emissions and meet our increasing electricity demands).
As did I, about 40% could be rooftops.
arstechnica.com
persquaremile.com
Precisely the plan. NASA aims to setup permanent bases on the moon's surface.
www.khou.com
