The other link I gave you was for Texas which also states 4-8. Solar peak is always at solar noon so yes you have a miss match. Even if you take the 6 hours a day of peak solar production it will only take you to 2pm if you have daylight savings time.
Solar peak and peak demand simply do not match.

Industry runs 24/7 only office jobs are during the day.

Solar peak output is at solar noon. If you are on daylight savings time that is 11am. Even if you think you get peak solar power for 8 hours a day in the summer that peak still ends at 3:00PM or Solar noon+4.
It does not match even in winter and without a doubt does not match for the other 9 or 10 months of the year.

"The IPCC press office widely publicizes "the most optimistic scenario," in which nearly 80 percent of the global energy supply could be provided by renewable energy by 2150 “if backed by the right enabling public policies.”"

I find any prediction of what we will use for energy 135 years in the future to be as valid as any prediction made in 1880 about the future of energy sources.

"Where'd you get that idea? Most power is used in the middle of the day,"
Okay where'd you get the idea that most power is used in the middle of the day?
"http://www.mnn.com/your-home/at-home/stories/peak-energy-times"
Peak is 4PM to 8PM
And here it is in a chart https://www.pacificpower.net/y...

The Philippines where a colony of Spain that the US gave independence to. Puerto Rico has had votes to become a state of the US, become a nation on it's own, or stay a commonwealth.
If they voted to be a nation the US would not send tanks to stop them.

Solar's production curve does not match the peak user curve of electrical power. Wind is a good bit better but still needs natural gas peaking plants to back it.
For low carbon base load power you have only three choices.
1. Hydro
2. Nuclear
3. Geothermal.
1 and 3 are location limted.

I only used Uber once. I was in Miami for a Bowl game and the police told me that the one mile walk to the train station was not safe. My wife and I called an Uber car and paid $5.
Worked great for us.
Self driving cars for taxis? Video every one and if anyone trashes the cab you charge them.
No drivers to pay.
Yea makes a lot of sense.

Yea that is the problem... People outside the US don't really learn history. Britain used to own islands even when people were already their. Russia today just goes in with tanks and takes places that are full of people even when they said they would not...

Technically the US does since we landed people on it first at least that is how it worked with islands on earth. Heck even if there were people on them all you need was a flag and it was yours.
That is how Britain ended up owning Australia, New Zealand, and so on. At least the moon didn't already have a bunch of people on it.

Just as soon as everyone recompiles there virus code to run on ARM....
Actually Windows 10 does not suck. While I prefer Linux and OS/X but Windows is not as terrible as it once was. Now Windows Users.
 

And I have to say that Windows 10 does not suck.

" What is more, as costs for wind and solar power have plummeted over the past decade, and the new report points out that for a given amount of land, solar panels are at least 50 times more efficient than bio fuels at capturing the energy of sunlight in a useful form."

1. Wind and Solar do not complete with bio fuels. You can not run a truck, ship, or airliner on electricity effectively because of battery technology.. Even cars are limited today by cost. Now if you are talking about bio fuels to run generators then maybe, but for transportation not at all.

It is kind of like that big huge lie that people like to tell about wind and solar reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

Not 1957 but 1958 which is close enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A....
It was in production in 57 with a live test shot in 1957.

They do but then they take a big expensive ship find the cable and bring it to the surface to fix it.
The real issue is not if it is possible because it is possible. The big question is if it is worth it?
Removing all the 02 mean no fires and reduced corrosion.
It also means more cost for fixing thing that go wrong.
The simplest way to do this would be to flood the bunker with Argon since it heavier than O2 and N2 it should displace the O2 but again the question would be why?