geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Yes, that was my way of reading the OP too - e.g. solar and wind
power do
useful stuff in certain situations, but they're by no means the
'save the
planet' solution that some people appear to promote them as.

Just started reading an article in NS which opens saying that an area
half the size of texas in a sun drenched part of the world covered in
PV panels at 20% efficiency would be enough for global needs



I was really getting at the fact that it was doable - with a will


No, its not teh will, its the cost.

Now find

- a 20% efficient solar panel.

University of Delaware claim to have achieved 42.8


In the lab? and how long to get that debugged out in te field and
wiorking at gigawatt capacity? 30 years? fusion power works too. In the lab.

- the means of actually transporting that energy across sea boundaries

It would have to be distributed around, wouldn't it

Nobody said it wouldn't present problems and costs

at under a million quid a kilometer
- someone who will sell you Texas.

mainly desert anyway, isn't it

Hardly.

as are other large areas within the tropics round the globe


No, they are mainly rain forest. "Tropical Rain Forest'


- and the money to actually build it.

doesn't make it impossible, it just needs a will


No, it DOES make it impossible.

Did you know that, for example, to give everyone the sort of top notch
medical care that they could be given, would take 3x the gross national
product of this country?

If it takes more than the population of the world to save the world, all
working flat out, its kinda impossible.

You've been greenwashed.