Well....if it really were going to save the planet, then sure, it would be worth keeping Toad McConnell around and even giving him the next slot as Senate Majority Leader. But it won't save the planet, and on balance, it's not worth it.

This is a fantastic thing.

Companies like NRG are now integrating fuel cell parks into the range of energy facilities they build.

South Korea, Connecticut/USA and others are already building medium size stacks for co-generation.

@2: Apart from hydrogen not being a fuel supply and being extremely difficult to safely store and transport, this has LITERALLY NOTHING TO DO with fuel cells. What do you need to make hydrogen from water? Electricity! How do you get electricity? You can burn coal OR you can use renewables. EITHER WAY.
The only field in which fuel cells would make any environmental impact is in automotive transportation, because it means that carbon dioxide emissions are at the power plant (where they can be more easily scrubbed and processed) than at the tailpipe.
But who cares? You don't understand the issue, and you certainly aren't interested in learning. JBITSMFOTP.

We have to reduce emissions by 72% in WA - but that's only 500 MW which is a small fraction of energy use - our coal plant going offline in 2020 will do that.

Oh and the Woodland Park Zoo is going solar next year - you can buy solar units there through Seattle City Light. I got a Seattle Aquarium solar unit, and will add a Zoo solar unit too - which after the $150 investment reduces my electric bill by the cost of the solar created.

Adapt or Die.

#3

So you'd suffocate us all with coal?

We'll know governments are at all serious about global warming when we start passing restrictions on livestock products. A 25% reduction in carbon dioxide for power plants is nice, but it's a fraction of a fraction of our climate change damage. That reduction is essentially worthless if we double our livestock damage by the time this goes into effect.

The largest portion of greenhouse gas equivalents is livestock (beef, pork, and dairy) and it's growing unchecked. It's not even part of the conversation except amongst scientists, who are screaming that reducing livestock is possibly the only answer.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michellemais…

@5 are you fucking incapable of reading?

Example of the futility of going after fractional reductions in fossil fuels while ignoring livestock -- Denmark is the only country in the world outside of the Middle East with a higher carbon footprint per capita than the USA (not including oil/coal exports used elsewhere). Denmark is the worst for the environment in the western world despite a relatively low car use rate, the highest bicycling rate in the world outside of the Netherlands, and a full 30% of their electricity coming from clean wind power.

Why is Denmark so bad then? Denmark also has the highest livestock consumption per capita outside the Middle East -- about 20% higher than the USA, which is where we'll be soon if we don't make systemic changes fast.

http://www.arc2020.eu/front/2012/05/meat…

We are not now, nor will we ever, "save" the planet. The planet will save itself. As soon as we have flushed ourselves from the toilet we've made.

@6: You're leaving out feasibility. How easy is it to move from fossil fuels to renewables, using nuclear as a transitional measure? Not so hard; most of the science is already there. How easy is it to grow meat in the lab and process vegetable material into palatable and complete protein sources? We're taking baby steps at present.

10: It's much easier to make people eat less meat & cheese. Tax meat & cheese. Even better, use the money to subsidize non-meat foods. There is absolutely no invention or science required.

There are relatively nutritious alternatives already in every corner in America, even in most unhealthy food deserts. Bean burritos and tots at Taco Bell, veggie subs and chips at Subway, veggie burger & fries at Burger King.

Other relatively rich countries eat about half as much meat per capita as we do -- the UK, Sweden, Switzerland, Singapore, Chile. Japan and South Korea eat about 1/3 as much. Not surprisingly, all of those countries live longer than us. India eats 4%(!) as much meat per capita.

@11: So instead of boiling the planet we should simply poison it with farming runoff? Great trade off there Raku. The only way we can grow enough of the needed crops means you can kiss off organic farming by the way. It is simply to inefficient to farm that way if we are going to go to everyone being a vegetarian. Organic farming can feed about half the planet currently. And the numbers will only get worse in the future with the way things are going. So your choices are to make Monsanto even richer or kill half the planet. People have thought I was somewhat sociopathic at times, but at my worst I've never thought about doing something that would require killing half the planet.

Umm that bean burrito has dairy in it in the form of sour cream and cheese. And they are about the healthiest things IN that burrito. Take those out and those refried beans are NOT that healthy to eat.

On the plus side anyone who grows up to be above about 5'6" will be awesome as a basketball player since most people will be shorter. Or did you not know that is a side effect of growing up as a vegetarian? There is a cost to doing anything so make sure you know what those costs are before you advocate like you do. Are you willing to pay those costs? Obviously you are willing to make the rest of us pay them but are you willing to do so personally? Nice to know you are willing to condemn your descendants to not living to their full potential so that we can get away from eating meat.

Just so you know why I said people said I was sociopathic is that when the 9/11 events went down I noted the perps as idiots as there were more effective ways to terrorize the US and noted one that would have been much more effective and I only had to think about it for a few seconds. The casualties would have been in the 10's of thousands and it would have happened over several days with New York's citizens doing most of the killing and maiming. And I consider what you want done to be sociopathic.

12: You are very ignorant about farming and nutrition.

It takes 7-13 pounds of soy or grain to make 1 pound of meat. If everyone replaced their beef exactly with beans or grains, we would be growing A LOT LESS beans and grain. Pasture-raised beef is even worse-- the deforestation caused by pastureland almost eradicated the entire Amazon rainforest until they moved to more efficient (but less healthy, more cruel) contained animal feeding operations.

You seem to be under a false impression that meat is healthy. It cuts your life short by an average of 7 years, almost as much as smoking. Vegan diets are even now understood to ideal diets for athletes -- google them and you'll find many of your favorite athletes are vegan.

As someone who ate lots of cheap vegan fast food as a poor youth, I can assure you bean burritos are vegan if you ask for them with no cheese. They are much healthier than if you had beef or cheese in them. Beans are full of fiber and nutrients, one of the healthiest foods on the planet even if Taco Bell is just a close approximation.

If you're that worried about your kids being short and believe somehow meat magically makes them tall, go ahead. What are adults' excuses?

Here is a video about average vegan vs. meat eater nutrient deficiencies. Vegans have 3 (that are easily supplemented), meat eaters have 7. http://nutritionfacts.org/video/omnivore…

Here is an hour long video about the science behind plants vs. meat, with dozens of scientific references. Meat contributes to all 10 of the top killers in America, plant based diets do not. http://nutritionfacts.org/video/uprootin…