Yes Hydro makes up almost all of the renewable energy in these countries, you have to do a lot of digging to find it out as they post all sorts of really interesting pictures of solar panels and wind turbines but if you dig far enough you’ll find out that these account for just a miniscule amount of the energy consumedOh, stop!
[Are you, by any chance, taking credit for hydro? The greenies would not approve; wild rivers and all that.]
.
The problem with biomass is that it drives up the cost of food putting the poor, especially in Third World countries, in danger of starvation. To meet even a small part of the United States energy needs we would need to take out millions of acres of crop land from the production of food.That isn’t the case for a number of these countries. Biomass accounts for 27% in Brazil for example and it’s probably the largest untapped energy source in the United States. 175MILLION TONS/385 BILLION POUNDS of food ends up in landfills every year in the United States and there are untold tons of cropwaste that is left to rot in farmers fields; all of which can be used to produce a substantial amount of energy both in their own right and in the capture of methane in the energy production process.
Quit using buzzwords.That isn’t the case for a number of these countries. Biomass accounts for 27% in Brazil for example and it’s probably the largest untapped energy source in the United States. 175MILLION TONS/385 BILLION POUNDS of food ends up in landfills every year in the United States and there are untold tons of cropwaste that is left to rot in farmers fields; all of which can be used to produce a substantial amount of energy both in their own right and in the capture of methane in the energy production process.
As I’ve been pointing out; the US is WAY behind the times and your figure is wrong.So that demolishes your total renewable 10% U.S.
I’ve been talking about total energy CONSUMPTION.And you also need to distinguish between total energy generation versus total ELECTRIC generation.
Wrong. See the example on Brazil and there are plenty more where that comes from.
It IS renewable. You can’t go around claiming that water is not renewable on planet with a surface of 75% water.You can’t go around taking credit for hydro and claiming it is renewable…
Absolute nonsense. As I’ve pointed out; the United States wastes 172 MILLION TONS of food every year and allows untold tons of cropwaste to rot in fields. This can be used for energy production but instead it’s rotting away in landfills and fields; not being eaten by anyone in the third world or otherwise. In fact, the EIA concluded that, even if we don’t use the 172 million tons of food thrown in the garbage, biomass could account for 15% of total energy generation in the United States without any impact on food supply if the powers that be allow it.The problem with biomass is that it drives up the cost of food putting the poor, especially in Third World countries, in danger of starvation.
Is Biomass Really a Clean Energy Resource?Absolute nonsense. As I’ve pointed out; the United States wastes 172 MILLION TONS of food every year and allows untold tons of cropwaste to rot in fields. This can be used for energy production but instead it’s rotting away in landfills and fields; not being eaten by anyone in the third world or otherwise. In fact, the EIA concluded that, even if we don’t use the 172 million tons of food thrown in the garbage, biomass could account for 15% of total energy generation in the United States without any impact on food supply if the powers that be allow it.
Its called a hypothesis and not a claim. And no confidence level is required for a hypothesis. Please tell me where you get this stuff.I’ve always found the IPCC reports to be ultra-conservative, since science requires 90-95% confidence before making claims, and these reports require agreement among many reticent scientists, making the reports more conservative than individual studies.
That is incorrect. According to EIA records 172 million tons of biomass isn’t even 15% of the weight of coal used in power generation. Not even including pwer generated from natural gas, petroleum liquids, nuclear ect.Absolute nonsense. As I’ve pointed out; the United States wastes 172 MILLION TONS of food every year and allows untold tons of cropwaste to rot in fields. This can be used for energy production but instead it’s rotting away in landfills and fields; not being eaten by anyone in the third world or otherwise. In fact, the EIA concluded that, even if we don’t use the 172 million tons of food thrown in the garbage, biomass could account for 15% of total energy generation in the United States without any impact on food supply if the powers that be allow it.
The Pope and certainly the Bishops have proven time and again through history, that while they may be right about certain infallible rulings, they are astonishingly ignorant and completely disregard scientific inquiry. That they chose to propose the false religion of AGW as a moral issue is very unfortunate and only furthers a long heritage of sticking their nose in places is has no expertise.At any rate the Catholic Church thru the popes and bishops has admonished us time and again over the past 20 years to mitigate AGW, that it is the moral and prudent thing to do, even if some do not accept all the science on it. Even AFTER the CRU hack (“climategate”) and mistakes found in the IPCC (“glaciergate”), BXVI wrote recently:
“Man’s inhumanity to man has given rise to numerous threats to peace…Yet no less troubling are the threats arising from the neglect – if not downright misuse – of the earth and the natural goods that God has given us…Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change… attention also needs to be paid to the world-wide problem of water and to the global water cycle system [including the glacial cycle], which is of prime importance for life on earth and whose stability could be seriously jeopardized by climate change” – Pope Benedict XVI, “If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation,” 2010, vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20091208_xliii-world-day-peace_en.html
No, you’re just WAY behind the times when it comes to hydropower. The United States has thousands of miles of coastline and hasn’t taken advantage of ocean wave power which has potential energy production of 40-70KW PER METER of ocean. This technology has already been implimented in Europe.The idea that the United States is behind the rest of the world on hydro power is the most ridiculous statement ever uttered or written…You can’t just decide to increase hydro power by the force of will…The good sites are pretty much all taken already in the U.S.
You forgot the rest of the experiment – where they make observations that either support or fail to support the hypothesis. The IPCC reports are based on scientific studies, which are based on proven hypotheses…which then can be called theories.Its called a hypothesis and not a claim. And no confidence level is required for a hypothesis. Please tell me where you get this stuff.
They’re telling the truth.From a parallel thread:
Originally Posted by Linda Marie
Here’s the rub. One has to determine if they [the scientists] are telling the truth or if they are just out to feather their nests.
And you don’t see the inherent contradiction in your two first sentences???They’re telling the truth.
And even if they were not (outside chance with less than .05 prob), it still pays in $$, in human lives, and in protecting God’s good creation to mitigate AGW. So let’s get to it.