The Second Apocalypse
Miscellaneous Chatter => Philosophy & Science => Topic started by: Madness on November 29, 2013, 02:47:29 pm
-
This was necessitated.
No holds-barred, locked-cage, ladders and chairs; how should we be voting with our research dollars as a human species, unconstrained by the shallow sociocultural politics of the world?
-
Remember that in the US, the Supreme Court ruled that money IS speech, and therefore it can quite literally talk for itself :P
btw, can you clarify "research dollars"?
-
Money/time we put into making actual research happen?
If we had a sort of open-science, global academic network, unaffiliated with any specific institutions, that all shared a pool of money donated by humans, where should we, scientist/non-scientist, direct our communal exploration?
For instance, NASA and the Manhattan Project were both raised as examples of unprecedented interdisciplinary research in the space monies thread - obviously, transparency isn't an issue that has to be debated in the context above.
-
Thats an interesting premiss. I'll think on it some and get back to you, but I guess the task will be to see what things would be beneficial, and what things to prioritize, if any.
-
Long term, far reaching, complex problems that deserve funding from everyone with the means to support it.
Energy:
The world if facing an energy crisis. There is a massive need for cleaner, more efficient, and better distributed electrical generation. From everything I've seen, humanities best bet is Fusion. Look it up. H-H fusion produces gigawatts of energy with the amount of hydrogen contained in bathtub worth of water, and produces only Helium as waste. There is no risk for catastrophic failure (i.e nuclear explosion/meltdown like Chernobyl , so the process is inherently safer than Fission. If you're curious, look ITER, its a Fusion test facility being developed by the EU in France. This if far beyond the silly "sun" fusion thing they did in spider man.
Advantages: self sustaining, almost 0 pollution, massive output.
Disadvantages: not a quick fix. Will take decades to produce a facility capable of producing this kind of energy on a commercial scale.
Once scaled up properly, there will be almost no cost to produce clean energy for the world. Problem: What happens to the world economy when energy is free?
Crude oil:
Gas for cars: An issue a lot of people know something about, but few people know a lot about it. Maybe I'll come back to it. All I'll say right now that an alternative from crude derived fuel needs to be found. That will take decades at best, and the longer we wait, the harder it will be to transition.
Plastic: Crude makes everything, and thats an issue. Way beyond gas powered vehicles, Nearly everything made of plastic comes from crude oil. This sucks, because regardless of how much you believe there is, it will eventually run out and/or it will/is becoming exponentially more expensive to get. Even if we figure out how to replace fuel, there are almost no alternatives to non-crude derived plastics. Lactic Acid can actually produce some decent plastic, but its a yeast based biotechnology and would be hard to scale up.
Like with fuel, we know crude will run out eventually. Not for a while yet, but again we need to start now because the world runs on crude, and it will take a very long time to change that.
Space:
The long term survival of humanity requires space exploration. The earth will eventually become inhospitable and run out of resources. To steal Neil deGrasse Tyson's idea: lets build afleet of launch vehicles that can take us anywhere in the solar system. One that can get us to the moon, to venus, to mars. Figure out how to build orbital platforms on the moon, mining platforms on astroids, space stations around mars.
Why space? Eh, theres another thread for that ;).
Anyway thats a few quick thoughts.
-
Legalizing pot maybe? It sure has many different uses. First of, if you start taxing it, the black market will be weaker, and lots of "new" tax dollars can be spent on other things. It can be used in textiles, paper, paints, clothing, different foods, cosmetics, insulation, animal feed, medicine, and many many other things. I even heard that it can be used as gas, but I do not want to claim that :)
I am not saying that this will save the world or anything, but it is well worth to legalize it, so we can research its potential without prejudice.
The potential of the plant is huge, and it is a shame that we do not take advantage of it.
-
Immortality.
-
On research into how we don't lack the solution to a bunch of current problems, instead it's just that various minute demographics simply choose to deny the already present solutions to various other peoples. And how those other peoples treat it as if it's a condition of nature (ie, unchangeable) rather than the choice of other men.
Or I guess we could chase after new, more sexy problems...for some reason...
-
On research into how we don't lack the solution to a bunch of current problems, instead it's just that various minute demographics simply choose to deny the already present solutions to various other peoples. And how those other peoples treat it as if it's a condition of nature (ie, unchangeable) rather than the choice of other men.
... not a big mystery. Money. Who is going to spend money to save people without it?
Or I guess we could chase after new, more sexy problems...for some reason...
