Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In a major reversal of Bush policy, “mountaintop coal-mining permits are being put on hold until the projects’ impacts on streams and wetlands can be reviewed,” the Environmental Protection Agency announced today:
Citing its regulatory role under the Clean Water Act, the EPA said the letters stated that the projects “would likely cause water quality problems in streams below the mines, would cause significant degradation to streams buried by mining activities, and that proposed steps to offset these impacts are inadequate.”
that's right. Because all we need is solar and wind power.
According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2007, solar, wind and geothermal combined only account for around 1 percent of the world's electricity generation
The report notes that a 100-mile-by-100-mile solar thermal installation in the American Southwest could meet the entire country’s energy needs. That area, it further adds, is just a little larger than the amount of land in the U.S. that has been strip-mined for coal.
How much would that cost? No idea.
Quote:
At the national level, the Environment Florida report is also encouraging. With the right policies, it says, the U.S. could easily generate 80 gigawatts of concentrating solar power by 2030. That would be enough to power 25 million homes, reduce carbon emissions by 6.6 percent and create between 75,000 and 140,000 new jobs.
Does that mean solar is the only answer?
Of course not.
But it is encouraging.
Does that mean solar is the only answer?
Of course not.
But it is encouraging.
By my calculations, using the information provided in your link, it would take 28,122 square miles to produce 7 terawatts of energy. Or, to put it another way, all of Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New Hampshire.
Does that mean solar is the only answer?
Of course not.
But it is encouraging.
The big critique of seen on this wild claim is that they're estimating using theoretical "peak output" ratings which in fact are never achieved (not even close), they are ignoring transition loses due to resistance in the copper wires (which increases with the square of the distance so they're HUGE), and it assumes no one actually wants to turn a light bulb on at night... You know... When it is dark.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
