Reptile & Amphibian Forums

what are you talking about? what are you compairing the data from today to? are you compairing the todays data to data from 50 years ago? if the world is 3 million years old how are you going to make any reasonalbe conclusion on 100 years worth of data? thats just bad science. the fact is we don't have enough data to even think we know what kind of cycles the earth might have, remember the ice age, we don't even have that data in our conclusion.

here is an idea, maybe the earth has "seasons" like we do, eccept what happens for us in a year may take the earth 5,000 or 10,00 years to complete the cycle.

i've have no idea if these thought have even been said before, i didn't read every post on the topic. but thought i would throw my 2 cents in. tell me what you think

Absolutely correct.

Just what I have been saying this whole time!

Don't call global warming a fact when there is so much evidence which disproves the theory. (I've been counting and noticing on the news that they only refer to global warming as a theory about 1 out of 20 times. The rest of the time they refer to it as though it is fact.) Interestingly, Clinton declared "global warming as no longer a theory, but it is now a fact". That's not very good science either! Declaring something as fact doesn't make it so--especially when it comes from a confirmed liar!

Also, don't blame it on pollution when most warming in the past 150 years occurred prior to the vast majority of air pollution, while very little warming has happened since 1940 (the vast majority of air pollution)---not to mention the earth has been cooling over the last 20 years.

It could be from pollution, it might not be, there are simply too many variables, but the evidence (if you look purely at pollution data, and time) suggests pollution causes cooling!--the exact opposite of what environmental groups are saying.

Rodney

I couldnt agree with you more! I dont know where these "scientists" get their half-cocked notions!! I dont know what in the world they are talking about. Global warming indeed!! This winter we have seen some of the coldest weather in 20 years!!

I agree with you, how can you compare data that is 40 or 50 years old with causing global warming? Whats more, geologists found a rock in Australia in 1986, that is 4.4 BILLION years old. The oldest rock found on the earths crust!! So geologists know that the earth has been around for some 4 billion years.

So, how in theory, can we measure, and Ill be liberal here, 100 years of "evidence" and claim global warming?? Horse manure!!

I would like to know what they think about the ice age?? Before that almost the entire earth was a hot humid jungle like planet.

So here is my theory. Some of you may agree while some will likey disagree. But it is just my opinion, so take it as such.

During the early life of the universe there was alot of "trash" floating around in space. After all, there had to be alot of debris left after the universe was formed. Im sure the earth was hit by its fair share of this space debris in its early life. The argument that space born debris likely brought life forming building blocks to earth is, in my opinion, pretty valid.
The earth started cooling off from creation. How long do you think it would take the earth to cool down?? I would guess along time.

Life gained a foot hold and began evolution, the oldest multi-cellular fossil on record is 1.2 billion years old!! So that means the earth had 3.2 billion years to cool off!! We dont have any idea what the climate was like, but I bet it was warm. Seems like it had to be a fairly decent temp for life to get started.

By 500 million years ago, we were in the Cambrian period and life was starting to thrive. The Cambrian period is when life literally exploded on earth and different life forms were going through evolution at an extraordinary rate.

Only 100 million years later, during the Devonian period, there was a vast multitude of plants and animals, to include seed plants!

At 360-280 million years ago, the Carboniferous period took place. Plants literally took over the earth. During this time, the plants created more oxygen than had ever been seen before on earth. The earth hasnt seen that rich of an oxygenated atmosphere since. The first ice age of the earth also happened at the end of this period.

Then at about 290 to 248 million years ago, during the Permian period, there was a huge amount of life on earth. The seas were full of life. Then at the end of the Permian, a huge extinction took place. 95% of all ocean life perished!!! 95%!! That is devastating! But that cleared the way for the dinosaurs. During the Permian period, the continents were fused together and formed what is know as Pangea.

It is thought that much of the interior was dry because of the size of the land mass and small amount of rain fall that would reach inland.
Not much is known about the extinction during this period. The theory is that the ice age cooled the oceans to such a degree that the marine life that was used to a warm ocean couldnt adapt and became extinct.

