It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
As it happens, a team of Stanford engineers led by Mark Jacobson outlined just such a plan back in 2015. Jacobson's repowering plan would involve installing 335,000 onshore wind turbines; 154,000 offshore wind turbines; 75 million residential photovoltaic systems; 2.75 million commercial photovoltaic systems; 46,000 utility-scale photovoltaic facilities; 3,600 concentrated solar power facilities with onsite heat storage; and an extensive array of underground thermal storage facilities. Assuming steep declines in the costs of each form of renewable electric power generation, just running the electrical grid using only renewable power would still cost roughly $7 trillion by 2030. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation calculated that the total cost of an earlier version of Jacobson's scheme would amount to $13 trillion. And based on how fast it has taken to install energy generation infrastructure in the past, Jacobson's repowering plan would require a sustained installation rate that is more than 14 times the U.S. average over the last 55 years and more than six times the peak rate
originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: pavil
For starters : Tell me how much it will cost and how will we pay for it?
Maybe she can get the Mexicans to pay for it....
originally posted by: pavil
originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: pavil
For starters : Tell me how much it will cost and how will we pay for it?
Maybe she can get the Mexicans to pay for it....
Sorry, Mexico's GDP is only 1.15 trillion. Not enough even for the low end.
Just goes to show you the enormity of the cost of this.
I suppose you have a real answer or you can just stay flippant.
I suppose you have a real answer or you can just stay flippant.
originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: pavil
I suppose you have a real answer or you can just stay flippant.
First of all normal Americans don’t even want this crap. Second, he has to give you a flippant answer, because there isn’t a logical way to answer your question.
Hell, Democrats don’t even want to pay 5billion to protect our borders from illegal invaders, but have no problem adding 20 trillion to the national debt for zero benefit to the citizens of our country.
originally posted by: musicismagic
If the politicians want it, they'll just print more funny money, its that simple actually. The Federal Reserve does it and gets away with it and they are private individuals that run it. Crazy I know, but that's the truth.
Today's money is really a trade-off of what Americans call "freedom".
Between 2008 and 2015, the Fed's balance sheet, its total assets, ballooned from $900 billion to $4.5 trillion.
originally posted by: olaru12
originally posted by: pavil
originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: pavil
For starters : Tell me how much it will cost and how will we pay for it?
Maybe she can get the Mexicans to pay for it....
Sorry, Mexico's GDP is only 1.15 trillion. Not enough even for the low end.
Just goes to show you the enormity of the cost of this.
I suppose you have a real answer or you can just stay flippant.
I get it. When I say it, it's flippant but when trump says it people stand and cheer.
originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: pavil
Can't say I know how much it will cost, but if you read the fine print about how they propse to fund this, you'll see talk of a special Federal Reserve package.
Which means that the Fed will print more money out of thin air ( a la 2008 bailouts ) and devalue the currency that's already in circulation.
Complete scam pushed by useful idiots.
originally posted by: pavil
originally posted by: olaru12
originally posted by: pavil
originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: pavil
For starters : Tell me how much it will cost and how will we pay for it?
Maybe she can get the Mexicans to pay for it....
Sorry, Mexico's GDP is only 1.15 trillion. Not enough even for the low end.
Just goes to show you the enormity of the cost of this.
I suppose you have a real answer or you can just stay flippant.
I get it. When I say it, it's flippant but when trump says it people stand and cheer.
It's also a quite different amounts of money we are talking. If we are to even consider this, people better be able to say first, how much it will cost and second, how it will be paid for?
originally posted by: olaru12
originally posted by: pavil
originally posted by: olaru12
originally posted by: pavil
originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: pavil
For starters : Tell me how much it will cost and how will we pay for it?
Maybe she can get the Mexicans to pay for it....
Sorry, Mexico's GDP is only 1.15 trillion. Not enough even for the low end.
Just goes to show you the enormity of the cost of this.
I suppose you have a real answer or you can just stay flippant.
I get it. When I say it, it's flippant but when trump says it people stand and cheer.
It's also a quite different amounts of money we are talking. If we are to even consider this, people better be able to say first, how much it will cost and second, how it will be paid for?
Who cares, it's just a political fantasy, ungrounded in reality. Political gamesmanship like playing 4D chess.
originally posted by: pavil335,000 onshore wind turbines; 154,000 offshore wind turbines; 75 million residential photovoltaic systems; 2.75 million commercial photovoltaic systems; 46,000 utility-scale photovoltaic facilities; 3,600 concentrated solar power facilities with onsite heat storage; and an extensive array of underground thermal storage facilities
There are environmental impacts associated with each stage of aluminum production, from extraction to processing. The major environmental impact of refining and smelting is greenhouse gas emissions. These gases result from both the electrical consumption of smelters and the byproducts of processing. The greenhouse gases resulting from primary production include perfluorocarbons (PFC), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH), fluoride, sulfur dioxide (S02), and carbon dioxide (CO2). Of these gases, PFC’s resulting from the smelting process are the most potent. Primary aluminum production is the leading source of perfluorocarbon emissions in the United States.