For all the global warming believers: NOW what do you say? read the attached article?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/2007...

Answer:
Well, it was pretty obvious that Ausubel was trying to cast nuclear energy in the best light. As was Turner trying to cast renewable energy in the most ideal sense. Reality lies somewhere in the middle, but that didn't stop the knee-jerk alarmists from attacking Ausubel and totally buying into Turner's point of view. Solar, wind, and geothermal are not ready for primetime - not yet. It will take a massive investment AND a massive use of fossil fuel energy to produce the renewable capabilities required to meet global needs. Nuclear, on the other hand, is proven and ready to go - has been ready to go for decades. Other countries far surpass the US in nuclear production per capita, not because they are that much more technologically advanced, but because they don't have the irrational political pressures preventing it.
Dude .. thats just it isn't it ... we have to spend money on renewable energy research instead of spending it on pointless invasions of the middle east countries. ... and this article tells us exactly how backward the current study on reneweble energy really is
If your really want to prove that helping the environment is pointless, just tell people that we are beyond the point of no return and that we'll all be dead before the big problems rear their heads and that we shouldn't worry about our great grandchildren that we'll never meet. However, to answer your question, those land are going to be destroyed anyways for oil drilling, coal mining, logging, etc. so might as well build wind farms on those land once they have been wrecked.
First of all, the article doesn't say anything about global warming.

If you read the whole thing, you'll notice that other scientists rather disagreed with the conclusions. It's a very bizarre study because it said things like "for all energy to come from wind...", but that's never going to be the case. Wind will comprise a fraction of our power supply, solar another fraction, geothermal another fraction, etc. etc.

“In general, I would say his use of energy density just does not capture the entire scope of issues and capabilities for all the different resources,” said John A. Turner, a principal scientist at the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, who was not involved in the study.

Turner explains that if the entire United States were to be powered by solar cells with 10 percent efficiency, an area about 10,000 square miles would have to be covered by solar panels in a sunny place such as Arizona or Nevada.

“Now there’s 3.7 million square miles of area for the continental U.S.” Turner told LiveScience. “This represents a very, very tiny area. And that’s just one technology.”

The study also doesn't take into account the fact that as the technologies improve, they'll become more efficient and take up less space.
I say that one guy of limited perspective came up with a strange analysis based on dubious assumptions. A thoughtful plan of alternative energy, including nuclear, solar, and wind, would make his analysis junk.

Hundreds of scientists from many disciplines working together have come up with just such a plan. It's thoughtful, affordable, and will reduce global warming to a point where we can cope with the remaining effects:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl...
http://www.ipcc.ch/spm040507.pdf...

Believers?? What does that article have to do with the scientific truth of global warming, anyway?
Reading the article makes me wonder if YOU've read it?

"Global warming believers"? This article does not at any point argue the existence of global warming.

Yes, it is definitely worth all the efforts! New technology and better energy efficiency will also improve the use of renewable resources.
I don't need to read the article.
The earth will continue it's cycle of warming and cooling without insignificant man effecting it.

I'm a conservationist, not an environmentalist.
Think locally, act locally.
I think the title is completely misleading, in order to get people like you to foam at the mouth.
Jesse Ausubel, isn't saying we don't need to make the switch to alternative fuels. He is warning us, that if we go into this without care, than it will cause problems. This will be shown to be true, if the economy is allowed to regulate itself for profit ignoring environmental impact.
Its a wonder people like you aren't denouncing him as a socialist with the underlying idea that his calculations support, and that would be that the fuel industry needs to be heavily regulated, even if it is considered green.
How does that prove anything? All that article shows is that clean energy is hard to come by. They're not wrong about that.
I think the point of the article is that we have proven that we can safely operate nuclear reactors, the technology already exists, and if the enviro-lunatics would let us, we could recycle most of the waste that currently sits at the plants.

And it emits NO carbon dioxide.

It requires no research, it could be built in a few years, and it could produce all of our electricity, but they would rather worry about the possibilities of nuclear power damages--than the so-called "crisis" of AGW.
Did you read it?
"Turner explains that if the entire United States were to be powered by solar cells with 10 percent efficiency, an area about 10,000 square miles would have to be covered by solar panels in a sunny place such as Arizona or Nevada.


“Now there’s 3.7 million square miles of area for the continental U.S.” Turner told LiveScience. “This represents a very, very tiny area. And that’s just one technology.” "

Now, it seems to be working fine. The example above is 1 square mile of solar cells per 370 miles of land they provide with energy. This is also for 10% efficiancy, this is increasing and reaches above 40% today for the most efficient ones.
Hey UncleNeal, seems you have stirred the pot good.
After reading the answers and the answers to other questions of the same nature, it is painful to see most of the people have not the slightest clue on energy creation. I'll just put this out there the future is in Nuclear (fission and fusion)and Hydrogen. I know some are going to add wind, solar, etc. but these are not long term viable sources. I'll even throw this one out there just to clue some in, Methanol is not the answer to gasoline! (go ahead ask, What is? the answer is back a few sentences ago.)
Yea, sure. If that was an issue we would of heard about it already. There is more than just wind mills for power... Why are people so dependent on the media?

The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.



More Questions and Answers:
  • What are the factors responsible for global warming?
  • Does cardboard go in paper recycling?
  • Does cars produce 72% of the pollution into the atmosphere?
  • Have you ever wondered what it would be like to wake up in the morning and find there is no more fuel, ever?
  • What are your green resources?
  • Find the irony in building a big house in the woods to enjoy the woods. can you?
  • Can city people be more self-sufficient in their basic needs like water and electricity and food?
  • Is compressed natural gas considered a gasoline?
  • Who hates mondays and why ?!?!? what makes it that littel bit better ?