Then about 250 million years ago, the earth entered the Triassic period. This was when the dinosaurs started appearing. At this point the earth started warming up again. he climate was warm and dry, and the interior of Pangea was arid.

Do we see a trend yet??

Then about 208 million years ago, the entered the Jurrasic period. We all are familiar with this period. The age of the Dinosaurs! At this time the earth was warm and moist, a greenhouse effect if you will!! The seas and ocean all warmed up again, the glaciers receded and the ocean level was very high and covered vast amounts of the continents.

Then at about 144 million years ago the Cretaceous period started. The earth continued to stay warm and moist and the great continent Pangea broke up. It is at the end of this period that the dinosaurs became extinct and the earth once again started cooling. Many believe this cooling was caused by multiple asteroid hits on the earths surface that caused massive amounts of dust to be thrown into the earths atmosphere. This is supported by the massive craters in Arizona, Mexico and in the ocean off the coast of Mexico. If you look at them on a map, they line up pretty good! And were all created at the same time.

Also during this mass extinction, not only the dinosaurs went extinct, but mass amounts of plant life, both in the ocean and on land, and other animals. This happened a fairly short time ago, 65 million years!! But this cooling effect wasnt significant enough to cause another ice age. That wouldnt happen again until the Pleistocene period.

The Early Eocene was possibly the warmest of all eras. Possibly from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to the mass extinction of plant life on earth. The average temperature was about 85 F. This continued through to the Pleistocene period.

Then we have the Great Ice Age. This happened about 19000 years ago.

No one can definitely say what caused the Ice age. What caused the first one 280 million years ago during the Carboniferous period?? Dont really know. The only thing that is for sure is the earth does go through a heating/cooling trend. It has done this for billions of years, and man has only been on the planet for maybe 2-3 million years. And of that, only a few thousand have actually been "civilized"! And only in the last 200 or so years has man actually been contributing to "global warming"

So I do not believe that man is to blame for "global warming". I think it is a natural occurance of the earths "seaons".

Global warming, just a way to legally tax autos that are considered "gas guzzlers" and a way to blame all the crazy weather. Since when have we been able to accurately predict the weather?? Not since I have been alive. Sure we can say its going to rain or snow, but do we really know what kind of weather we will have for this coming summer?? Last summer was one of the coolest, rainiest summers I can remember!! So what happened to global warming last summer? Did it take a summer vacation??

Please.
Brian

>>what are you talking about? what are you compairing the data from today to? are you compairing the todays data to data from 50 years ago? if the world is 3 million years old how are you going to make any reasonalbe conclusion on 100 years worth of data? thats just bad science. the fact is we don't have enough data to even think we know what kind of cycles the earth might have, remember the ice age, we don't even have that data in our conclusion.
>>
>>
>>here is an idea, maybe the earth has "seasons" like we do, eccept what happens for us in a year may take the earth 5,000 or 10,00 years to complete the cycle.
>>
>>i've have no idea if these thought have even been said before, i didn't read every post on the topic. but thought i would throw my 2 cents in. tell me what you think

-----

1.0 Corn snake
1.0 Black rat snake
1.0 Albino Black rat snake
1.0 Everglades rat snake
0.1 Yellow rat snake
1.1 California king snake
1.0 Prairie king snake
0.1 Black king snake

Good luck and Happy Herping
Brian

and 2 minor points.

Of the last 200 years man "could" have contributed to global warming, actual temp. records have only been kept for about 150 years. Most of "gasses" that are blamed have been produced in the last 50 to 60 years, while about 75% of the warming during that period occurred before we produced these gasses and only 25% of the warming occurred since we started producing these gasses in large amounts. So let's see 75% of the warming occured from 1855 to 1940 (a 85 year period of clean air) and 25% of the warming occured from 1940 to today (a 65 year period of green house gasses). Three times as much warming (with clean air) has occured in about the same time period of polluted air? Does that make the global warming from pollutants and man make any sense to anyone? How many cars were on the road in 1930? How far did people drive back then considering the conditions of the mostly dirt roads? How much did those few cars, that weren't typically driven very far, pollute compared to the billions of cars and typical commute distances in the world today?

