Quote:
Originally Posted by moz
Can you provide a cite for this, or even a plausible explanation?
|
Have to redo the search, sorry. But will do.
Quote:
|
Sure, wind power is a limited resource, just like direct solar. But the scale is so vast that it's difficult to imagine us using all of it in the near future.
|
I never talked about "near" future, sorry if that was misphrased - lets say some millenia.
And I'm not talking about one or two wind power plants - but the production of *all* of our energy out of wind power plants. Wind power is a totally fine power for some time, to a given amount and under given presumptions (there are not that many places where you have enough place and strong enough wind to make wind power plants feasible - let alone get enough power out of them to replace nuclear power plants).
The only thing I wanted to state is, that the solution is not as simple as many politicians would like to believe. Neither oil, nor coal nor fissionable material is present in large enough amounts to use them for a long time (not talking 'bout one or two generations here). With oil and coal other problems exist in addition - e.g. CO2 and we really need oil for other purposes (e.g. chemistry). I strongly dislike simple (or simplified) solutions - reality is too complex to fit it into two sentences.
To the best of my knowledge, solar and fusion are the only power sources available to a greater degree. Sure, our sun will die in some years (earth will be cold much earlier), and in some time hydrogen will run out (well, we can fusion He too) - but we are talking about a really different time frame here. I just believe it very, very short sighted (of most political systems) to disobey fusion (or solar) research.