Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2844
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Apr 15 2019 2:20pm

Ianhill wrote:
Apr 14 2019 11:46am
Seriously after all the links you have provided of mythical science you drop a comment like that, damn don't you get it ? It's all fake news we live in a world of brexit and trump logic has gone it's a flat out rat race of countrys all for themselfs believe nothing you havent seen or can not prove unless you want to be a fool.
Right. Only FOX News, wattsupwiththat.com and Ilovecoalandoil.com are _truly_ unbiased.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10136
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Apr 15 2019 8:04pm

You can spin the presentation of numbers either way,..but at the end 100/135/150 ppm ..( why did i know you would chew on that detail like a puppy with a toy ??)... 135ppm is exactly that... 135 ppm...135 part per million
..or in dumbed down relative scale 0.015% of the atmosphere !
Sorry, but your 50% doesnt scare me ,( nor does the image of billions of Blue whales ???) because i understand the significance and relativity of the numbers .
.....And i also understand that you have again darted off at a tangent on a trivial point of numerics , as if trying to distract any discussion from real issues.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 424
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Apr 15 2019 9:34pm

Hillhater wrote:
Apr 15 2019 8:04pm
because i understand the significance and relativity of the numbers .
How much more energy is being trapped by that additional CO2 ?

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2844
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Apr 15 2019 10:16pm

Hillhater wrote:
Apr 15 2019 8:04pm
Sorry, but your 50% doesnt scare me ,( nor does the image of billions of Blue whales ???) because i understand the significance and relativity of the numbers .
Great! It doesn't scare me either.
.....And i also understand that you have again darted off at a tangent on a trivial point of numerics , as if trying to distract any discussion from real issues.
The real issue is simple. We are warming the planet. Your attempts to minimize/discredit that via numeric tricks is noted and ignored.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10136
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Apr 15 2019 11:26pm

billvon wrote:
Apr 15 2019 10:16pm
The real issue is simple. We are warming the planet.
Minor corrections...
We are TOLD the planet is warming...( it may be but WE cannot measure it )
And we are TOLD it is all due to human influence...no proof, weak unscientific theory, and unconvincing examples.

Meanwhile back to real issues and facts..,...here is something for you to adsorb regarding subsidies...
....( is that the sound of you loading your “Messenger Shooter” weapon ?)
In 2007, USA, “For subsidies related to electricity production, EIA data shows that solar energy was subsidized at $24.34 per megawatt hour and wind at $23.37 per megawatt hour for electricity generated in 2007. By contrast, coal received 44 cents, natural gas and petroleum received 25 cents, hydroelectric power 67 cents, and nuclear power $1.59 per megawatt hour. The bottom line: traditional fuels continue to be more efficient and cost-effective than renewable fuels, which is why EIA forecasts show them representing 91 percent of energy consumption in 2030.”

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch. ... ies-study/

In 2010, “Per the EIA, on a per MWh basis we subsidize natural gas and coal by about $0.64 per MWh, and we subsidize nuclear by about $3.14 per MWh. In comparison, we subsidize wind by about $56.29 per MWh, and solar by an astronomical $775.64 per MWH”.

https://jerrygraf.wordpress.com/2013/03 ... n-the-usa/

In 2016, the Direct Federal tax subsidy per MWh produced was USD 35.33 for Wind and USD 231.21 for Solar in 2013 USD.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/12/ ... than-coal/

On a “dollar for dollar subsidy basis” In 2016, Fossil fuels provided 78% of generated power, Nuclear 10%, with renewables of all forms comprising 12%. Wind and Solar comprised 90% of all federal subsidies while providing 3% of generated power. On a basis of USD Subsidy per MWh generated, Solar received USD 43.75 and Wind received USD 5.75.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch. ... subsidies/

In 2017, “On a total dollar basis, wind has received the greatest amount of federal subsidies. Solar is second. Wind and solar together get more than all other energy sources combined. However, based on production (subsidies per kWh of electricity produced), solar energy, has gotten over ten times the subsidies of all other forms of energy sources combined, including wind (see figure).”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca ... 1aefeb128c
.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 424
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Apr 16 2019 12:04am

Hillhater wrote:
Apr 15 2019 11:26pm
We are TOLD the planet is warming...( it may be but WE cannot measure it )
:lol:

Besides deflections, can you answer the question I posted earlier? What is the energy trapping potential increase given "insignificant" increase in CO2 levels ? Purely based on physics that is.

