Thats interesting, maybe they can be retrofitted or hacked. Now the farmers have to deal with the grand solar minimum on top of all their other challenges. They will have to change crops and go to shorter season varieties(less yield)

You all saw 2019. Late frost, cold wet spring; Wet summer flooded midwest; earlier winter up north. Numbers down on all types of crops. Many left in the field which USDA is counting. Yields down, protein content down, grades lower, etc....

We took a big hit in 2019 but the buffer from previous seasons covered it. We need a perfect season next year or food is going to get tight.

Ok so hopefully many of you have been watching the events playing out with utility scale renewable energy in Europe and California the last few years. And the winner is... Nuclear power.

France has solved the climate friendly energy issue by making nuclear power their predominant source. They now enjoy the lowest energy cost, the lowest carbon footprint, and in fact sell excess power to their neighbors. Germany and California are both in trouble in this respect, having leaned on solar and wind energy. Rolling brown and blackouts, paying high energy cost, while actually increasing their collective carbon footprint.

For the religiously skeptical, I would suggest that you watch a show entitled "Pandora's Promise". It's available on Amazon video, so if you're a prime member, it's free. If not, it's worth more than Amazon charges to watch. It really spells out the current state of fervor and fanatical movements in the environmental arena. If a couple bucks is too much, the author has posted a gaggle of utube videos about his journey; his name is Michael Shellenberger.

Very true about nuclear power (or as I like to call it, fossilized supernova fuels)! France & Germany are a great example of unintended consequences. I was very skeptical for a long time, but the more I look into it, the more it makes sense for baseload power (at least until solar and battery technology develops enough to make fossil fuels uncompetitive). What's interesting is that most current reactors are basically designs that work great for nuclear submarines (infinite water cooling, always under pressure) put on land (not such a good idea when your cooling source fails). But what's really exciting is the advanced reactor designs being developed, the Molten Salt Reactor among them, that are far more efficient, way safer and open the possibility of using currently stored nuclear waste as fuel. PBS's Nova had a great documentary about it. Also check out Kirk Sorensen. Titan s of Nuclear is a great podcast if you want to get in-depth with nuclear experts around the world.

I have a family member that does work in containment at a nuke plant here in the US. I hear lots of stories and that is some scary stuff. I use to be pro nuke till after the fuku disaster(which is still on going). We have proven that we are not capable or responsible enough for such a nasty source of energy.

No more nuke please.

Not going to argue about it on here. Like I said, it's been escalated to a religious issue through decades of lobbying, campaigning, and perpetual propaganda and dogma. Progress on American soil is deadlocked at present, but continues abroad. My only hope is that the Federal government will get in front of the used nuclear fuel issue and provide approval of some solutions. I promote recycling and closing the fuel cycle rather than repository disposal. If you do a little homework, the old American processes have been copied and are being refined and revised quite productively now.

The problem I see with all discussion of energy production is that everyone wants more energy, with or without the consequences. Nobody in the public arena is suggesting that we use less energy to begin with.

Improvements in combustion efficiency of fossil fuels hasn't reduced its use. As jet engines improved, plane fares went down, more people started flying. As cars became more efficient, longer commute times became the norm. As home insulation improved, people bought bigger houses. The list goes on.

The public debate is about how best to continue wasting energy. It may satisfy the electorate but it isn't addressing the real problem.

Jimmy Carter was talking about lower energy use 45 years ago. That's why the speed limit was dropped to 55 mph. Every president since then, except the current one, has repeated the same thing. President Obama pushed for EV's, higher efficiency in ICE vehicles, LED light bulbs, and the elimination of incandescent bulbs. Our current leaders seem to think none of those things matter.

Actually as cars became more efficient they also became larger and larger. For a while I had access to a Ford e model van with I think a 351 engine in it. Damn thing was like 18 feet long but still got over 20 mpg on the freeway @ 62 mph. Now you have a ton of 4000 pound vehicles out there that make 300 to 500 horsepower that they never need. Instead of getting 25 to 30 mpg, they get 20 to 25.

JJ

Lots of great info in this thread. To bad 95% of the state has become a s#!thole. As a California native having lived all over that state for many decades I can say this with confidence.

Maybe they should worry less about "clean" energy and work on "cleaning" up the state.

I drove my wife through a few years back and warned her. Every town we drive through, you won't want to get out of the car.

The democrats have ruined it like all the other democrat run citys in America.

Prove me wrong.