Home | About | Donate

This Is How We Can Avoid Climate Catastrophe


This Is How We Can Avoid Climate Catastrophe

Rhea Suh

Two years ago in Paris, the United States, China, and more than 190 other countries agreed to protect our people and our planet from the growing dangers of global climate change, the very dangers we’re seeing now, right before our eyes.


Small PV solar arrays would be protected, survive and restart, even matched to an EV backup power supply. Suitcase-size battery packs in Prius/Ford (plug-in) hybrid PHEV match to simplest solar PV arrays. Use of combustible hydrogen in a hybrid at lower pressure than in fuel cell thus stores more reliably. We have a mandate to rebuild Puerto Rico grid. This direction - Grid-tied rooftop PV matched to household plug-in EV - would work well there.


Again we see yet another report that doesn’t actually provide a detailed plan. 80% renewable by 2050 is not a plan in my opinon- its a statement. I want to see the projected analysis of how much we are increasing the industry each decade. I want to see how many modules the NRDC believes we need to manufacture to achieve 35% solar. I want to see how much area would be required to have 45% wind both onshore and offshore. I want to see what battery storage plans they have. NONE of this is in the report. That’s a significant problem…


I also would really appreciate seeing a full cost analysis of these plans, because simply saying $20 per MWh just isn’t doing it for me.

  1. That’s a horrendous way of describing net costs of a project.
  2. The type of solar or wind is not consistent throughout the entire country, so this figure is not specific or accurate.
  3. There are many different ways to analyze costs for energy and this figure does not take into consideration other methods of cost analysis like EROI, and EPP.
  4. This figure does not include backup or storage costs, which are essential for intermittent forms of solar and wind.
  5. If the NRDC demands that hidden costs for pollution be included for fossil fuel energy, then they should also be included for renewables (yes they do produce CO2 and other pollutants)




We are caught in a bind here:

What happens when we decrease emissions is not the panacea we might think it is.


When we modernize our electric grid, can we—pleasepleaseplease?—bury the transmission lines underground???


Are you kidding? Long before we can establish the political will to modernize our electrical grid there will be neither the energy or resources to do so. Is there something you don’t understand about an exponential function let alone one populated with tipping points?


Everyone even somewhat informed knows that. The question is what is worse, adapting to what is coming or making it worse with geoengineering?


Sounds like an energy “Marshall Plan” will be needed in the future; initially structured as non-profit utility


Nothing in human history suggests fossil fuel won’t be entirely used; or that humans will have a clue about sustainability.
Likely, they’ll still be a lot more bombs to be dropped.


I bow before your superior defeatism, and, thus chastened, will henceforth desist from offering any further suggestions that actually address our problems.


How about stop using chemicals on our soil and not plant all the same thing all the time.
Our soil is not doing what nature intended it to do, put carbon back in soil. Our rain forests are now not absorbing carbon like they should