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2844
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Apr 16 2019 2:19am

Hillhater wrote:
Apr 15 2019 11:26pm
billvon wrote:
Apr 15 2019 10:16pm
The real issue is simple. We are warming the planet.
Minor corrections...
We are TOLD the planet is warming...( it may be but WE cannot measure it )
You may not be able to (or more likely, are not willing to) but scientists can - with a new, high tech instrument called a "thermometer." Ah, the wonders of modern, cutting edge technology.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10136
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Apr 16 2019 5:34am

billvon wrote:
Apr 16 2019 2:19am
You may not be able to (or more likely, are not willing to) but scientists can - with a new, high tech instrument called a "thermometer." .....
Sadly, “A Thermometer”. Wont tell you the “global average temperature” .!
Lots of them are needed, then the thousands of results have to be “processed” by a computer program that keeps getting “revised” , before the results are “interpreted”.
Some of them are even “virtual” .....data attributed to locations that have no measuring device ?
So..this magic number is not a measured data point...its a “generated” figure..with many human fingerprints on it.
AND. Then to show any change, current results need to be compared to historic records..which were taken using different techniques, on different equipment, often in different locations....
And all that was before those records were “adjusted” (Several times, oddly always downwards ?) to “correct” for “anomalies ??”.
.....And you believe this is hard science ??
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1250
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Apr 16 2019 5:51am

Interesting back and forth on impending collapse from Jeremy Lent and Jem Bendell. They are both focused on climate change caused disruptions. Which might end up being enough on it's own, but barely even consider resource depletion, energy depletion, and the growth demands for function of the debt based free market. But do both briefly allude to it as below. Which I would argue are at least as pressing. It's also interesting to see how they are debating each other when they both seem to mostly accept the same basic premises.
.
"The primary reason for this headlong fling toward disaster is that our economic system is based on perpetual growth—on the need to consume the earth at an ever-increasing rate. Our world is dominated by transnational corporations, which now account for sixty-nine of the world’s largest hundred economies. The value of these corporations is based on investors’ expectations for their continued growth, which they are driven to achieve at any cost, including the future welfare of humanity and the living earth.

It’s a gigantic Ponzi scheme that barely gets a mention because the corporations also own the mainstream media, along with most governments. The real discussions we need about humanity’s future don’t make it to the table. Even a policy goal as ambitious as the Green New Deal—rejected by most mainstream pundits as utterly unrealistic—would still be insufficient to turn things around, because it doesn’t acknowledge the need to transition our economy away from its reliance on endless growth."
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019 ... daptation/
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019 ... m-bendell/
.

User avatar
jimw1960   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 780
Joined: Jul 23 2008 4:44pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jimw1960 » Apr 16 2019 10:31am

Hillhater wrote:
Apr 15 2019 8:04pm
You can spin the presentation of numbers either way,..but at the end 100/135/150 ppm ..( why did i know you would chew on that detail like a puppy with a toy ??)... 135ppm is exactly that... 135 ppm...135 part per million
..or in dumbed down relative scale 0.015% of the atmosphere !
Sorry, but your 50% doesnt scare me ,( nor does the image of billions of Blue whales ???) because i understand the significance and relativity of the numbers .
.....And i also understand that you have again darted off at a tangent on a trivial point of numerics , as if trying to distract any discussion from real issues.
The fact that 411 ppm is a small percent of total atmospheric volume is totally irrelevant. How many ppm of arsenic in your blood does it take to kill you? The only thing of relevance is the bandwidths of electromagnetic energy that CO2 can absorb and re-radiate and how does that affect the Earth's energy balance. As it turns out, the pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppm is enough to prevent the entire Earth from being an ice ball as it was during the Cryogenian period 650 million years ago and two other periods before that. At 1,000 ppm Alaska will feel like the tropics and large portions of Equatorial regions will be uninhabitable, as was the case during the Paleocene period 60 million years ago. CO2 has played a major role in these dramatic shifts in the Earths's climate. Never, before, however, has such a large increase in CO2 occurred over such a short period of time. At the current rate, we will pass 500 ppm in about 40 years.

