Aaaaand I was 100% WRONG About China

[Eric the Green]

(09-02-2022, 12:36 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-31-2022, 06:15 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

Quote:And we are more energy independent because of the potential of renewable energy. 100 square miles of solar power alone (to say nothing of wind onshore and offshore), spread out over the country and on rooftops, can supply ALL our energy needs. Coal is no longer an option, period! That, my friend, indeed needs to be shut down ASAP! Republicans and their Supreme Court resist this, and thus keep the climate crisis accelerating, which creates feedback loops to make the crisis worse and shut down our hydro power.

1) You'll have to forgive me for being skeptical. What are you basing this claim off of?
2) Solar power is only able to provide power during the day time. That's fine for much of the year, but not for electric cars which need to be charged at night or during the Winter months when you're without light or power after 5am
3) The carbon footprint of the creation of solar panels is a lot higher than what most people realize, especially given most have a relatively short lifespan. 
4) China has 3-4x the population of America with a fraction of the open space. Easier said than done. 
None of this is to say we (or, in this case, China) shouldn't use solar panels. The point is we aren't currently at a point where we can rely on them as the dominant fuel source. We can and should expand their usage, but necessary does not equal sufficient.

Surprise! I fully agree.

Remember, my statement that Jason bolded was just a mis-statement; I meant to say an area of 100 by 100 miles.

Batteries are making fine progress to store renewable energy at night. Using other metals besides cobalt and lithium is still in the early development stage, but long-term it will be done. 

Lifespan studies of the carbon footprint of solar panels have been made, showing 1/13th that of coal. It's still something, but it's a large reduction. Remember also that the carbon footprint number should be based on using renewable energy in the process of making, transporting and recycling the panels. It's probably much better than 1/13th.

Studies also show that the world has 100 times more potential for solar power than we need. We can rely on solar panels plus wind as our dominant energy source. But the catch is, we need to actually build it. Virtually nothing has been done yet, even today. How many homes in your neighborhood have solar panels on them? When will all homes and buildings have it?
https://carbontracker.org/solar-and-wind...enewables/

Remember to check my global warming blog for information; it's changing all the time. Also our global warming thread here. 
http://philosopherswheel.com/globalwarming.html

Do we need nuclear power? In the long run, it's too risky. We can see why now in Ukraine. Wars, floods, storms, fires, earthquakes might cause a meltdown, which takes hundreds of square miles out of human habitation. Proponents minimize the waste, and yet there is talk of something hitting the waste storage at the Ukraine plant. It's more substantial than proponents say, and I don't favor the idea of leaving it underground for generations. It should be recycled as fuel. Nuclear power is more expensive and takes longer to build and license than renewables. Solar panels may last 30-50 years, and nuclear plants about 80, but the plants still must be decommissioned, and that is expensive. Uranium is plentiful but not renewable, and it needs to be mined away from population.

Still, nuclear does not emit carbon gases or methane, so that is a foremost need at the present time. It is a powerful source, and takes less land or rooftops or ocean space. It is less flexible than renewables though. It is turned off or comes offline periodically, and adding or subtracting energy from the grid as needed from nuclear power is awkward, since it is a huge amount or chunk of energy to add or subtract at a time. Since we need the emission-less energy and it's a major source, it seems we should keep the plants we have for a certain time, and maybe build more in places where it is safe and the need is great, which probably includes China. PG&E in CA just decided to keep its nuclear plant until 2030.