So why has warming slowed so much after we started producing those gasses, if those gasses are to blame? Are those green house gasses actually cooling the Earth like the data suggests?

If there is some other factor causing global cooling, it's a good thing that we are countering that cooling! I'd much rather have the earth cooling very slowly (like it has been for the last 20 years or so) than to have it cooling at a much faster rate! An ice age is far more dangerous to the Earth's inhabitants than any slight warming is!

Rodney

Check out this site. Figured you would enjoy it.

http://www.globalwarming.org/brochure.html
-----

1.0 Corn snake
1.0 Black rat snake
1.0 Albino Black rat snake
1.0 Everglades rat snake
0.1 Yellow rat snake
1.1 California king snake
1.0 Prairie king snake
0.1 Black king snake

Good luck and Happy Herping
Brian

That is one of many sites I have already visited. They have a lot of articles on global warming, but I missed that one.

I particularly liked the following paragraph:

The Clinton Administration has supported a system of tradable permits to be used by companies that emit CO2. These permits could be bought and sold inter-nationally, giving companies an incentive to lower emissions and thus sell their permits. But this system would require massive international oversight on the order of a worldwide EPA to track CO2 emissions, and the costs to consumers would still be high.

Sounds exactly like the Bush plan, (except his plan was only to involve companies within the US, and thus it could be much more easily verified/managed)-to trade in pollution "permits" that was so overwhelmingly condemned by the liberals as an outright attack on the environment. Hypocrites once again!

I read another article that tried to say that satellite measurements were inaccurate. They "claimed" those readings were low and inaccurate because they were actually measuring the atmosphere everywhere, instead of the ground temps at a small number of locations.

What sense does that make?

If green house gasses are causing the earth to heat by preventing heat from radiating into space, wouldn't satellite measurements of the atmosphere show an even larger heating effect (instead of a cooling one), than the Earth based measuring stations? (Absolutely no common sense)

They got it backwards again! It's like burning your finger on a hot stove and blaming your finger for making the burner hot!

Rodney

Brian - I think you and rodney have a lot in common and should enjoy talking with one another about global warming!

Have fun.

I have presented some very factual information. Sure my belief about the extinction during the end of the age of dinosaurs is only theory, but the rest of the information I presented is fact.

The earth in its long history has gone through heating and cooling cycles for billions of years. Man has only been on the planet a measley 1 million years. And only a very small fration of that time frame has man been polluting the atmosphere. Maybe, maybe 200 years have we really been contributing to atmospheric pollution. But, that is a very small percentage. 2-3% is man made, the other 97-98% is water vapor!! That is also a fact.

This is pasted directly from www.globalwarming.org:

Science

Larger quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere and warmer climates would likely lead to an increase in vegetation. During warm periods in history vegetation flourished, at one point allowing the Vikings to farm in now frozen Greenland.

This last bullet is supported by vast amounts of evidence!! Read up on the Carboniferous period, and this will show how well plant life would flourish!!

I just dont see how scientists can actually believe this non-sense. Maybe they are biased because of their belief that man is destroying the earth and they will cling to anything to bolster their claim. Its kind of like Chicken Little running around crying about the sky falling!!

Im sorry I just dont buy it. The earth will be here longer than the human race, that is for sure. I agree that we have polluted her in many ways, and I dont like it. Im from the country and I hate to see our riverways, forests, and highways littered with trash, illegal dumping, and industrial pollution. Those are the topics we need to get hot on. Habitat destruction, mass fish kills from dumping crap into the oceans, lakes and rivers, etc. etc. etc. The list goes on and on.

But global warming? I dont see it. I have followed the debate between you and Rodney, and I have yet to read anything you have presented that is factual. No factual evidence supports global warming is caused by man! None. A computer model is only as good as the programmer and the information put into it.

Further more, this is right from the NASA web page:

"Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity."