Why should we stop forward progress? Like you said, we already have the solutions to plenty of issues, sitting back and patting ourselves on the back isn't going to get us anywhere.
Also, no one is forcing you to spend your imaginary research money here. Feel free to hold onto it.
-
Just going to bounce around in bliss.
Energy:
The world if facing an energy crisis. There is a massive need for cleaner, more efficient, and better distributed electrical generation. From everything I've seen, humanities best bet is Fusion. Look it up. H-H fusion produces gigawatts of energy with the amount of hydrogen contained in bathtub worth of water, and produces only Helium as waste. There is no risk for catastrophic failure (i.e nuclear explosion/meltdown like Chernobyl , so the process is inherently safer than Fission. If you're curious, look ITER, its a Fusion test facility being developed by the EU in France. This if far beyond the silly "sun" fusion thing they did in spider man.
I agree - however, the manifestation of 'New Energy' is going to spawn another Industrial Revolution-type ripple when it occurs. Also, is this a strictly necessary avenue of research if Germany, as a country, might remove themselves from the grid as early as 2025?
Disadvantages: not a quick fix. Will take decades to produce a facility capable of producing this kind of energy on a commercial scale.
Once scaled up properly, there will be almost no cost to produce clean energy for the world. Problem: What happens to the world economy when energy is free?
Remember in our thought experience, we're not restricted by the usual bureaucratic and academic infighting - so decades could be brought under ten years if the research was attacked obsessively from as many possible angles.
Problem Response: An free-energy world is also a post-economic world, I think. Otherwise, unlimited energy won't be free.
Crude oil:
Gas for cars: An issue a lot of people know something about, but few people know a lot about it. Maybe I'll come back to it. All I'll say right now that an alternative from crude derived fuel needs to be found. That will take decades at best, and the longer we wait, the harder it will be to transition.
Your second point for crude, plastic, is by far the most poignant.
Let's adjust the first to:
Mobility Vehicles: What other modes of transportation are available to serve the same purpose as cars (whether that means alternative fuels, Musk's Hyperloop, or anything in between)?
Plastic: Crude makes everything, and thats an issue. Way beyond gas powered vehicles, Nearly everything made of plastic comes from crude oil. This sucks, because regardless of how much you believe there is, it will eventually run out and/or it will/is becoming exponentially more expensive to get. Even if we figure out how to replace fuel, there are almost no alternatives to non-crude derived plastics. Lactic Acid can actually produce some decent plastic, but its a yeast based biotechnology and would be hard to scale up.
Like with fuel, we know crude will run out eventually. Not for a while yet, but again we need to start now because the world runs on crude, and it will take a very long time to change that.
As I wrote, the much more critical issue when considering our use of crude fuels. Not a lot of people realize this; all our tacky, crap plastic filling landfills are the human transmutation of the majestic, awesome fossilized bones of that which has came before (especially dinosaurs :().
What am I going to do without cheap crap?
This feeds into the idea of planned obsolescence, which I think we should ignore for the purposes of this conversation. Let's assume that alternatives can be made-to-last and environmentally resistant.
Space:
The long term survival of humanity requires space exploration. The earth will eventually become inhospitable and run out of resources. To steal Neil deGrasse Tyson's idea: lets build afleet of launch vehicles that can take us anywhere in the solar system. One that can get us to the moon, to venus, to mars. Figure out how to build orbital platforms on the moon, mining platforms on astroids, space stations around mars.
Why space? Eh, theres another thread for that ;).
Anyway thats a few quick thoughts.
No, this topic definitely deserves to be included here as well to consider generally.
Legalizing pot maybe? It sure has many different uses. First of, if you start taxing it, the black market will be weaker, and lots of "new" tax dollars can be spent on other things. It can be used in textiles, paper, paints, clothing, different foods, cosmetics, insulation, animal feed, medicine, and many many other things. I even heard that it can be used as gas, but I do not want to claim that :)
I am not saying that this will save the world or anything, but it is well worth to legalize it, so we can research its potential without prejudice.
The potential of the plant is huge, and it is a shame that we do not take advantage of it.
Lol - Jack Herer's The Emperor Wears No Clothes?
You're bring that one historically full circle, Royce. +1 the bold. Also, I've read (and studied) elsewhere corroboration for the idea that THC is only one of as many as 4000 possible compounds with medicinal properties in hemp plants (research has been slow before and since the mid-70s).
Immortality.
