Currently, no, because we don’t have the delivery technology or a national grid.
But that is no reason to not *start* doing it; why should we be reliant on an energy source that has a finite quantity?
And re Feinstein’s comment, she didn’t say that she was only concerned about the "aesthetics" of the project; her objection was that the land in question had been donated or purchased by conservationists with the intent that they would be protected forever, not used for energy projects.
Yes, but it would turn us into a primitive society. We would have to stop using 99% of the energy we use.
References :
Currently no, but we could develop that level over the next 40-50 years if we were serious about it.
References :
Not right now.
References :
Obama doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about. let the scientist do the job.
References :
No, because liberals like Diane Feinstein are against solar energy to the point of stopping the installation of panels in the Mojave because it "ruins the aesthetics of the desert," her words, not mine, after supporting solar energy research for so many years… and liberals are against wind power because of the noise and the lubricants for the propellers.
References :
Not as it stands today. And the cost would be astronomical, in materials, manpower and space requirements. The pollution created would be phenomenal.
References :
Only if you want to sit in a dark and cold house at night.
References :
Currently, no, because we don’t have the delivery technology or a national grid.
But that is no reason to not *start* doing it; why should we be reliant on an energy source that has a finite quantity?
And re Feinstein’s comment, she didn’t say that she was only concerned about the "aesthetics" of the project; her objection was that the land in question had been donated or purchased by conservationists with the intent that they would be protected forever, not used for energy projects.
References :
No.
References :