Quote:
Originally Posted by rick2001
US shoud invest more in renewable energies as it's been doing Europe, especially in some countries (Germany, Italy and Spain for Photovoltaics and UK ,Denmark and others for aeolic).
|
That's not sustainable, Rick, it's even doing more damage that you would think. Overall energy prices are calculated from the total sum of the production, whereas in Europe it is extremely expensive to create wind, solar or bio energy (you actually can't see it, because ENEl projects these prices to the foreign countries, in which he owns assets.
). It is also a very insufficient form of energy (to sustain, say, desalination plants). However, generally I agree that Europe is in energoindustry much further than USA, but only thanks to Russian contribution (or assembly) of
ITER which is still not finished only because the Russians earn a lot from sellin' oil and gas.
Regarding the water future of Europe, it will not be a problem. Certainly not in the Northern Italy, Central and Eastern Europe + Siberia has one of the largest underground water reservoirs, so I guess that will be an import commodity too one day.
It is questionable, what will happen in the future though and what populations can be supported on the individual continents (it says 2 billion people tops in Europe).
Whatever happens, it won't affect Europe that much. Not more, than it does now.
But it looks bleak with some densly populated areas.
Regarding your house and energy, yes, Rick, but consider it from this point of view: you live in one of the most favorable climates in the summer and winter, you don't need to warm up the house in the winter and you see the sun in winter more often, than most of the people.
Vast majority of Europeans however live beyond a threshold of optimal efficiency. Neither sun, nor wind energy is practical here. It just doesn't blow/shine here that much (if you read about Seattle or other cities with this problem, you'll see that your solution applies only and majorly to at least partial desert climates)