Sustainable Energy, USA and worldwide

If it's a major city with an airport, airplanes. Seriously, that would be a huge problem during the day. All the glass buildings cause enough of a problem, it wouldn't help it if every building was completely covered in huge mirrors.

If we spent half as much money on solar and nuclear as we do on "clean coal" to prop that shit up, we'd be well on our way to being golden.

Tighten the planes' routes to cover for that outside of the airports.

Add in a national subway system like Russia's Cold War tunnels to compensate. Solar Cells on every rooftop would probably create an abundance of power that could be fed into the rail system for sustainability.

Hell, that would be a public works project like Roosevelt's efforts during the Great Depression, and spur some growth.

It's not like planes would go out of style, there'd just be another option once the effort's done.

edited 12th Apr '13 4:44:33 AM by Journeyman

The Finnish edition of Science Illustrated had an article about a power cable that was being laid on the Atlantic seabed, from Iceland to the UK.

Iceland produces an abundance of geothermal energy without having tapped most of their resources. This is why other countries, such as Denmark and Germany, are also planning to lay cables between their coast and Iceland. It's a huge way for a cable to go but apparently it'll be worth it in the long run.

The connections to Denmark and/or Germany would link Iceland's impressive power supply to the continental European grid. Iceland could be exporting clean energy to any European country.

How efficient is an undersea conductor cable at those temperatures?

Sad thing is, I'm afraid we're not going to convert to sustainable energy until it's too late because of how much of the public has bought into the "Climate change is a myth" lie and because of how profoundly corrupt/anti-environmental our government is now. I think the only to save us from a global warmingpocalypse right now would be to develop a method to extract CO 2 from the air. Other than that, I think we're all doomed.

That method is called photosynthesis. And, believe it or not, the US were and remain a world leader in renewable energies. Have a look if you don't believe me. Progress marches on.

edited 8th May '13 3:26:52 AM by TheHandle

Still, renewable energy cannot cover our needs globally. Nuclear plants are necessity until we switch to fusion plants.

No they are not: solar and wind power can provide more than enough energy, especially if we stop being frivolous about its consumption and if we take full advantage of the current advances in energy-saving technologies. Nuclear plants are pushed by politicians because they want their countries to be able to build weapons. If this weren't so, they'd be using thorium.

Tell that countries that have cannot exploit solar and wind power efficiently due to geographic constraints. Hippies can go green all they want, they just shouldn't even dare to criticize us that we want to modernize our country by building more coal plants and eventually go nuclear.

And nukes always neat bonus for nuclear powered countries. If you have your own stash you are more respected/feared depending on what kind of government the country has.

edited 8th May '13 3:56:06 AM by CaptainKatsura

There is so much fail in that post I don't even know where to begin...

Why shouldn't they "dare" criticise a country that creates pollution? The whole point of the Green movement is to advocate sustainable development. Why shouldn't that include energy production?

We have no other choice than non-renewable energy yet greens press on Brussels to limit non-renewable ways of producing energy. Poland cannot afford in dabbling in solar and wind energy if it is too expensive compared to coal which will last for at least two centuries. Good way to wait out till fusion energy is finally available.

Why can't Poland go nuclear? Also what about wave? You've got a coastline, plus you've got mountains haven't you? Is there not potential for hydro-electric?

edited 8th May '13 7:29:40 AM by Silasw

So you're Polish? You do know that the EU has planned to go 100% renewable by 2050, right?

Our mountains are too inactive geologically to provide any meaningful energy, and Baltic is pretty timid for a sea.

If EU think we will switch to renewables they must be out of mind. Anyway, by 2050 Polish government plans to buy several nuclear plants, so we have our own plans. What they are going to do. Makes by force to remove them? They would have to say hello to our military.

Even more reasons to be close to the USA. They don't tell us what kind of energetic policy we should pursue.

edited 8th May '13 7:38:20 AM by CaptainKatsura

The Polish... military...

Poland's guerilla would be too nasty to occupy us for long run even if we are defeated.

edited 8th May '13 7:43:50 AM by CaptainKatsura

Guerrillas? For the sake of polluting? "We shall rain our blood upon the land of our ancestors for the right to pollute as much as we bloody want to!"

Yeah. Cough. Hopefully, it won't come to that.

C'mon. Guerilla movements started in my region over stolen sheep and nationwide worker strikes over the price of sausage.

I've heard that the Special Forces in the Polish military are some of the toughest you'll find anywhere in the world.

But the idea of Poland using its military to win an argument with the EU is absolutely ridiculous. It's much more likely that Poland would be subject to sanctions from the EU if they fail to comply with the plans to shift to renewable energy sources. The worst case scenario is that they'd be forced to quit the EU, but I don't think that's very likely.

This talk about renewable energy being out of Poland's reach sounds silly and defeatist to me. Finland currently produces about a quarter of its energy through sustainable means, and I don't think our geography is better for renewables than Poland.

Comparing nearly 40 million country with country several million in numbers is not adequate. You need less energy.

Yeah, I used military argument more as a joke since EU has no means to really comply anyone to do. We could for example pay fines if benefit of nuclear power offsets them. Anyway, we're sort of contributing to pollution reduction since new generations of coal powered plants are designed to be not only more efficient, but catch some of carbion dioxide before it is released. When considering how to powering the economy, pragmatism should prevail over unyielding pro-ecological stance.

If we're comparing the percentage of energy production for each country the total number of energy consumers is not relevant.

Well, the fact is solar energy cannot provide all energy for Polish economical needs. It is estimated that only 1,3 % of our needs could be covered with it. Wind energy covers 1,5 % of our needs, but optimists estimate it will cover 14,5 % of our needs. 84 % of our needs for energy will have to be covered by modernized coal plants or nuclear plants, as water plants and geotermic energy can have some significance only on a very localized scale.

Assuming that are nations are equal when it comes to choices available is wrong. It's obvious that solar energy is a good option for countries where sky is not overcast for majority of the year. We have to exploit what we can, and coal can be used in more green way. Unfortunately Soviets dug up all uranium here so we'll have to import it, but it will be still profitable to do so. If waste is safely stored there won't be any issues.

edited 8th May '13 10:11:40 AM by CaptainKatsura

I call BS on that estimate. As for the rest, I'd need to have a look at Polish geography first, but it sounds improbable.