I must have made comment in this thread because I keep getting notifications, but I can't find any. Possibly a defense of Vulture Central? But I'd given up on it since it went off-topic around comment #4 or 5, veering off into wind power and population. I'd seen the rebuttal, but couldn't find it again at that time.
Basically what Google said was that renewables couldn't revert CO2 below 350ppm alone.
What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change
Today’s renewable energy technologies won’t save us. So what will?
By Ross Koningstein & David Fork
Posted 18 Nov 2014 | 20:00 GMT
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change
This is by the guys that did the work for Google. Here's the relevant pull quote:
Quote:
|
What’s needed are zero-carbon energy sources so cheap that the operators of power plants and industrial facilities alike have an economic rationale for switching over within the next 40 years
|
Basically people won't stop doing bad things unless it will make them money. I suggest this: Moon Power and Biochar hold the answer to the dilemma.
Moon power includes tidal and the component of geothermal energy caused by the tidal forces. The component from radioactive decay is the only safe power from nuclear fission.