Talk-Polywell.org

California has the nation's most ambitious plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Step one is to cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Then comes the really hard part -- cutting the emissions by an additional 80 percent by 2050.

Can it be done? A California Council on Science and Technology report, which was produced by scientists from the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, says yes and outlines how to do it.

However, the steps that must be taken are so daunting that they raise serious doubts about meeting such an ambitious goal in just 39 years.

The report recommends a combination of efforts that would completely alter the way we produce and use most of our energy today.

At the heart of the solution is a nearly total reduction in the use of fossil fuels and replacing them with electric power, produced by renewable sources of energy and/or nuclear power.

As gasoline, natural gas and diesel oil are phased out, they will have to be replaced with a massive increase in electricity production. It will be needed to recharge battery-powered and hybrid motor vehicles, which the report says will have to replace gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles.

Also, all of the electricity will have to be produced without fossil fuels. That means replacing all of the plants powered by natural gas, which accounts for most of the state's electricity production today.

The scientists who
compiled the report realistically understand that wind and solar power, even with major advances, will be able to produce only a small fraction of the electricity that will be required.

The report says that it would take 30 -- yes, 30 -- new nuclear power plants to provide just two-thirds of California's electricity needs by 2050.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/opinion/ci_19512658

MSimon wrote:

California has the nation's most ambitious plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Step one is to cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Then comes the really hard part -- cutting the emissions by an additional 80 percent by 2050.

Can it be done? A California Council on Science and Technology report, which was produced by scientists from the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, says yes and outlines how to do it.

However, the steps that must be taken are so daunting that they raise serious doubts about meeting such an ambitious goal in just 39 years.

The report recommends a combination of efforts that would completely alter the way we produce and use most of our energy today.

At the heart of the solution is a nearly total reduction in the use of fossil fuels and replacing them with electric power, produced by renewable sources of energy and/or nuclear power.

As gasoline, natural gas and diesel oil are phased out, they will have to be replaced with a massive increase in electricity production. It will be needed to recharge battery-powered and hybrid motor vehicles, which the report says will have to replace gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles.

Also, all of the electricity will have to be produced without fossil fuels. That means replacing all of the plants powered by natural gas, which accounts for most of the state's electricity production today.

The scientists who
compiled the report realistically understand that wind and solar power, even with major advances, will be able to produce only a small fraction of the electricity that will be required.

The report says that it would take 30 -- yes, 30 -- new nuclear power plants to provide just two-thirds of California's electricity needs by 2050.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/opinion/ci_19512658

Maybe Nevada.

Skipjack wrote:

Maybe Nevada.

Oh you mean because of the nice mobsters there, that run that state?

MSimon wrote:

Skipjack wrote:

Maybe Nevada.

Oh you mean because of the nice mobsters there, that run that state?

More honest than politicians. A very sad commentary on the state of politics in America.

Aero wrote:

MSimon wrote:

Skipjack wrote: Oh you mean because of the nice mobsters there, that run that state?

More honest than politicians. A very sad commentary on the state of politics in America.

Ask a mobster, he is a politician!

More honest than politicians. A very sad commentary on the state of politics in America.

ScottL wrote:Actually, decreased population in an overcrowsed state leads to benefit, not loss. California suffers from over-population in its major cities, extreme demand on its rivers (central valley is dust), over-priced real-estate, over taxed water and electric grids. By reducing said population while maintaining Silicon Valley, it's a win-win for California. Now if they could just reinstate their property tax, they'd be at a budget surplus in less than 10 years.

ScottL wrote:I dunno, Silicon Valley and SF are still prime places for any computer related business. The next area on the list would be the Dallas, TX area. I just don't see Silicon Valley shrinking ....ever. As for taxes, well they were quite successful with a sudden and drastic down turn when Reagan took office. He cut taxes and the economy declined and continued to do so...even under conservative governors and a conservative state legislature. Sometimes you gotta raise taxes and sometimes you have to cut....they've been on a cutting spree since the 70s.