At 21:49 30-6-01 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Michael Harney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > For the record, I don't think the Earth is in trouble, after humans are
> > finished distroying themselves, the Earth will bounce back quite nicely.
>I
> > just don't like the irreversable damage we are doing to certain species in
> > the process of destroying ourselves.
> >
>
>I cannot see any factual basis for this statement. How are we destroying
>ourselves? Humans are better off today than at any time in history.
I think I have some idea of what Michael means (Michael, feel free to
correct me!).
We use Earth's natural resources like there's no tomorrow. We pollute air,
soil and water, we cause global warming, we destroy the rainforests, and
cause species after species to go extinct because of all this. Yes, we
humans are doing better than ever, but sooner or later our abuse of the
planet is going to catch up with us. And then there will be hell to pay... :(
s
> > How about instead of spending billions on a missle shield that even you
>say
> > is inadequate, we spend that money on solar power installation (not
> > research, actuall implementation). It only requires about 40 m^2 of solar
> > pannels to provide enough electricity for the average American household.
<snip>
>The electricity use of the US in 2000 was 3.8 trillion kilowatt-hours. If I
>can do my math right, 44 billion of these panels would re required at a cost
>of about 22 trillion dollars. If we were to do this in 10 years, it would
>require more than the entire federal budget each year.
>
>Not only that, but the footprint would be enormous. Each panel has a
>footprint of about .63 meters squared. 44 billion would have a footprint of
>about 30 billion square meters or 30,000 square km.
A footprint of .63 meters squared isn't that much: you can fit several of
those panels on the roof of your house. Admittedly, that solution is not
going to work in areas with a lot of high-rise buildings, but to provide
those areas with solar power, you could set up large fields of solar panels
in uninhabited areas. IIRC, Arizona is mostly desert -- might as well make
use of it.
Your remark about "the entire federal budget" indicates that you expect the
government to pay for it. But why not let people themselves pay for a solar
power installation in their house? Sure, it will cost several hundred
dollars per household. But, throw in a few hundred dollars of government
subsidy(*) and show people how much money they'll save in the long run (no
more electricity bills, lower gas bills), and I think this could really
take of. The system works in The Netherlands, it could also work in the US.
(*)Perhaps dependent on household income: from 0% subsidy for the rich to
100% subsidy for the very poor. This way, everybody will get a chance to
switch to solar power without almost going bankrupt.
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