Check out Aubrey de Grey, Google's Calico, or, obviously, Kurzweil (who was hired to build Google's attempt at an electronic brain, among more mundane projects).
On research into how we don't lack the solution to a bunch of current problems, instead it's just that various minute demographics simply choose to deny the already present solutions to various other peoples. And how those other peoples treat it as if it's a condition of nature (ie, unchangeable) rather than the choice of other men.
More sociological research then :)? I'm sure in our hypothetical world, science is maximally efficient, so we can easily gather the relevant census data and, of course, have organized access to all available research data (which seems the largest obstacles to finding evidence one way or the other).
On research into how we don't lack the solution to a bunch of current problems, instead it's just that various minute demographics simply choose to deny the already present solutions to various other peoples. And how those other peoples treat it as if it's a condition of nature (ie, unchangeable) rather than the choice of other men.
... not a big mystery. Money. Who is going to spend money to save people without it?
Well - everyone in this thread?
Also, no one is forcing you to spend your imaginary research money here. Feel free to hold onto it.
Lol. We're all infinitely wealthy for the purposes of this thread. Inaction is not an option ;).
-
On research into how we don't lack the solution to a bunch of current problems, instead it's just that various minute demographics simply choose to deny the already present solutions to various other peoples. And how those other peoples treat it as if it's a condition of nature (ie, unchangeable) rather than the choice of other men.
... not a big mystery. Money. Who is going to spend money to save people without it?
Money isn't a part of physics. That it is, however, is how the minute demographic presents the world to us.
Curious how refering to money is a way of crying poverty in terms of taking actions/choices.
Or I guess we could chase after new, more sexy problems...for some reason...
Why should we stop forward progress? Like you said, we already have the solutions to plenty of issues, sitting back and patting ourselves on the back isn't going to get us anywhere.
Imaginary research money into how people can end up treating ONE method of progress (if I dare risk legitimizing it by also calling it that) as if that is the ONLY forward progress there ever is and ever was possible.
-
Lol - Jack Herer's The Emperor Wears No Clothes?
I am guilty of flicking through that one ;).
I know that this is maybe a bit off topic, but when it comes to research in the field of resources, it is pure ignorance(or politics?) to ignore its potential.
That you can use some plants as a drug, has ruined the credibility and willingness to even look at what this plant is capable of providing.
You just want to get high all the time, is always the counter argument that people throw at me. Well, I did get high all the time in the past, but I do not do that anymore, but I still want to legalize it because of its other productive uses, I say. It makes no sense that the plant is illegal if what you say is true, they say. What if people who make the decisions are ignorant, corrupt maybe?, I say. FUCK YOU, they say. :)
-
Neuroscience! I'm surprised no one's brought it up yet.
-
I know that this is maybe a bit off topic, but when it comes to research in the field of resources, it is pure ignorance(or politics?) to ignore its potential.
Politics.
Something being a "legal pharmaceutical" doesn't stop a whole lot normal people from abusing it. It just stops research being done on the "illegal" ones.
Neuroscience! I'm surprised no one's brought it up yet.
Your posts seem to have the cut of someone versed in and passionate for the subject matter.
I for one would love to see more research done towards "progressive" neuroscience, specially adapting neuroscientific principles towards benefiting the average person with neuropractices that don't involve mediation by invasive chemicals or surgery to facilitate "strengthening" cognition.
So meditation, ambidexterity, speaking multiple languages, kinetic (martial - like literally the ability to control your body) finesse through martial arts, dance, or gymnastics, changing perception of communication through braille, sign language or reading lips, playing a musical instrument... among classics like regular ol' diet and exercise.
All of these research themes are in their infancy and still require much of the foundational grunt research to be done in order to build towards being research paradigms necessary to affect social change by dissemination.
However, I think this whole idea of personally actionable cognitive augmentation is going to be glossed over by the powerhouse research in cognitive neuropsychology (and the biology and chemistry heavy paradigms) (because people are fucking lazy and vote with their dollars towards nootropic or surgical strategies and technologies to affect ma' change now!).
-
Lol - Jack Herer's The Emperor Wears No Clothes?
I am guilty of flicking through that one ;).
I know that this is maybe a bit off topic, but when it comes to research in the field of resources, it is pure ignorance(or politics?) to ignore its potential.
That you can use some plants as a drug, has ruined the credibility and willingness to even look at what this plant is capable of providing.
