DIYbanter - View Single Post - Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb

krw[_3_]

In article 98eb2dcf-7250-4f9f-a08c-
,
says...
On Jun 23, 8:51*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
In alt.engineering.electrical Jeff Strickland
wrote:

There certainly will be environmentalists that will come up with
something.
As an environmentalists myself, I do object more to extending the
drilling for oil. *I'm in favor of building nuclear power plants
(under certain conditions, such as stronger regulations and regular
inspections, including by academic people, with public reports ...
and they must also be built reasonably close to the areas of power
demand, with consideration for risks like earthquakes, so the ones
powering California might have to be built in Utah with some big DC
feeders). *I'm in favor of building solar farms (provided they are
not built in such a way as to shadow natural needs for light ...
desert spaces should be OK). *I'm in favor of building wind farms.

Wind farms and solar farms won't work and can't be made to work (except for
limited applications). The amount of sunlight falling on the earth is about
700w/m^2. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds. Assuming 50% efficiency
for solar conversion panels, and adjusting for latitude, weather, and
nightfall, it would take a solar collector farm the size of the Los Angeles
basin (~1200 sq miles) to supply power for California (peak 50gw). Not
counting the cost to erect such a monster, consider the cost to maintain it.
Plus, all of Los Angeles would be in the dark. Which, when one thinks on it,
might not be such a bad idea...

My objection for oil and gas extraction in general (so my goal is to
see less of it used, not more) is to avoid releasing more carbon that
has been naturally sequestered. *Also, known oil reserves won't last
for too many more decades or centuries (pinning down the exact figure
is hard, but it's definitely not going to last a thousand years at
the rate we are growing in our use).

What difference does it make if we release more carbon? At the current level
of 0.003% of the atmosphere, a doubling would be virtually undetecable -
except for plants who would say "Yum!"

To the extent we can make the effort to reduce the need for oil/gas,
then whatever else we do (drilling more reserves or not), it is that
much less we end up depending on politically unstable or even
criminal governments who
are the current suppliers.

It's like the Chicago cops and the gangsters: The cops need the gangster's
payoffs and the gangsters need the cops to not make too many problems. We're
at the mercy of the oil tyrants, but they need our money. It's a balance of
terror.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Germany said it will met its goal of 30% solar by maybe 2030, it can
be done.

It's easy to say that the next generation will meet their
obligations. The Congress has been doing just that with Social
Security for two generations already.

--
Keith