So, if you can, please present factual evidence to support your belief. I only believe what I see as fact. If the facts would have shown me that man has indeed caused global warming, then of course I would be right there with you in your belief. But so far I have not seen anything you or anyone else has presented based on actual fact. Just say so from some scientists that "believe" they are right. And they are the minority.

I have jumped on various pro "global warming" web pages, and there is no factual evidence to support their beliefs either.

I think that the politicians who jump on this band wagon, use it solely for their benefit to get elected to office!! I do not like politicians and do not trust them. They tell you one thing to get elected, and then do just the opposite. Crooked, all of them. I dont care if they are Democrat, Republican or otherwise. I dont trust them. I think the whole system needs to be revamped. But that will never happen, and that is another debate altogether!! LOL

Present some factual evidence, and make a valid argument. I like a good intellectual debate. Im not hacking on you, just would like to see what kind of evidence has made you so wholeheartedly believe in the global warming dilemma.

Brian

>>Brian - I think you and rodney have a lot in common and should enjoy talking with one another about global warming!
>>
>>Have fun.
-----

1.0 Corn snake
1.0 Black rat snake
1.0 Albino Black rat snake
1.0 Everglades rat snake
0.1 Yellow rat snake
1.1 California king snake
1.0 Prairie king snake
0.1 Black king snake

Good luck and Happy Herping
Brian

Couldn't have said it better myself. Read both sides and then make up your mind, don't make up your mind and then try to justify it.

I found the exact same thing. No evidence on the pro-global warming sites, and a couple of arguments that made no sense.

Anti-global warming sites, lots of info with data to back it up, and arguments that made sense.

Interesting thing about theories, they have to be proved before they are considered facts! --(But not according to Clinton, since he "declared" global warming is no longer a theory, but a fact!)

Here's an interesting story.--Clinton, Gore and democrats in bed with Enron and the "global warming" scam.--and this comes from a very liberal newspaper! (just so pulatus won't attack my source again, he loves the liberal media!)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/16/135018.shtml

Think that might be why Gore is so behind this issue?

Isn't it interesting that the Bush administration didn't back the Kyoto accord, like Clinton did? (Considering all the big business/Enron links to the Bush administration that many liberals have been trying to make.) The opposite seems to be true, at least in this case. Why didn't Bush sign the Kyoto accord, and make billions for Enron?

(I hate coal burning plants by the way, and I support their removal, but not this way. We need nuclear plants, the cleanest, cheapest, safest energy around!)

Rodney

>>Couldn't have said it better myself. Read both sides and then make up your mind, don't make up your mind and then try to justify it.
>>
>>I found the exact same thing. No evidence on the pro-global warming sites, and a couple of arguments that made no sense.
>>
>>Anti-global warming sites, lots of info with data to back it up, and arguments that made sense.
>>
>>Interesting thing about theories, they have to be proved before they are considered facts! --(But not according to Clinton, since he "declared" global warming is no longer a theory, but a fact!)
>>
>>
>>Here's an interesting story.--Clinton, Gore and democrats in bed with Enron and the "global warming" scam.--and this comes from a very liberal newspaper! (just so pulatus won't attack my source again, he loves the liberal media!)
>>
>>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/16/135018.shtml
>>
>>Think that might be why Gore is so behind this issue?
>>
>>Isn't it interesting that the Bush administration didn't back the Kyoto accord, like Clinton did? (Considering all the big business/Enron links to the Bush administration that many liberals have been trying to make.) The opposite seems to be true, at least in this case. Why didn't Bush sign the Kyoto accord, and make billions for Enron?
>>
>>
>>I hate coal burning plants by the way, and I support their removal, but not this way. We need nuclear plants, the cleanest, cheapest, safest energy around!)
>>
>>Rodney
>>
>>
>>
-----

1.0 Corn snake
1.0 Black rat snake
1.0 Albino Black rat snake
1.0 Everglades rat snake
0.1 Yellow rat snake
1.1 California king snake
1.0 Prairie king snake
0.1 Black king snake

Good luck and Happy Herping
Brian

I hate coal burning plants by the way, and I support their removal, but not this way. We need nuclear plants, the cleanest, cheapest, safest energy around!