You just want to get high all the time, is always the counter argument that people throw at me. Well, I did get high all the time in the past, but I do not do that anymore, but I still want to legalize it because of its other productive uses, I say. It makes no sense that the plant is illegal if what you say is true, they say. What if people who make the decisions are ignorant, corrupt maybe?, I say. FUCK YOU, they say. :)
What if it's just not that good, compared to other sources of production? Even if it's the patrolling/costs of patrolling of any crops that would make it less efficient than other sources of production?
-
I agree - however, the manifestation of 'New Energy' is going to spawn another Industrial Revolution-type ripple when it occurs. Also, is this a strictly necessary avenue of research if Germany, as a country, might remove themselves from the grid as early as 2025?
Uh how does a whole [industrialized] country go "off the grid"? What does that even mean :P? That all homes and businesses with generate their own energy and not share it with anyone? Seems like a terrible idea. Even if there is enough sunlight, wind, water, and algae for them to do it, which I doubt, why do away with the grid system?
Remember in our thought experience, we're not restricted by the usual bureaucratic and academic infighting - so decades could be brought under ten years if the research was attacked obsessively from as many possible angles.
Problem Response: An free-energy world is also a post-economic world, I think. Otherwise, unlimited energy won't be free.
I doubt it. It would take at least another decade of testing at ITER to even see if its feasable. Then there needs to be a few more decades to build a facility and work out the kinks. 30 years at least, total, without any money issues.
Also, I meant that the cost to produce unlimited energy is essentially 0. It could be sold, at profit, for pennies per gigawatt.
Mobility Vehicles: What other modes of transportation are available to serve the same purpose as cars (whether that means alternative fuels, Musk's Hyperloop, or anything in between)?
Never thought about it...
As I wrote, the much more critical issue when considering our use of crude fuels. Not a lot of people realize this; all our tacky, crap plastic filling landfills are the human transmutation of the majestic, awesome fossilized bones of that which has came before (especially dinosaurs :().
What am I going to do without cheap crap?
This feeds into the idea of planned obsolescence, which I think we should ignore for the purposes of this conversation. Let's assume that alternatives can be made-to-last and environmentally resistant.
Come now, don't marginalize plastic. Pretty much everything is made out of plastic, from cars to medical prosthesis.
On research into how we don't lack the solution to a bunch of current problems, instead it's just that various minute demographics simply choose to deny the already present solutions to various other peoples. And how those other peoples treat it as if it's a condition of nature (ie, unchangeable) rather than the choice of other men.
... not a big mystery. Money. Who is going to spend money to save people without it?
Money isn't a part of physics. That it is, however, is how the minute demographic presents the world to us.
Curious how refering to money is a way of crying poverty in terms of taking actions/choices.
Or I guess we could chase after new, more sexy problems...for some reason...
Why should we stop forward progress? Like you said, we already have the solutions to plenty of issues, sitting back and patting ourselves on the back isn't going to get us anywhere.
Imaginary research money into how people can end up treating ONE method of progress (if I dare risk legitimizing it by also calling it that) as if that is the ONLY forward progress there ever is and ever was possible.
I honestly didn't understand any of that or I would have tried to respond. Could you 'splaine it to me?
-
What if it's just not that good, compared to other sources of production? Even if it's the patrolling/costs of patrolling of any crops that would make it less efficient than other sources of production?
Yes, it would be great to figure these issues out, by actually trying it out on a grand scale. If it turns out you are right, we have all learned something.
I do think Madness touches on the main problem here, namely politics. There are so many different industries that would not welcome the competition hemp would bring to the table. Most likely these various industries have certain politicians in their pockets. The reasons they "fear" the plant are many.
It would be great to figure out if hemp is valuable to us or not. We do not figure that out by ignoring its potential.
-
Uh how does a whole [industrialized] country go "off the grid"? What does that even mean :P? That all homes and businesses with generate their own energy and not share it with anyone? Seems like a terrible idea. Even if there is enough sunlight, wind, water, and algae for them to do it, which I doubt, why do away with the grid system?
Lol - as far as I recall, they are already producing nearly 20% of their country's energy from renewables like the bold. Solar and wind are the big two, obviously. Their government's plan seems to be to provide free energy nationally and export the excess at a cost.
Apparently, it's just a matter of taking the time and space ;).
Remember in our thought experience, we're not restricted by the usual bureaucratic and academic infighting - so decades could be brought under ten years if the research was attacked obsessively from as many possible angles.