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5259
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Apr 16 2019 3:32pm

Hillhater wrote:
Apr 16 2019 5:34am
Lots of them are needed, then the thousands of results have to be “processed” by a computer program that keeps getting “revised” , before the results are “interpreted”.
Some of them are even “virtual” .....data attributed to locations that have no measuring device ?
So..this magic number is not a measured data point...its a “generated” figure..with many human fingerprints on it.
Assume your company mass produces rectangular steel blocks. Tell me how you could tell me the length of any given one of them without resorting to:

Approximations
Statistical methods
Corrections to measured values
Estimates
Assumptions

?

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10136
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Apr 16 2019 6:56pm

^^^^
Well, you could use one of the many “inline” , measuring systems that can accurately do 100% sampling and reporting..with traceability.
But you correctly assume that i aware of Statistical Analysis methods.
One of the fundamentals of that analysis is to have accurate , reliable, measured , raw data sets to work with.
You do not use “estimated “ or otherwise false, data.
Once you start using “soft” data, you leave the realms of science and launch into speculation and uncertainty.
Global temperature analysis fails at the first level.......and several others !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5259
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Apr 17 2019 2:37am

Hillhater wrote:
Apr 16 2019 6:56pm
Well, you could use one of the many “inline” , measuring systems that can accurately do 100% sampling and reporting..with traceability.
And how accurate, exactly, would that automatic measuring machine be?

Moreover, you would likely have several measuring machines in different factories around the world. If they all measured the same block, none would give the same answer. So which is correct? How big is the block?

Furthermore, you process spits out so many blocks it is not possible to measure 100% of them. You must measure a few and infere ("speculate" in your world) the size of any one based measurements of only a few.
Hillhater wrote:
Apr 16 2019 6:56pm
You do not use “estimated “ or otherwise false, data.
Those two are not the same thing. Estimates are fine and used all the time in the real world. Everytime you interpolate between datapoints you are estimating. It's clearly not the same as "just making stuff up" or "faking".
Hillhater wrote:
Apr 16 2019 6:56pm
Once you start using “soft” data, you leave the realms of science and launch into speculation and uncertainty.
Global temperature analysis fails at the first level.......and several others !
You seem to have a very black and white view of things. You seem to believe absolutely in any given individual measurement of something (no matter how flawed the methodology is) but anything else (like taking an average of several measurements) is B.S. Your approach would require contiuous measurement of every gas molecule in the atmosphere before you would believe temperature change was occuring. Even then you'd still deny the cause because it didn't fit with your existing beliefs.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10136
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Apr 17 2019 7:35am

Sorry, you are off on a irrelavent tangent .
If you want. To learn how do 100% inspection and true statistical sampling for QC, do some research.
Hint , modern optical and laser systems are fast and accurate !
But on a relevant point of averages and estimates vs actual measurements..
....If you had a temperature reading from the Shetlands, and another from Jersey, could you use them to derive an accurate temperature in Leek ?
...because that is the way some “data points” are established for the global data set !
You could calculate an average ,and you could make an estimate, but you cannot determine the actual temperature using indirect measurements.....
..its false data.
THe concept of a global temperature average, or mean, is flawed, even those data points that are real, are not representative of the globe, they are heavily biased to the northern hemisphere.

PS..i have not said temperature change is not happening...im sure it is..but how much its changing, how fast, in which direction, and what the cause(s) may be , are not as clear cut as you believe.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jimw1960   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 780
Joined: Jul 23 2008 4:44pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jimw1960 » Apr 17 2019 9:19am

The willful ignorance and confirmation bias in this one is staggering.

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2844
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Apr 17 2019 11:55am

Hillhater wrote:
Apr 16 2019 5:34am
.....And you believe this is hard science ??
Yes, it is. You just don't understand it.

Such methods are used all the time for everything from economic output to power demand to dam construction to farm yields. And the grid works, and the dams hold, and we can figure out yields. Even if you don't believe that's possible. Reality trumps your opinions - every time.
--bill von

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2844
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Apr 17 2019 11:56am

Hillhater wrote:
Apr 17 2019 7:35am
If you want. To learn how do 100% inspection and true statistical sampling for QC, do some research.
And if you want to learn, google those two terms. (Hint - they are not the same; they are, in fact, sorta the opposite.)
--bill von

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 424
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Apr 17 2019 4:37pm

Fascinating. Kind of like Image

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5259
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Apr 17 2019 5:14pm

Hillhater wrote:
Apr 17 2019 7:35am
....If you had a temperature reading from the Shetlands, and another from Jersey, could you use them to derive an accurate temperature in Leek ?
...because that is the way some “data points” are established for the global data set !
They're really not established in anything like such an extreme scenario, but let's take your question at face value and the answer is "yes", because "accurate" is a relative term and you failed to define it. It is certainly possible to infer the temperature in Leek, albeit with a healthy uncertainty due to the extremely sparse datasets. We could fairly confidently say that the temperature in Leek is 20°C +/- 50°C. That would be a pretty reasonable uncertainty for a given spot on the planet Mercury.

