Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "CIA Wants To Know How to Control the Climate" video.

  1. Hard to control climate change when it has been happening for 4.6 billion years. It is similar to controlling what time the sun comes up and sets.
    1
  2. The NSA isn't costing that much money. Also, Europe has to deal with different problems than the US, not to mention less resources, and we can't spend a lot of money on something when we just don't know if it will do any good. We can ease into clean energy but we can't just jump into it, we will ruin our economy for frivolous reasons. Right now alternative energy is an alternative and will be for years.
    1
  3. Overall, it comes down to money, In Spain they have a population of just over 47 million so they can deploy something like CSP where in the US we have a greater population and more resources so it is cheaper to use other forms. Overall, green energy is a "noble way to lose money."-Joseph Dear
    1
  4. How do they store the energy for CSP? By the way you make it sound we should be using that. The fact is that it is too expensive for it to be ran in the US, especially in the Midwest and east where there is no desert. And in my 10 years of studying physics and chemistry I have never heard of CSP. My presentation I did last semester was over up and down conversion using f-elements which is used in PV. There seems to be a lot of research done in that.
    1
  5. I am all for using renewable forms of energy but if it is going to ruin the economy then we can't do it. Working in science for over a decade all speculations is that solar isn't efficient enough and won't be for a long time if ever due to lack of sun, storage, space, and money.
    1
  6. You are talking about a lot of space for the mirrors, which are not popular, or PV cells which also cost a lot of money. Space and money to store them and transporting them which unless you have superconductor you will lose some electricity it just can't be done in a cost effective way or at all. Solar is an alternative right now and will be such for a while. Same with wind (unless you live in a small town) and hydro.
    1
  7. How did I explain the photoelectric/photovoltaic effect incorrectly?
    1
  8. Yeah, but how much sunlight have you been receiving?
    1
  9. Solar energy will never be price-competitive. There is little to no sun in places like Seattle and Portland. Solar energy will always be an alternative. Nothing against it just that it will never be the main source of energy.
    1
  10. Concentrating the sun's rays won't do anything, not nearly enough thermal energy will be produce. Solar panels use a quantum effect where photons excite semiconductors that then change into thermal energy to eventually generate electricity. Mirrors won't do crap.
    1
  11. As a physicist I did some research on what you said and right away I see some flaws. Photovoltaic cells are cheaper which is why I heard so much about that use of solar power and never heard of mirrors. There seems to be a lot more research in that. Also, it comes down to if it works so well like you claim then why are we not using it now? It is because it really doesn't, or it cost way too much as it and will ruin the economy.
    1
  12. And solar panels are very inefficient so now what is your next solution.
    1