The *official* complain about XemaSab thread

[mike_c]

7. if we accept the graphic in the OP...

...then < 4% of U.S. electricity generating demand is met with renewables (excepting hydropower, which is basically a form of solar power that depends upon the planetary water cycle for energy storage, but is often quite damaging to riverine ecology).

I'm aware that calling this statistically insignificant is borderline hyperbole, but only just. And bear in mind that while domestic electricity production is only one facet of energy demand, it is the one in which renewable resources have made the greatest inroads. Just to be clear though, I don't mean to suggest that renewable energy sources are themselves insignificant. Rather, I mean that-- I believe-- growth in human energy demand CANNOT be met with existing renewable energy technologies. Given our current technology, we might have been able to do it with 19th century population levels, but frankly I'm skeptical even of that. There is no current renewable energy technology that can deliver anything close to the energy density of fossil fuels, at least that's my understanding.

I'm not here to debate that, however. First and foremost, it's only tangential to my expertise, so I'm not the most qualified person to have that discussion. I responded in this thread primarily to tell the OP that I don't accept the argument that if nothing better will do the job, that makes nuclear fission tolerable. As I said above, both fossil fuels and nuclear fission are planetary scale polluters. They are equally unsustainable and environmentally irresponsible at the scales we need to exploit in order to maintain current global energy expenditures. There are a host of other discussions to have-- for example, how far current global per capita energy expenditure can be reduced-- but I'll leave that for another thread.