You'll claim I'm splitting hairs over semantics but it demonstrates you're throwing about terms without considering what they really mean. Cf accurate Vs. precise.

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2844
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Apr 17 2019 9:33pm

Punx0r wrote:
Apr 17 2019 5:14pm
It is certainly possible to infer the temperature in Leek, albeit with a healthy uncertainty due to the extremely sparse datasets.
Exactly. And we enter the realm of statistical science.

For example, Oceanside is between San Diego and Los Angeles, and they are both on the coast. (And - fun fact - it was where the Veronica Mars series was filmed.) Common sense would tell one that the temperature in Oceanside would be similar to the temperatures in San Diego and Los Angeles - and if the temperatures in those places were dramatically different, it would be between the two.

However, common sense can be misleading in science, and fortunately isn't needed in this case. It is simple to look at the temperature of all three and determine the probability curve of the temperature actually being equal to the average of the two nearby locations, with the X axis. If the distribution is narrow, centered on zero, and is similar in distribution to the error in a standard thermometer, then historically you can use the average of the two cities and get the Oceanside temperature within a reasonable error range. And if all the thermometers in Oceanside disappeared tomorrow, then that average temperature of San Diego and Los Angeles would be an excellent proxy for the Oceanside temperature.

Simple statistics.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10136
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Apr 17 2019 11:06pm

billvon wrote:
Apr 17 2019 9:33pm
..... It is simple to look at the temperature of all three and determine the probability curve of the temperature actually being equal to the average of the two nearby locations, with the X axis. If the distribution is narrow, centered on zero, and is similar in distribution to the error in a standard thermometer, then historically you can use the average of the two cities and get the Oceanside temperature within a reasonable error range. And if all the thermometers in Oceanside disappeared tomorrow, then that average temperature of San Diego and Los Angeles would be an excellent proxy for the Oceanside temperature.

Simple statistics.
Statistics yes, ...but not hard science...you are using statistics to help you make a guess at the missing data.
AlL you have is an “ Estimate” , You do not actually know what the temperature was in that location , you are making an assumption that it is following a previous pattern,
It is not a hard data point and not valid for rigorous analysis, and it certainly is not good science.
But that is not even close to the assumptions made for some Global temp data.
In summary terms....They are known to use data from measurements over 1000km apart to generate another “data point” in a remote location for which no actual measurements exist !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hanssing   100 mW

100 mW
Posts: 46
Joined: Aug 06 2016 6:57am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hanssing » Apr 18 2019 3:29am

J.H.C. the selective denial for some memebers (trolls) is mindboggling!

In other news: IEA outlook vs. RE-pricedrops vs. invstments in fossil-extraction spells changes to rich countries way of life, and will leave poor countries behind.....

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/18/th ... few-years/
Yet, one important piece of news on the global energy transformation went unnoticed, despite the fact that it came from one of the most influential organizations, the International Energy Agency (IEA). The dramatic message was hidden in a graph on page 159 of the 2018 World Energy Outlook (WEO), the annual edition of the most significant report on global energy developments.

It shows that with no new investment, global oil production — including all unconventional sources — will drop by 50% by 2025 (Figure 1). That means that the global oil supply crunch is likely to happen already in the next five to six years and not in decades, as many fossil fuel companies hope. The global annual oil production is set to decline by approximately six million barrels per day starting in 2020. That means in the coming years the provision of energy related to oil will reduce annually by an amount equal to the total energy demand of Germany in 2014.

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5259
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Apr 18 2019 4:56am

That's going to be interesting!
Hillhater wrote:
Apr 17 2019 11:06pm
Statistics yes, ...but not hard science...you are using statistics to help you make a guess at the missing data.
1) Statistics litterally is a science

2) Once again, estimates based on well-founded analytical methods are not the same as a "guess"

3) As I tried to demonstrate before, filling in "missing" data happens all the time. Your laser measuring machine is calibrated only at a few discrete points in it's measurement range and a "best fit" curve plotted between these based on assumptions of what shape this curve should be. Most of the measurements it then makes will be based on estimated values and will be incorrect to some degree. "good enough" for the context of the application is what matters, it is not as simple as being "right" or "wrong", it's not black and white. Incidentally, determining if the measuring device is accurate enough for a given application is also something statistics can tell you.

