[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', ' ')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')arge-scale renewable energy generation is likely to have severe environmental impacts It has been commonly assumed that renewable energy generation is more environmentally friendly than the use of nonrenewable energy sources such as fossil fuels or nuclear power (Hayes 1977, Lovins 1977, Brower 1992, Boyle 1996). While this assumption may be correct, it must be realized that the capture and conversion of solar energy will have significant negative environmental impacts,
especially if they are employed on such a large scale as
to supply nearly 100% of the U.S. energy demand (Abbasiet al. 1995, Trainer 1995a).

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I') have not done extensive study on the Solar Grand Plan but I hoped the authors of the plan would have. What are the consequences of diverting x% of sunlight for our own uses? I don't know but I'd sure like to know the answer. What are the consequences of diverting or acquiring resources to building up this grand plan so that eventually the present incumbents can be phased out? What are the consequences of growing this infrastructure exponentially, intending to displace existing plant, for the next 92 years, and beyond? Are the resources actually available? Is it reasonable to expect 10% of the then energy demand to come from biofuels, and how did they calculate that it is even possible? There are probably many other concerns that might be raised but the article addresses none of them and shows no hint that consequences were even examined (aside from the unsubstantiated claim that it wouldn't be as destructive as coal mining). If you want to believe that the authors must have considered more but chose not to include it in a 6 page Sci Am article, fair enough, but I'm not convinced.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'Y')our failure to grasp the concepts is not my problem.Efforts to try an sustain a population in severe overshoot is a fools' errand.Renewable energy capture will cause far more damage on the scale required.

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'H')e was refuting me with one link that was 21 years old. There are other sources I have linked to that say 40% total NPP today.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'I')t is far easier to poke holes in something then it is to come up with a concrete plan of action. To me you come off as a naysayer. I wonder if this paper was 60 pages long describing precisely the effects it would have on the local ecology if you would still find something to poke holes in.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'Y')ou appear to be unaware of the scale of this plan and of its implicit assumption that the proposals have no end in sight, in terms of its growth (the plan goes up to 2050 in detail and to 2100 in summary, but there is no indication that we end up with a steady state economy thereafter). I realise that the consequences of human behaviour may not concern you, but it does concern others.

[dohboi]

lonesnark wrote (a ways back) in response to an analogy between disregarding degraded land and disregarding "degraded" people:

"If I am speculating to you about possible uses of my home after it is damaged your response should in no way be similar to if I raped your wife."

It is not surprising that you view the land as just another commodity.

In fact the land is your mother, your wife and your daughter. It created you, it sustains you, and it may sustain your future.

But like all economists, you know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Best of luck with your misperceptions of reality. Unfortunately, they are widely shared.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'T')his is why I have a problem with your comments. Everytime someone proposes a solution to the energy crisis or a solution to the water crisis, or a solution to crisis X, you jump all over them, "Your solution to crisis X may work, but you failed to solve crisis Y and Z as well." Can we not tackle one problem at a time? Must every solution proposed involve solving every problem on earth and changing core human behavior to boot? Is a solution to the energy crisis to be shunned, because it would just cause a bigger crisis later on in the form of a carrying capacity crisis?

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dohboi', 'l')onesnark wrote (a ways back) in response to an analogy between disregarding degraded land and disregarding "degraded" people:
"If I am speculating to you about possible uses of my home after it is damaged your response should in no way be similar to if I raped your wife."
It is not surprising that you view the land as just another commodity.
In fact the land is your mother, your wife and your daughter. It created you, it sustains you, and it may sustain your future.
But like all economists, you know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Best of luck with your misperceptions of reality. Unfortunately, they are widely shared.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'W')ell it looks like a nasty shitstorm is brewing where things are headed now. I would rather take my chances on implementing large scale renewables, accepting whatever consequences that may bring, then try and stay this present unsustainable course. Besides, I am not sure we could ever truly know what the worldwide effects would be even if we tried studying the proposed solutions for years. Do you?