On Thin Ice - NOW's excellent report on the disappearing glaciers.

[JohnWxy]

I know everybody who \frequents this forum knows how bad the situation is but this video would be good one for anybody you know who doesn't realize just how short the time is. Seventy-five percent of the world's fresh water is stored in glaciers. Glaciers the world over have about 10 to 30 (depending on the glacier) years (tops) till they are all gone! when they are gone, hundreds of millions of people will have to find a source for water, for drinkiing and for crops!

this is why I said that for electric cars (just speaking of transportation) to start having a significant impact (say 20 - 30% reduction) on petroleum use. We better do what we can right now that will have a significant impact much sooner than 20 years. Taking 20 years, we wiil be TOO LATE.

As far as power production we really should be investing and installing wind turbines as fast as we F--king can (along with developing solar as well, of course). Wind power is cost effective right now. With a very aggressive wind power build out we could get to 10% of our power from wind in possibly 8 to 10 yrs (set an aggressive target and try for it!). http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x193754"> In 2008 the wind power installed went up 50%.

Link to NOW report broadcast April 17:


http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/516/index.html

[corruptmewithpower]

1. Of course wind and solar will provide a tiny portion of our power needs

for many decades. Only nuclear has a realistic chance of replacing the bulk of carbon spewing power sources during any of our lifespans.

physicist Steven Chu said during his confirmation hearings. "It's 20 percent of our electricity production today, but it's 70 percent of the carbon-free electricity we produce."

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/29/the_coming_nuclear_renaissance/

[bananas]

2. That's not correct at all

The solution to global warming will look something like this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x191961

That's for the short to mid term.
In the long term, there is more than enough wind and solar to replace fossil fuels.
The amount of energy available from solar is much more than from fission.
If we can get fusion to work, great, it doesn't have the problems of fission,
but even fusion it isn't necessary.

[corruptmewithpower]

3. We'll need 5000 billion kilowatts by 2030. We'd need to cover whole

states with solar panels to make that much power. Then, we'd have to send it through thousands od miles of cables to get it to the users. And then we'd only have power during daylight.


Nuclear Energy Benefits the Environment


http://resources.nei.org/justthefacts/environmentA.html?gclid=CNSG1K-F_JkCFRlcagodv0nlLQ

[bananas]

4. Wrong.

Where did you get this "5000 billion kilowatts" from?
That's 5 million gigawatts, and would require 5 million reactors if they are one gigawatt each.

Current global energy use is around 15 terawatts,
which is 15 thousand gigawatts or 15 billion kilowatts.
That's only going to increase 50% by 2030.

Here's the projections by the EIA:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html


We can reduce fossil fuels by increasing efficiency and renewables.
There are many factors which will prevent nuclear from increasing faster.
McCain wanted to build 45 reactors by 2030, that was impossible:

Christie Todd Whitman: McCain's grand vision is a "nice idea" but it's "not going to happen"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x166094

"I'm not quite sure the number McCain put out is obtainable," says Adrian Heymer, senior director for new plant deployment at the Nuclear Energy Institute.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x158528

The people doing PR for the nuclear industry said that even if pro-nuclear McCain was elected we wouldn't have 45 new reactors in 2030. So forget about the nuclear hype. No major environmental organization has endorsed nuclear energy as a solution to climate change - it's too expensive, takes too long to build, and has many other problems. The alternatives are more cost-effective and faster to implement.

[bananas]

5. Here is Google's proposal

http://knol.google.com/k/jeffery-greenblatt/clean-energy-2030/15x31uzlqeo5n/1

[bananas]

6. Here is Al Gore's proposal

http://www.repoweramerica.org/plan/analysis/

[bananas]

7. Here's what the IPCC said in 2007

"In terms of electricity generation, the IPCC envisage that renewable energy can provide 30 to 35% of electricity by 2030 (up from 18% in 2005) at a carbon price of up to US$50/t, and that nuclear power can rise from 16% to 18%."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_assessment_report

That was based on economic models - since then, cost estimates for new nuclear have gone up,
and existing nuclear has fallen to 14% of global electricity generation.

[JohnWxy]

10. Wind power potential of U.S. is TWICE the current usage given the current state of the technology

http://www.awea.org/newsroom/pdf/Top_20_States_with_Wind_Energy_Potential.pdf


" the total amount of electricity that could potentially be
generated from wind in the United States has been estimated at
10,777 billion kWh annually—more than twice the electricity generated
in the U.S. today."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is all based on the current state of the technology. GE and others are advancing the ability to capture the energy of the wind and future wind turbines will be more efficient than those being built today. Wind Turbines installed off-shore will generate much more power than land based turbines and the winds there are much more sustained than over land.

Cost effective storage technologies are currently available (VRB Power Technologies) and by the time they are really needed (at or above 20% of the total power supply) there will be improvements to this technology (reducing cost) too. Note that with a smart grid the 20% threshold for needing power storage will no doubt be raised (that is, when wind power subsides in one area, power would be supplied from wind farms a few huncred miles away where the wind would still be blowing.)

Off-shore installations will be set-up along the Eastern seaboard making the wind power supply strategically located within a high percentage of the population. As far as the Central U.S., Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Madison Wisc., St. Paul Minn., would all be within range of 4 states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas and Montana) which have the potential to provide half the U.S. power needs.

[stuntcat]

8. thanks for the link

I mean to watch NOW but I always forget.

[JohnWxy]

9. I'm afraid I often forget too. And lately, with the digital transition some of the schedules seem

to be changing. On the other hand, the extra stations means they can rerun programs more.