Hillhater wrote:
Apr 17 2019 11:06pm

AlL you have is an “ Estimate” , You do not actually know what the temperature was in that location , you are making an assumption that it is following a previous pattern,
It is not a hard data point and not valid for rigorous analysis, and it certainly is not good science.
A thermometer in a weather station tells you only the temperature inside that weather station immediately surrounding the thermometer tip. The temperature 1 metre away outside will be different. This difference is small and doesn't invalidate the measurement for most applications. You can clearly see that 1 metre, or 1 mile or 100 miles away is fundamentally no different, it's a sliding scale of accuracy whereby at some distance, determined by statistical analysis it is no longer "good enough". Just because you don't believe that it can't be "accurate" at X distance doesn't make it so.

I know just enough about statistics to know it's pretty complex and in the right hands some very clever things can be done with it. I don't pretend to understand the methods and tools but I know from the basics that they're based on well-proven mathematics and trust in the basic competance of those people who are the experts in their field. It's no different to the trust we all place in a doctor, surgeon, airline pilot or mortgage broker.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1250
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Apr 18 2019 5:39am

Hanssing wrote:
Apr 18 2019 3:29am
It shows that with no new investment, global oil production — including all unconventional sources — will drop by 50% by 2025 (Figure 1). That means that the global oil supply crunch is likely to happen already in the next five to six years and not in decades, as many fossil fuel companies hope. The global annual oil production is set to decline by approximately six million barrels per day starting in 2020. That means in the coming years the provision of energy related to oil will reduce annually by an amount equal to the total energy demand of Germany in 2014.
[/quote]
Well there will be investment to stretch oil a little further. Maybe 20-30 years. But the energy returned on energy invested will continue to decline. I hope you all do not view this as a good thing for human well being or the economy.
.
As I have been saying here for a year and a half, Our civilization and world economy has evolved to run on energy. It does almost all of the real work that we need and has in large part replaced most human and animal labor. Every good or service starts with an energy input. We take a little raw material harvested with a great deal of cheap energy, and refine, process, manufacture, transport, and market it using a great deal more energy at each step. So everything you see happening around you embodies a huge amount of cheap energy.
.
And we use resources according to the best, first. So just as oil and gas are getting more energetically remote, so to are all of the minerals and ore that we have been using to thrive. Which leaves less surplus value for society year after year.
.
Since the Green Revolution in 1965, oil has become especially critical for food production and distribution. Along with cheap fertilizer made from natural gas.
.
And.
.
For the last 10 years we have been using debt to keep the human ball rolling. $275 trillion. Every year for the last 25 years the we have grown our debt more than we have grown our GDP. The world rate is now at 3:1. The interest on which can only be paid back by a greater rate of continuous growth. Which means growth in energy consumption. But eventually energy will peak and decline. First oil in 20 years, and then gas in 70. Then what???
.
The scale of total energy consumption here at the peak of this one time carbon pulse that the global North has been thriving on is unfathomable to most. And the green media intentionally suppresses this data to give a false sense of hope. Even after two decades of concerted build out at the fastest rate that their economy will allow. Germany gets only 7% of it's energy from wind and solar. For the world we are less than 2%. We still get several times more energy from burning wood and dung than from solar and wind. Hydro is topped out in most places and is even foolishly being lobbied for moratoriums and to be torn down by some.
.
Things will be much smaller and simpler after we pass peak energy. We must finally become wise and quit chasing instant gratification. The sooner we accept this and start planning for a whole new way of living, the softer than landing can be on the other side.
.
Coal below, oil near the top. Then What???
.
Image
.
.
Image
.
.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10136
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Apr 18 2019 6:46am

Punx0r wrote:
Apr 18 2019 4:56am
1) Statistics litterally is a science
2) Once again, estimates based on well-founded analytical methods are not the same as a "guess"
Statistics is not a science, it is a mathematical technique.
Statistics are used to analyse data for scientific purposes.
If you want reliable outputs, you must have accurate inputs..reliable “hard” data.
Estimates are not reliable data.
..Sh1t in ,..Sh1t out !

PS:.. You are sweating over details again !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Post Reply