sciam.com — A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050. But $420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive.
Mar 19, 2008 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountMar 19, 2008
That's why I'm going with solar and wind. Electric baseboard heating and no heating bills at all. Or at least very small bills. I'll still need to buy a little firewood, too.
bluto36Mar 19, 2008
nuke here and i wonder about my choice all the time.
smurfsahoyMar 20, 2008
When you digg me down on this without answering the question, you're basically just confirming my suspicions that this is based on an illogical grudge against blogs rather than any objectively rational reason to prefer one data source over the other.
truck87bpMar 20, 2008
N. Tessla was going to give this to us for free.....no , some has to be able to turn it off and on and charge you for it. Wire all new homes with dual everything, then you can be on their grid or your own.
vikingcoderMar 20, 2008
Plastic can be grown.<a class="user" href="http://biopact.com/2007/03/researchers-develop-bioplastic-that.html">http://biopact.com/2007/03/researchers-develop-bio ...</a>The new plastic is made from plant oils and has remarkable properties, such as being tougher and more durable than petroleum-based polyethylenes.
bshockMar 20, 2008
Solar power "could" end our dependence on foreign oil right now. But it won't, for the same reason it won't in 2050: no one is going to use it.
ethergnatMar 20, 2008
"Yes, and we all use gasoline, jet, and diesel fuel to produce electricity....oh wait, that's right, we don't."No, we mainly use coal. If we free coal from electricity production it can be converted into fuel which reduces are oil needs. <a class="user" href="http://www.ultracleanfuels.com/articles/prepublican_122107.htm">http://www.ultracleanfuels.com/articles/prepublica ...</a>"Solar won't replace oil."Nobody said it would. It said it could replace FOREIGN oil. Only half our oil is imported. <a class="user" href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld002.htm">http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld002.htm</a>"Solar, wind, etc seem nice, but you wouldn't think so if your home didn't get electricity when it was cloudy for a few days in a row."Nobody is saying solar and wind are going to be our sole sources of electricity. Nuclear needs to be pursued aggressively as well. Incidentally hydrogen, which you champion in other comments, is a farce. Do some research please. "environmentalist campaigned to have half of the largest wind farm in the US shut down because it was killing a few birds"All environmentalists are not the wackos that seem to make the evening news and Limbaugh loves to talk about. Most of us are quite practical and realistic. "And, for the title being completely, ridiculously, offensively, and dangerously inaccurate, I have buried this story as I have buried any other similarly-titled story I've seen."I really doubt you even read this story, which makes the fact you buried it offensive. It's an article by Scientific American, a well respected science journal and addresses many of your complaints. I'll trust their opinion over yours, although obviously it's an optimistic assessment. "Or how solar and wind are not reliable enough as energy sources to replace our current means of energy production, and could never entirely support our energy needs."Again, if you had actually read the article you would know they're only talking about replacing 35% of our current total energy use (including transportation).
space579Mar 20, 2008
f**k 2050!big oil is just gonna buy it and put it on the back burner like all the other energy projects they own. Hydrogen cars anyone?
skiddlesMar 21, 2008
If it takes 420 Billion in subsidies to make it "cost competitive" then it is not really cost competitive is it? And who is to say that 420B is the right number ( maybe it is 1.420 trillion ) or that the technology can really be developed that far. It certainly hasn't reached that stage after 40+ years.
khanneanlMar 21, 2008
Nanotechnology *shrugs*I predict that in twenty years Greenpeace is protesting governments cutting down live trees in favor of photovoltaic collector "forests". This is a growth industry that, once it starts, won't ever stop expanding until it covers everything.
nuclear123Nov 30, 2011
It's unbelievable that by 2050 solar power could end. I think we should look for other option for energy, In my opinion, nuclear energy will be suitable option for energy. With using this we can generate more energy without any harm for environment. For more information visit at http://www.nuclearfriendsfoundation.com