Problem Response: An free-energy world is also a post-economic world, I think. Otherwise, unlimited energy won't be free.
I doubt it. It would take at least another decade of testing at ITER to even see if its feasable. Then there needs to be a few more decades to build a facility and work out the kinks. 30 years at least, total, without any money issues.
Also, I meant that the cost to produce unlimited energy is essentially 0. It could be sold, at profit, for pennies per gigawatt.
+1 about dollars make cents. And I agree (or suggest), the possessors of such technology would recreate Dynasty by fiat currency.
Dare to dream, baby. If every capable and knowledgeable scientist with relevance (or not) to offer such a project, dropped everything right now to work on this...
Mobility Vehicles: What other modes of transportation are available to serve the same purpose as cars (whether that means alternative fuels, Musk's Hyperloop, or anything in between)?
Never thought about it...
Never inspired by Jetson tubes ;)? (Though, unless pilot's licenses become driver's licenses, I never want to see humans in control of flying cars en masse.)
As I wrote, the much more critical issue when considering our use of crude fuels. Not a lot of people realize this; all our tacky, crap plastic filling landfills are the human transmutation of the majestic, awesome fossilized bones of that which has came before (especially dinosaurs :().
What am I going to do without cheap crap?
This feeds into the idea of planned obsolescence, which I think we should ignore for the purposes of this conversation. Let's assume that alternatives can be made-to-last and environmentally resistant.
Come now, don't marginalize plastic. Pretty much everything is made out of plastic, from cars to medical prosthesis.
Well, it's like Royce said. Hemp is (derivatives are) already one (and only a thing we happen to know about) alternative to oil in transmuting plastic goods.
In fact, I'm not sure why he's skipping round the issue with Callan but the story goes that Oil and Paper were the two major players in the 1937 tax act. And if at least one fine scholar is to be believed (though there is corroboration for this everywhere), cannabis tinctures enjoyed their place historically too, if a much less prevalent one than textile hemp use.
Curious how refering to money is a way of crying poverty in terms of taking actions/choices.
That comment was meant for Wilshire when he told you not to spend your research dollars here. I forgot a quote tag. It's been rectified.
Imaginary research money into how people can end up treating ONE method of progress (if I dare risk legitimizing it by also calling it that) as if that is the ONLY forward progress there ever is and ever was possible.
Yes, what are you saying here?
-
Here is a real downer post, sorry in advance:
20% and 100% are extraordinarily different. The problem with renewable energy sources is that they aren't very efficient. Solar power isn't very viable in Germany, or at least the efficiency of solar cells is dramatically lower in Germany than, say, Arizona. Efficiency factors.
I also doubt that there is enough land area to place wind farms to generate the needed electricity. Not to mention that covering nearly every square inch of land with solar panels and wind farms would destroy ecosystems just as surely as strip mining for coal.
Next you've got hydro, which either means tidal forces or dams. Its hard to build new dams because, again, it destroys environments. Tidal forces, while interesting, are relatively new and not very reliable.
Not to say I think its a bad idea, just unlikely. Though I've not done the research for Germany, I'm just extrapolating what I know about the US.
Even if they could do it, the other issue with alternative power sources is that they are extremely intermittent. "The Grid" does not actually store any energy. It provides the correct amount of energy all the time without storing the extra. In order to be "off the grid" you would have to find some way to store all the power generated during the day so that it could be utilized during peak hours. Battery technology, to put it gently, sucks. A lot of power would be lost in the storage/release process.
[/rant]
If it where up to me, I'd so go for it. I honestly don't care that much about the environment. It is impossible to fix every problem without consequence. Honestly, with 6 billion people crammed into the world, something has to give. Yes, either we kill off a bunch of people and control the population to a sustainable level, or other species and ecosystems will have to die. If we, humanity, move towards "greener" technology, at least some of what remains will be preserved. If we let every potential solution get bogged down by every other environmental lobbying group, everything will end up dead.
[/end rant]
-
Well, check out who is the big energy user? Business? Because we have a big fetish for expansionism. The systems built around a crazy, continuous market share grab. It's going to suck at using any type of energy (as one speaker said about petrol, it's not that petrol is too expensive - it's that it's been too cheap - we got addicted, man. Time to AA). Go nuclear so you don't have to give up the addiction.
I honestly didn't understand any of that or I would have tried to respond. Could you 'splaine it to me?
