COMMENTS:
False
United States: 24.03 bbl. per capita every year
Canada: 25.36 bbl. per capita every year
It has to be true. Unless canada uses oil for other things than cars.
again I knew it would be false. but I think if your just talking about personnal transport it would be completely different.
They do have more petrol power plants.
We make up for it with coal which is SO much better for the environment. ***wind power, cough, cough, wind power***
;-)
In order for the united states to use wind power, there would have to be enough turbine eletrical generators to cover the entire state of texas, and even then you better hope for some wind.
In order for there to be enough solar panels to power the entire united states, you need to cover the entire state of massachusetts with solar panels, which, in my opinion, would not be a bad thing, start with boston of course. And with that you better hope for no rainy days.
So whats the automobile difference then :D:D:D
I like wind turbines. They are like Modern invasions into the environment. But with conservation in mind. They somehow posses grace.. :D
I entered false, but I am not sure. "Per person" might throw a wrench in this equation, but it is hard to imagine as thirsty for oil than Americans.
"In order for the united states to use wind power, there would have to be enough turbine eletrical generators to cover the entire state of texas, and even then you better hope for some wind. "
Since when was it about supplying the whole US Jappy??? It's a question of degrees. Just 1% would be a dramatic improvement. And only an idiot would put them in texas.
In order for the united states to use wind power, there would have to be enough turbine eletrical generators to cover the entire state of texas, and even then you better hope for some wind.
by jappy on Apr 15, 2006 3:39pm
It'd only have to cover 172000 square miles and that is being EXTREMELY conservative, allowing for 15MW wind turbines to only achieve an initial efficiency of 30% and then only 25% of that (or an overall effiency of 7.5%). The wind turbines only take up 3.3% of the land area spacing them at 31/2sq.miles. So effectively they are only taking up 5675 square miles; you can still farm around them or build low rise buildings.
The most efficient nuclear facilities would take up an actual 155000 square miles as a result of their operating requirements and waste storage facilities.
Wind power doesn't seem so bad, does it?
And the most efficient state as a whole to build them would be North Dakota.
We also make up for it in terms of population -- 33 million vs. nearly 300 million. (My home state of California has 36 million!) Plus our population density is roughly 80 people/square mile, whereas Canada has only about 6 people/sq. mi.
I think it's about the same.
I'm willing to bet it's false. Canada is the biggest energy waster on the planet If I'm correct.
^Not THE biggest. Some surpass them, often by large margins. United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Luxembourg, and Kuwait do. Those four use at least 40 barrels of oil per person every year.
That's false mainly due to the fact that we have this thing up here called "Canaidan winter".
|
