The problem is, solar still doesn't have the energy density of nuclear, or fossil fuel plants. Which means, for the same generation capacity, you have to grow your plant size.

And you may want to refer to personal solar. Which is nice and all, but is NOT for everyone. Plus the fact that over-subscription to home solar where the power company's forced to subsidize, can destroy a grid runner's ability to effectively operate.

Again, Hawaii is great, fine and wonderful. As a universal template for implementation of renewables in the continental 48? It's not.

Actually no. My plan isn't calling for 1/4 of what yours is. Mine is looking at roughly a 3-4-fold increase across the board. What you're looking at is closer to a 500-fold increase for solar and 100-fold increase for wind.

Renewable biomass will expand (the largest portion of current non-Hydro renewables).
Geothermal will expand.
Wind will expand.
Solar will expand.

Even if we limited biomass power and pushed the others, you're still looking at a 4-6-fold increase total (were percentages to stay stable).

So it's a difference of extreme scale.

Basically, trebling to sextupling solar, wind and geothermal in the next 10 years is ambitious, but doable.

Kicking it up by a factor of 500 (not 500%) is an engineering and social no-go.

Hard Drive: $429

Whole Computer: $400 or less.

That isn't what was asserted.

They asserted there's no REAL market for 10K/15K hard drives, as the performance increase isn't helpful, the cost to manufacture and test skyrockets, and the additional physical and thermal stresses shorten the drive's lifespan and make them unsuitable for some applications (laptops).

Okay, 3 years ago, a 256GB SSD cost $900.
Today, you can get them for $100-200.

Honestly, expecting 20% solar and 20% wind is...well...crazy.

Right now, solar power in the US accounts for 0.39% of ALL power generated by the country (or 3% of total renewable energy generation).
Right now, wind power in the US accounts for 2.08% of ALL power generated by the country (or about 16% of total renewable energy generation).

Expecting a 500-fold uptake on solar and a 100-fold uptake on wind?

Wind MIGHT be doable. But the tech to do it isn't quite there yet. And trying to sell a five-hundred-fold increase in land-based wind farms is going to be VERY tough.

Solar would have to become several orders of magnitude more efficient than it already is to even have a hope of being viable at 20%.

More realistically, what I'd like to see is Nuclear power at 75% (with some division between fusion and fission at some point when fusion becomes a reality). And all renewables would comprise the other 25%.

Seeing as most major Hydro is a done deal in this country, that would leave some fairly big room for expansion in Wind, Solar and Geothermal (Basically doubling total renewable generation but 90-100% of the expansion would be non-Hydro.

While it's not some pie-in-the-sky "all renewable" plan. It's fairly ambitious and the renewables industries would need to get off their asses and execute HARD to meet those kinds of quotas.

I can get behind that!
Let's let Cameron test this ban out first. We can give him 24 hours.
Then we'll ask him if he still thinks the ban's a good idea.

When we can become permanent rent/lease slaves?

Seriously, what kind of idiot thinks up shit like "You may not want to own a car"?

Because the monitors I currently have don't support portrait mode.

The other reason is I run a few older games that handle widescreen by rendering 4:3 and then chopping the top and bottom of the screen for 16x9.

A 1/1 monitor would restore that lost portion of a rendered scene.

Yeah. I go through an INSANE amount of vertical text every day. And every day I miss my old 4:3 tube monitors (but not a hell of a lot, fracking boat anchors...)

If the pricing on these sorts of monitors is reasonable, I'd find it a suitable alternative to jumping to a 4K monitor.

Uh. Unsure about the seriousness or intent of this post.

The problem is, Hydro in the US is pretty much peaked. There are some small hydro projects that can be worked. But Big Hydro in the US is done. And the environmental lobby won't let that go.

Increasing solar/wind/geothermal is admirable. But due to land use and appropriateness, I seriously doubt we going to see as massive an increase in these as would be needed to negate the need for coal/oil.

Nuclear, honestly, is what I'd prefer to see stepping up to fill the gap. Unfortunately, the "nuclear = bombs, bombs = bad" FUD brigade is going to fight tooth and nail to keep nuclear from ever being a choice. Which is too bad. Considering the fact that we haven't actually built NEW capacity in HOW long? Yet nuclear power's energy output has continued to rise over the last 40 years.

Oh Goodie! REFORMS!

So, back to Cabrini Green? I'd also like to know where you get your numbers from.

Half the sentence? Okay. Less likely to come back? You can't guarantee something like that. You just can't. And dumping recidivist offenders back on the street just allows them to prey on people again.

Now, half a death sentence? If you can figure that one out, I'd be interested to hear...

Which everyone else pays for.

Sure, but I don't trust the government with a wooden nickle.

Or did you NOT notice that the country's multi-TRILLION dollar debt load.

Oh. That's cute. Expecting the state governments to kick in money out of the goodness of their hearts.

Sorry, unless someone's pockets are being lined at every step of the way, don't expect it to EVER get done.

You're assuming that the politicians don't load down such measures with pork projects. You're also expecting 100% participation, no recidivism, and nobody abusing the system.

I simply don't have that much faith in people.

Yet another asshole politician hellbent on fucking over people (in general) and probably enriching himself in the process.

Okay, fossil fuel power makes up the bulk of the generation capacity in the US.

Nuclear power accounts for just under 20% of total power generation in the country.
Fossil fuel power accounts for just over 65% of total power generation in the country.

Renewables?

TOTAL renewable energy in this country comes out at about 13% of total generation capacity.

Hydro being about 66% of that 13% (or 8.58% of total capacity).
Solar? 3% of that 13% (or .0039% of total capacity).

I don't think the country is ready to have two thirds slashed out of its power budget.

Seriously.

There's one reason this country enjoys the standard of living it has now.

Energy.

You want people swear off coal and oil right now when it makes up over 85% of the total power generated in this country? That's basically asking them to go back to living in caves. To having their kids die of preventable diseases. To going hungry if their crops fail or hunting sucks.

If you think THAT standard of living is so great, YOU GO FIRST. Once you've spent 10 years in your cave and proven it viable for the other 8 billion people on the planet, then, maybe, someone will follow your lead.

Until then, you need to shut the fuck up instead of flapping your gums on a subject you obviously know jack shit about.