|
|
 Originally Posted by OngBonga
Well this is where you demonstrate that we're totally at odds in how we see things. There's enough solar power reaching earth in an hour to supply ALL our energy needs for a year, so they say. Of course, we can't collect all the solar power, but all we need is to harness 0.01% to meet those needs. And of course that's just solar power. There's wind, tidal, wave and hydroelectrical too. But all these are dwarfed by geothermal energy, which can easily cover our needs alone. I just said solar because it was the first renewable that came to mind.
They won't do it. They don't want us to be all wealthy, because then they lose their grip on power.
Our use of fossil fuels over renewables suggests otherwise.
You got 40 minutes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnkCww2ZeVs
I'm no expert. This guy is. Jaque Fresco, this guy is fast becoming my hero.
I'll give that a go later
Costs, scalability, and utility of renewables are not what you think. The tech is currently not to a point where we can power homes with solar instead of coal. With current tech, if we did that, energy bills would be pretty huge, and it would undermine the process of supply and demand in a similar way that the Soviet Union did.
Eventually, most energy will be solar, but it can't now. It's just too expensive. Most of what you hear about how cheap it is, is actually quite misleading. While advancements are moving swiftly, those who tout cheapness are not accounting for things like huge subsidies or economic scale. Engineers in the field do not have the same sort of Utopian views that marketers do
|
Reply With Quote
