"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Solar, and wind, are merely nibbling at the margins. Assuming solar
collectors running at 70% efficiency, and adjusting for latitude,
cloud cover, and darkness, it would take a solar collector farm the
size of the Los Angeles basing (1200 sq mi) to provide enough
electricty for just California. Further, the cost to build and
maintain a structure large than all the pyramids on earth would be
impossible.

Check out how much Denmark gets from wind. Admittedly, no really big
cities and plenty of wind, but at least somewhere it can be done. I hear
plenty of talk about people wo installed solar and very much reduced
their use of external power. I know some of the problems too. My home
is very much shaded by trees, and even if it wasn't, the rules around
here might be difficult.

The only way to improve on that is to move the orbit of the earth
closer to the sun.

I think there are other ways that are amost as esoteric, but equally
unreal.

There aren't any places left to build dams - in fact some are being
torn down so the Wart-faced Faux Salmon can defecate. Further,
hydroelectric dams are the most dangerous of all methods of power
generation (dams don't fail often, but when they do...).

I am thinking smaller dams, not everything needs to be Hoover sized

That leave nuclear, but far too many people are too phobic about the
prospect for nuclear energy to be politically viable.

Let's collaborat on promoting nuclear. I happen to believe that nuclear
is an excellent way out. Look at France ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid