[Corey]

Blue parts is my response.

Originally Posted by founder

This is not true.

The current best crystalline silicone PV production emits 1016 g CO2 / Watt Peak.

Distributed on 25 years in south Europe, this makes 25,4 g CO2/kWh

Photovoltaic production CO2 emission

But there is no reason, why the photovoltaic should not produce 50 years or more.

The "total cost" involves more than the actual use of the solar panel to produce electricity. It also includes but not limited to the burning of fossil fuels which releases the Co2+equivalents into the air which was Locked into the fossil fuel (while the solar panels are being made before use). I have never heard of solar panels being recyclable when the life is expired or is damaged from severe weather.

Total cost also involves the fact that solar is no good at peak demand for it is evening after dark and During cloudy winters when there is no sun. etc. STOP RELYING ON COMPANY INFO, GET YOUR INFORMATION FROM INDEPENDENTS. Companies will Over hype the energy output and understate the negative facts such as the sun not shining all the time kind of things. Solar only truly effective when facing south from the northern hemisphere.

This is death talk in the long run. Photovoltaic and wind energy is the best solution for our energy needs.

Only solutions are acceptable where humans can survive.

When somebody starts to talk any good solution bad, he denies the right of the humans to survive. That's death talk.

Wind and solar is useless without a long term on demand solution such as a power cell of some kind. Electricity must be maintained at a certain level or you get black outs. Also without a power-cell to store the electrical current as the solar and wind is generating in non peak time it is bleed off as waste and is not used. batteries are not power cells batteries cannot dump its current on demand, that is why there is a race to create large scale power-cells for grid use.

By the way I never said not use it. I was saying we need to be careful for some companies been lying about the energy and resources it takes to build a concrete windmill and it exceeds the actual energy output of the windmill of its entire life.

It is not death talk to err on the side of caution and educated decisions. It is death talk to go with blind faith about a technology without taking in the whole "TOTAL COST OF USE". Especially in regards to the impact on land use and habitat and the ecosystem. We will die without an intact ecosystem. Most people have a hard time realizing this fact. So if a supposed alternative energy harms the environment it is just as bad as burning fossil fuels.

And or how many humans?

And what to do with the rest?

Think, even the greatest mass killers in history had not been able to extinguish more than 70 million humans.

That we know of there may have been more humans at one time in our past we just don't know due to decay. but we do know there were more gene variety of human at one point in history before a big event like super volcano (Yellowstone park In the USA).

If people don't stop breeding for about 10 years voluntarily nature will kill us off or nations will go to nuclear war for the little remaining resources.

What to do with the rest? = Hope they die naturally and quick before they completely use all the resources left.

And how do You want to harvest a field without bio fuel?

Back to the way it was meant a lot of manual labor. You missed the point I was making about plant derived bio fuels Plant derived bio fuels is not sustainable for there are only so much ground nutrients to go around and one of the links that you provided about the space needed to power 17,000,000 cars was unacceptable as an example of how it is unsustainable in one aspect..