Nuclear energy isnt all its cracked up to be either. Just wondering if you have ever lived around one?? I did for about 6 years. They put off alot of water vapor and cause lots of rain in the area. Not only that, but the problem of disposing of the spent nuclear rods. They still are radioactive even though they are "spent". They can cause heavy metal poisoning in both the soil and water shed. That is why it is hard for the plants to get rid of the spent rods.

The best energy source is probably solar energy. Just not real efficient right now. Maybe in the future, technology will give us the break through we need to create and utilize high tech solar panels.
Brian
-----

1.0 Corn snake
1.0 Black rat snake
1.0 Albino Black rat snake
1.0 Everglades rat snake
0.1 Yellow rat snake
1.1 California king snake
1.0 Prairie king snake
0.1 Black king snake

Good luck and Happy Herping
Brian

No, I never have lived near one.

But I did look into it a bit. (Nuclear vs. coal)

Coal plants produce an enormous amount of radioactive material, far more than nuclear plants do even! If I remember correctly, it is 2,000 tons of radioactive material, that is naturally occurring within the coal, that is burned yearly in the U.S.. (Primarily Thorium, I think it was.) All of that material is blown into the air for everyone to breath, not to mention all the mercury, coal soot, and other stuff mixed in. At least the small amount of nuclear rods produced aren't in the air!

One thing that has always bothered me, that no one has been able to answer well so far, is this:

If we dig material out of the ground, concentrate and purify it, then extract a huge amount of energy out of it, why can't we then grind it up (to dilute it) and bury it back from where it came from? It was there before we dug it up! (other than environmental groups blocking this)

Another point, nuclear rods can be re-refined. Doing so will reduce the amount of nuclear waste by about 90%. Why do environmentalist block this from happening?

As for solar, while I agree it is currently inefficient due to cost vs. return, even after that problem is conquered, there is still the problem of space. It takes an enormous amount of space to place enough panels to run a small town. Too much space to make it viable, as far as I know. Sure it will be helpful to add to the energy "grid", but do you really think it could ever approach as much as 5% of the total U.S. energy consumption? You can only get so much energy per square foot of solar panel, and that amount is extremely small compared to other energy sources vs. the area needed. Then there is the cost of all the land that is needed too---not near enough rooftop area to do this.

At least with nuclear, we have it now, it can make energy at night to produce hydrogen for our future cars, it can meet all of our electric needs, and it will work even when the sun don't shine.

Rodney

Rodney
What are you disagreeing with? I agree with you on the coal. It is a very polluting energy source!

And we still have the storage problem with the spent nuclear rods.

On the "depurifying" of the spent nuclear material, I am sure it can be done, but even though it is "depurified", it still is radioactive. Uranium in its natural form is still highly radioactive. So the storage requirements are the same.

The only reason it is purified, is to get any "foreign" materials out of it so it can be processed into fuel rods. The refined uranium is not a solid metal. It is an ore that is crushed and ground into a "powder" form, called "yellow cake". It is then mixed with various metals or compounds to create a solid fuel rod. So you can see how hard and costly it would be to just "depurify" it. These fuel rods are then encased in a metal protective layer to give it structural strength and to keep it from giving off radioactive particles.

Once these fuel rods are spent, they can no longer create energy efficiently, but are still highly radioactive. That is why most of the handling of the spent fuel rods is done with robotics. These fuel rods can continue to give off radiation for thousands of years. The National repository, once constructed, will be deep enough in the ground to keep the radioactive release from the human population. It will be able to store the material for 10000 years!!!!! Long time.

The national repository for spent nuclear fuel is not expected to be complete for another 20 years. And until then the spent rods are stored in 3 places in the U.S. Washington state, Idaho, and S. Carolina. Nuclear energy is by far the cleanest energy source, until the rods are spent. Then we have the storage problem. As long as the DOE (Dept of Energy) maintains a safe temporary storage of these fuel rods, then all is well.

