Comments for 100 Percent Renewable Energy Possible by 2030 at http://www.ecogeek.org , comment 1 to 11 out of 11 comments http://www.ecogeek.org Sun, 19 May 2013 00:33:48 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/3421-100-percent-renewable-energy-possible-by-2030#comment-42972 Dissolving the monopolies that thousands of municipalities have created is the real problem here. How are you going to dissolve the port authorities monopoly of ALL things on the west coast of the America? How are you going to dissolve the energy cartels in Los Angeles that funnel artificially inflated taxes on energy that pull in outrageous profits and then hold the city hostage for profits it owns. http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/City-Council-Says-Not-So-Fast-to-Rate-Hike-88962047.html You doubt politics will be the real problem then you need new glasses. - Todd South Wed, 16 Mar 2011 02:06:48 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/3421-100-percent-renewable-energy-possible-by-2030#comment-42875 Utopia is a world with no pollution. The only way to this is get rid of all the people. World population reduction is a more realistic way to accomplish great results. All sounds crazy, but renewable conversion is on parity with it. - Larry Bowman Tue, 08 Mar 2011 08:33:04 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/3421-100-percent-renewable-energy-possible-by-2030#comment-42835 This is a wonderful post indeed...We have brilliant renewable energy resources, brilliant innovators like Siemens[url]http://bit.ly/dS86x2[/url], so the goal of being 100% dependent on renewable energy resources to answers our energy demands by 2030 is not a tough goal to achieve:) - Sim Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:50:52 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/3421-100-percent-renewable-energy-possible-by-2030#comment-42776 So, we give up all our views, we all suffer from wind turbine health effects, we destroy the animals that live in the areas that are bein usurped and replace the natural landscapes with Don Quiotes greatest nightmare, we pay exorbitant electricity costs, we call it "green when we replace nature with wind generators filled with 850 gallons of oil each (did I say toxic waste site!). NO THANKS!!!!!!! - irene Thu, 24 Feb 2011 23:59:48 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/3421-100-percent-renewable-energy-possible-by-2030#comment-42722 it was law that every new house/factory built, had to have PVP or solar panels or roof mounted horizontal wind turbine, plus air/ground source heating or similar. It would be entirely possible that each home was responsible for it's own power without buying from outside sources. I live very rural and being able to produce my own electricity would be a definate bonus for every time we have a bit of a storm, there is a power cut. - Fenwoman Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:31:34 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/3421-100-percent-renewable-energy-possible-by-2030#comment-42637 Mark Jacobson of Stanford just gave a talk at Cornell on this very topic, it can be view along side his slides here: http://cornellmediasite.cit.cornell.edu/mediasite/Viewer/?peid=6bcc90d6b220433889f9d45aa4b29d721d Very encouraging! - Eric B Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:31:26 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/3421-100-percent-renewable-energy-possible-by-2030#comment-42567 Over two years ago I consolidated a ton of research I had collected into groups and laid out a very good plan for how to do this. When I hit a roadblock, like the pitfalls mentioned above, I went either hunting for some solution or developed one myself. The result is 6 blogs (with an included spreadsheet) that lays it all out in black and white. It only applies to the US but that's the only geographical info I had for calculating maximum "convenient" usage. Check it out. It's much more comprehensive than these guys. (Except that all large wind is lumped together - offshore, onshore, high altitude, etc.) http://push.pickensplan.com/profile/ToddMcKissick - Todd McKissick Tue, 01 Feb 2011 14:15:48 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/3421-100-percent-renewable-energy-possible-by-2030#comment-42543 What a brilliant post! From your post not only U.S but the whole world can benefit this. This is interesting, I look forward to this. =) - C'est La Mode Mon, 31 Jan 2011 04:37:33 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/3421-100-percent-renewable-energy-possible-by-2030#comment-42521 The future will be a marriage between Technology and Ecology. We are inventing solutions to these problems all the time, I'm stoked. Everything is going exponential, yes problems are, but solutions will catch up. Think of all our wasted resources on War - Let us put our men and women instead to work for green energy and use permaculture/rengenerative design. Imagine how fast we could turn this ship around! - Zachary Stowasser Thu, 27 Jan 2011 01:18:15 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/3421-100-percent-renewable-energy-possible-by-2030#comment-42506 I think this is pretty brilliant, that it's possible to achieve this benchmark, and I'm all for moving in that direction. However, I would imagine their numbers are calculated based on current energy consumption levels, possibly including 30-year projections. Regardless of what energy source we're using, we are going to run into the same problem of depleting the Earth's resources, and one solution (barring terraforming a nearby planet or mass loss of life from famine/disease/war) exists to remedy that: we must reduce our consumption levels. Green energy is not going to restock ocean fisheries, restore tropical rainforests, or revitalize nutrient-depleted soil. It will certainly help, but true sustainability goes beyond green energy, and it involves a drastic restructuring of our entire way of living and interacting with the world. - Phil Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:19:39 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/3421-100-percent-renewable-energy-possible-by-2030#comment-42502 Two major hurdles to this plan are [b]finding ways to interconnect the various power sources based on output and variability[/b] (wind being high output but high variability, tidal and geothermal being low output but low variability), and a supply bottleneck of rare earth materials. Slightly. - Pete Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:34:29 +0100