quinch on 30/7/2008 at 09:26
I think Kalit's point is that although solar power is all well and good, the amount of energy required to implement such a project is huge when you consider the energy costs in metallurgy for aluminum, copper etc along with construction, assembly and transport.
When you take into account the additional energy required to maintain and replace them then it is clear that this project will need a very large and constant source of cheap fossil fuel. The larger the field of panels the more energy needed etc. Economic growth is also somewhat proportional to electricity usage so you have to take that into account. Also population growth. Plus the fact that when economists and politicians tell us that it's all OK now, you can leave the lights and the TV on because we got solar panels, we'll need even more.
Swiss Mercenary on 30/7/2008 at 09:32
Quote Posted by Kalit
Yes, this is a lot better than nuclear or fossil fuels.
As a matter of fact, nuclear's a very good choice, compared to fossil fuels. Chernobyl's was about as accurate a representation of modern reactors as the Lord's Resistance Army is of Christians.
Kalit on 30/7/2008 at 15:24
Quote Posted by SD
Are herbicides and pesticides really the biggest threat to our natural environment? I don't see it.
I never said it was the biggest threat. It is an easy threat to take care of though. It's harmful for humans, animal, the environment, rivers, etc. How hard is it to give incentives to organic farmers (and companies) and put more taxes on farmers (and companies) that uses pesticides and herbicides?
