Recent headlines have indicated that total costs (present and future) of the Iraq/Afghan War are almost 2 trillion.

What could be done with 2 trillion dollars?

Here's one example:

Last night, I watched the history channel and they did a show about alternative energy power. One of the green power sources they talked about was a huge solar energy plant that they're trying to build in Australia. It uses a HUGE solar updraft tower that is twice as tall as the world's tallest buildings. It's expected to generate enough power to power 200,000 homes. The cost of the plant is about 750 million dollars, almost one billion dollars, with next to nothing in maintenance costs compared to fossil fuel plants.

So, if you do the math, investing two trillion dollars into energy, the entire U.S. could be running on renewable solar/wind power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower

But going green power in this country will ruin the economy, right? Instead, we did something good for the economy, like waging war. Thanks Dubya, for looking out for our economy.

What else could be done with two trillion dollars.

Australia is exceptionally suuny country-with a small population.

Only certain regions of the US would be sunny most of the year,

and with such a large population with insatifiable energy demands

do you think the US could put even a dent in its energy requirements?

Im all for green energy-by for somewhere like the US-I think youd need

a change of mindset first, plus oil-electric and nuclear companies would

fight tooth and nail to make sure the project failed.

But going green power in this country will ruin the economy, right?

I don't see how it could. Many economists believe it would create an economic boom. It would create whole new industries manufacturing the hardware, selling it, installing it and repairing it.

Australia is exceptionally suuny country-with a small population.

Only certain regions of the US would be sunny most of the year,

and with such a large population with insatifiable energy demands

do you think the US could put even a dent in its energy requirements?

Im all for green energy-by for somewhere like the US-I think youd need

a change of mindset first, plus oil-electric and nuclear companies would

fight tooth and nail to make sure the project failed.

Well, a change of mind-set is certainly necessary.

But there are plenty of sunny regions in the U.S. and two trillion dollars would not only put a "dent" in the U.S. energy requirements, it would completely satisfy our energy requirements.

Funny how we never hear repubs asking "how are we going to pay for this?"

I guess they believe that this 2 Trillion is from Jesus for us to fight those dirty muslims and prepare the middle east for the second coming. :lolhit:

Here's where solar power is at. I have a friend with a cottage up north. He recently spent $40k to have his place powered by solar energy because the cost of running power lines fron the nearest tower was even more.
The power system will last about 40 years. He'll never recover the cost of the investment. Solar is still too expensive.

Experts recommend a combination of solar and wind power for home use.

:thumbs:
db

Here's where solar power is at. I have a friend with a cottage up north. He recently spent $40k to have his place powered by solar energy because the cost of running power lines fron the nearest tower was even more.
The power system will last about 40 years. He'll never recover the cost of the investment. Solar is still too expensive.

That's like trying to install an electric generator in every home to supply energy needs. It's far more efficient to have one large generator that supplies thousands of homes.

Btw, if you divide 2 trillion by 40K, that's 50 million. So even using your extraordinarily inefficient anecdote, you could mount 50 million cabins in the middle of nowhere with solar panels.

$40k is really expensive. Your friend got ripped off Waldo. I can get solar panels that will cover more than 100% of my electrical useage for less than $17k. (http://www.wholesalesolar.com/products.folder/systems-folder/OffGridPackages.html)

That is where solar is at today.

:thumbs:
db

That's like trying to install an electric generator in every home to supply energy needs. It's far more efficient to have one large generator that supplies thousands of homes.

Is it more efficient? It is certainly less stable, as we here in the northeast learned in 2003. It provides a single point of failure.

Is it more efficient? It is certainly less stable, as we here in the northeast learned in 2003. It provides a single point of failure.

Read about the solar updraft tower I linked. It supplies 200K homes for 750 million dollars (and that's the high dollar estimate). That's $375 per home. And this is a power plant that isn't mass produced.

As for stability, the thing is a gigantic concrete tower that is over half a mile tall. I would argue that is certainly more stable than a oil-based power plant.

Did you read about the tower I linked? It supplies 200K homes for 750 million dollars (and that's the high dollar estimate). That's $375 per home. And this is a power plant that isn't mass produced.

yes, I did read that. It sounds like a better alternative to what we have now.


As for stability, the thing is a gigantic concrete tower that is over half a mile tall. I would argue that is certainly more stable than a oil-based power plant.

I agree it is more stable than an oil based power plant, but my concern is that it is a single point of failure for 200k homes.