How every U.S. state can achieve 100% renewable energy by 2050

Recommended Videos

secretkeeper12

New member
Jun 14, 2012
197
0
0
albino boo said:
secretkeeper12 said:
Yeah, we'd need a nation of Al Gores and Carl Sagans to make this plan actually work. Still, this study proves it's entirely possible.

Perhaps if we pursued nuclear energy along with renewables, we could at least achieve energy independence in the next 3 1/2 decades. That would be preferable to the current set-up, financing all sorts of immoral government and business practices. Plus there's the fact that many solar and wind parts require the use of petroleum to create, making it all the more urgent we make them now.
Err you are clearly not aware that the the main source for the minerals that are used to make solar cells is China. That well know freedom loving democracy that definitely does not shoot people down in the street for want to vote about who is in government. No country has all the natural resources required to run a modern economy within its borders. Last point due to fracking the US will be net exporter of oil and gas by 2019.
If it comes down to it, the U.S. could start extracting the 12,000,000 tons of rare earths beneath our land. But the environmental damage would be catastrophic. The best hope would be for new recovery techniques that aren't as destructive to be developed. That's a cause I could see many billionaires like the Koch brothers getting behind.
Souplex said:
What does everyone have against nuclear?
Nuclear has the most oomph, and it's clean.
Don't be anti-science.
I don't think anyone here is against nuclear energy. The report doesn't mention it, but that's mainly because its focus is on renewable energy, which uranium is not. Of course, we would need nuclear plants if we want a realistic chance of getting off fossil fuels, but the authors of this report seem to want to show 100% renewability is a possibility.
 

Albino Boo

New member
Jun 14, 2010
4,667
0
0
secretkeeper12 said:
If it comes down to it, the U.S. could start extracting the 12,000,000 tons of rare earths beneath our land. But the environmental damage would be catastrophic. The best hope would be for new recovery techniques that aren't as destructive to be developed. That's a cause I could see many billionaires like the Koch brothers getting behind.
Yes thats right the Koch brothers are turning down the potential of billions of dollars with revenue so people with influence in the CCP can get the money instead.

 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Gengisgame said:
Welllllll not feasible by moral means, a massive population cull would make it feasible.
I'd be down for thinning the herd. Thanks to medical science, we as a species have effectively removed ourselves from the process of natural selection.
 

vallorn

Tunnel Open, Communication Open.
Nov 18, 2009
2,309
1
43
RJ 17 said:
Gengisgame said:
Welllllll not feasible by moral means, a massive population cull would make it feasible.
I'd be down for thinning the herd. Thanks to medical science, we as a species have effectively removed ourselves from the process of natural selection.
not quite. Natural selection accounts for people who don't reproduce as well as the ones who die. This means that the allele distribution does still change in modern populations and even more where there are pressures on what kind of phenotypes that people find sexually attractive and therefore more likely to reproduce with.

We're isolated from it to some degree but not completely.

Back on the thread's topic. What about thorium reactors? The fuel is plentiful, can't be used in nuclear weapons and is about as fuel efficient as a uranium power plant.

Oh, and nuclear's image isn't all misinformation. People did some really stupid stuff in the 50s with regard to it that handed the environmentalists free propaganda. Look up Dounreay in Scotland and the incidents with it's waste disposal shaft.
 

Fieldy409_v1legacy

New member
Oct 9, 2008
2,686
0
0
I watched Bill Nye talk about something that stuck with me. He said the problem with green energy is that it relys on things that arent constant, the sun isnt always shining and the wind isnt always blowing. He said we need better batteries. Because dirty energy like a lump of coal is essentially a battery already, ready to burn at any time you want and convert into electricity. Whilst green energy you need to convert to electricity when its avalible or lose it.


Heres the video, he talks about it after hes done talking about Fracking about halfway.