Here is a link you might find interesting and full of info. Its one of the sites I have found while checking out stuff.

http://nsnfp.inel.gov/default.asp

It is the web site of the national spent nuclear fuel program.

And yes, currently, nuclear energy is the cleanest energy source.

On the solar energy issue. That is correct until technology allows us to create a more efficient solar panel. Look at the computer. The first one built was so huge it had to housed in its own building, now we have computers smaller than a briefcase that are a thousand fold faster than the first one built.

So I think it is a matter of time before technology allows us to create a better solar panel. Or maybe even some sort of hydrogen powered plant. There are alot of exciting things going on with hydrogen energy. But it is still in its infancy and may take years to utilize hydrogen efficiently.
Brian

>>No, I never have lived near one.
>>
>>But I did look into it a bit. (Nuclear vs. coal)
>>
>>Coal plants produce an enormous amount of radioactive material, far more than nuclear plants do even! If I remember correctly, it is 2,000 tons of radioactive material, that is naturally occurring within the coal, that is burned yearly in the U.S.. (Primarily Thorium, I think it was.) All of that material is blown into the air for everyone to breath, not to mention all the mercury, coal soot, and other stuff mixed in. At least the small amount of nuclear rods produced aren't in the air!
>>
>>One thing that has always bothered me, that no one has been able to answer well so far, is this:
>>
>>If we dig material out of the ground, concentrate and purify it, then extract a huge amount of energy out of it, why can't we then grind it up (to dilute it) and bury it back from where it came from? It was there before we dug it up! (other than environmental groups blocking this)
>>
>>
>>Another point, nuclear rods can be re-refined. Doing so will reduce the amount of nuclear waste by about 90%. Why do environmentalist block this from happening?
>>
>>
>>As for solar, while I agree it is currently inefficient due to cost vs. return, even after that problem is conquered, there is still the problem of space. It takes an enormous amount of space to place enough panels to run a small town. Too much space to make it viable, as far as I know. Sure it will be helpful to add to the energy "grid", but do you really think it could ever approach as much as 5% of the total U.S. energy consumption? You can only get so much energy per square foot of solar panel, and that amount is extremely small compared to other energy sources vs. the area needed. Then there is the cost of all the land that is needed too---not near enough rooftop area to do this.
>>
>>At least with nuclear, we have it now, it can make energy at night to produce hydrogen for our future cars, it can meet all of our electric needs, and it will work even when the sun don't shine.
>>
>>Rodney

-----

1.0 Corn snake
1.0 Black rat snake
1.0 Albino Black rat snake
1.0 Everglades rat snake
0.1 Yellow rat snake
1.1 California king snake
1.0 Prairie king snake
0.1 Black king snake

Good luck and Happy Herping
Brian

What I am disagreeing with, are two things:

1) that storage of spent rods is such a problem.

2) That the viability of solar energy will ever be a solution.

I think the danger they (spent rods) pose is much less than many people believe. Uranium is an extremely common element. Radioactivity/and Uranium are everywhere already, in smaller amounts. Refining a material is a much harder process than "denaturing" or diluting a material. I still see no reason why the spent rods need to be stored in a special facility (other than to make a bunch of worried people happy). It came from the ground originally, and wasn't a huge threat then, it contains less energy now that so much energy has been extracted from it, why not put it back in the ground in about the same form/concentration instead of using a special facility to store it?

Now about solar:

Currently, solar panels are about 14% efficient. The ones used in the space program are the best we have (VERY expensive) and they are about 22% efficient. Currently, the cheap ones cost so much, that the interest you could get from putting your money in a bank would be more than the cost of the energy they produce! And that's doesn't include your initial capital outlay. So if you have a lot of money laying around that you don't know what to do with, and if you want to loose some money on top of that, install some panels today!-LOL So let's assume that sometime in the future we can get a panel up to 30% efficiency.