Can you tell me how far you got before undestanding crashed? 'Money isn't part of physics' is perhaps boring to say, but it's boring because it's so straightforward. Understanding crashed even there? I will extend 'Imaginary research money into' into 'Put imaginary research money into...' just to make the sentence a bit clearer. That would literally be a cognitive science study (and perhaps it's been done already?), why people can so easily refer to 'progress' as if there is only one (which so happy coincides with being their particular notion of progress!)
-
What if it's just not that good, compared to other sources of production? Even if it's the patrolling/costs of patrolling of any crops that would make it less efficient than other sources of production?
Yes, it would be great to figure these issues out, by actually trying it out on a grand scale.
Why a grand scale? Generally a small scale (perhaps a four hectares or so) gives you the numbers needed to work out the larger scale.
I have to say, while I agree with small scale test, I don't agree you have to go large scale or go home. It's not like it's a hadron collider where you have to make the whole thing at once and can't do it piecemeal.
-
Agree with you there. In our imaginary research world without politics, I think small scale testing would be reasonable.
-
Why a grand scale? Generally a small scale (perhaps a four hectares or so) gives you the numbers needed to work out the larger scale.
Sorry about this. It sounded good in Norwegian, but it came out wrong in English.
What I meant by "grand" was that the plant should be tested in all the aforementioned areas. I did not mean that we should grow mountains of hemp everywhere, and then find out it is useless :)
-
Here is a real downer post, sorry in advance:
Lol - you should probably get on the phone with Germany, Wilshire. They need you ;). Though, battery technology is a great point.
I was wrong about some key points, according to wiki; overall about 12-15% at this point, though some kinds are facilitating up to 30% in their sectors. Also, 80% by 2040.
However, apparently, Germany is the leading country for alternative energy.
But in context, I think that it's probably more about energy politics and setting strong example, neh?
-
Just doing my part. Germany is an extremely environmentally focused country. I know that they are, or at least were for years, the recycling capital of the world. If any country other than they said they where going to be 80% green in 37 years, I'd not believe it.
-
The power of guilt? Sorry, being a bit cruel *though there's a backhand compliment in that, to a degree!*
-
The power of guilt? Sorry, being a bit cruel *though there's a backhand compliment in that, to a degree!*
Was that directed towards my misunderstanding? If yes, not much feeling of guilt on my part no :)
-
No, aimed toward Germany.
-
Well, check out who is the big energy user? Business? Because we have a big fetish for expansionism. The systems built around a crazy, continuous market share grab. It's going to suck at using any type of energy (as one speaker said about petrol, it's not that petrol is too expensive - it's that it's been too cheap - we got addicted, man. Time to AA). Go nuclear so you don't have to give up the addiction.
I honestly didn't understand any of that or I would have tried to respond. Could you 'splaine it to me?
Can you tell me how far you got before undestanding crashed? 'Money isn't part of physics' is perhaps boring to say, but it's boring because it's so straightforward. Understanding crashed even there? I will extend 'Imaginary research money into' into 'Put imaginary research money into...' just to make the sentence a bit clearer. That would literally be a cognitive science study (and perhaps it's been done already?), why people can so easily refer to 'progress' as if there is only one (which so happy coincides with being their particular notion of progress!)
Sorry totally missed this post. I didn't really understand any of it, but don't feel obligated to go back at this point.
-
Welcome to the Second Apocalypse, ChaseBeier :).
-
Thanks for sharing out post but I still disagree with you.. Germany has made best use of solar technology and nearly solved its power problem.
Not sure what that means. America doesn't really have a power problem either, as America is the OPEC of coal.
Like I said, I've not done the research for Germany, but I sincerely doubt they solved their power problem with just solar technology. There just isn't enough surface area in a country that far north of the equator to supply a meaningful amount of power. If they have solved their own energy problems, meaning that they are mostly carbon emission free, its due to a massive effort combining every known green solution, from solar to nuclear. I wish the USA cared more about recycling and green energy solutions :(
BTW here is a quick map. I googled "solar power efficiency", You'll see that Germany is very nearly one of the worst places on earth for a solar farm.
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/media/newsletters/echron/archives/2006/q2/images/solar_resourse_map.jpg
Find the annual energy usage of Germany, find the efficiency of a square meter of solar cell in Germany. Use that to calculate how many square kilometers would be needed. Now, subtract the total needed area from Germany's 350,000 square kilometers. If the number is negative, then that shows that if you covered every meter of surface (including farmland, rivers, and lakes), you still wouldn't generate enough power.