Current high wattage panels (the more efficient ones) produce about 5 watts per square foot under ideal conditions. (A 38" X 13" panel will put out 15 watts)

Now to do a little math:

Consider that if you rotate this panel, so it is always perpendicular to the sun, I'll be very generous and say this size will probably put out around 100 watts per day year round, average (considering nighttime/winter/cloudy conditions/less than peak light/etc. or around 1/2 that without a rotating device).

That gives you around 30 watts per day per square foot of panel (with rotation). Then considering the facility you would need would be about 3 times that size (access roads/access to the panels, etc. you would now get about 10 watts per square foot of facility area per day. Double that to 20 watts per square foot per day once we get panels up to double their current efficiency. Then divide that 20 watts per day per foot of facility area by 24 hours in a day to get watts per hour and you come up with a little less than 1 watt per hour per square foot of facility per day. (this is just to take into account that the sun doesn't shine at night)

A typical nuclear plant today will produce anywhere from 500 to 1000 megawatt--day and night. (I'll use 1000 megawatts to make the math easy) So you would need an area the size of 1,000,000,000 square feet to produce the same energy as one large nuclear plant.

An acre is 43,560 square feet, so you would need about 23,000 acres of land, filled with panels to replace just one nuclear plant (and that's assuming we can double the output of today's panels, which might not even be possible--considering that the best panels today are only 8% better than typical panels, and they have to get another 8% better than that. Panel efficiency increases are very slow in coming, nothing like the computer industry. Computers got smaller and faster, but panels must have a certain area to capture that amount of sunlight, so they can't be downsized. A panel 1/2 it's original size can't produce any more energy than the available sunlight that hits it--no matter how advanced the technology. This problem doesn't happen with computers. If you think panel cost will come down like computers did, you are fooling yourself. They will come down a little with the reduced costs of mass production, but that's about it.

Then you have the problem of storing that energy with batteries and such for times when the sun isn't available, rotating devices, materials to build all these panels that will take up so much room, etc. Get rid of the rotating devices, and I think you would reduce production by around 1/2 so you would then need twice the acreage.

Another way to look at it, during peak times, we get about 1,000 watts of energy from the sun, hitting the ground, per square yard. This give us about 100 watts per square foot. Multiply that, by lets say 8, to get average watts per day, or 800 watts. Take into account the other things mentioned above. (I'll just use the 30 watt per square foot ratio.) 30:800 = 1:26.6

So divide 23,000 acres of land by 26.6 and you get abut 1,000 acres of land. And that's assuming rotating devices, 100% efficient panels (which is not possible), then you would need more land still to house all the needed batteries or other energy storage devices--and environmental threats of that as well as the manufacturing of all those panels. What will you do in winter when the sun doesn't shine as much (shorter days, storms, cloudy conditions that might last more than a week)? When heating needs are highest (winter)? Can you store enough energy to get by those lean times? etc. Then where are you going to place those facilities? I assume not somewhere in the desert where dust will constantly be needed to be cleaned off the panels, or somewhere where it snows a lot (for the same reason)--too expensive to maintain that way.

I just don't see it anywhere close to being a possible large percentage of our energy needs, ever. A very small part, yes.

Rodney

I think the whole global warming debate is open to discussion. I don't have hard and fast opinions about it at all. You have to understand my point here...

Rodney has been on this site for a long time. He is known to make really absurd claims, like "the environmental movement was started by communists" and global warming happens only at nigt, so most of us won't mind". Really silly stuff.

I have called him on some of these and he is really a master at squirrling his way out of things. So lately he made another outlandish claim - that the "vast ajority of scientists don't even believe global warming is ahppening"

Well he just tosses this out like its a fact - so I call him on it. For evidence he states that two petitions were conducted and the one that was against global warming got more signatures than the one that was for it. Now obviously, these petitions are not valid samples of the scientific community, and so I called him on that. So rather than just admit these two petitions were not valid, he starts piling up all this other stuff.

Anyway, he's basically delusional, and I think I can be certain of that now. But I didn't want to write him off without giving him every chance to save face. But he chose not to.

So this was like a little test, which he failed.