Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
billvon   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » May 15 2019 12:27am

Hillhater wrote:
May 14 2019 10:38pm
Well. In that case you should be able to explain how cutting down forests, and burning the timber , is better for atmospheric CO2 , than coal in the short , near, or medium term ( <50 yrs) ?
Because forests absorb CO2. Burning wood releases it. Closed cycle.
--bill von

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1103
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » May 15 2019 4:47am

billvon wrote:
May 14 2019 10:14pm
sendler2112 wrote:
May 14 2019 9:18pm
Limits to growth in 1972 was pretty accurate.
Projections for global famine in the 1970's were pretty accurate in 1969 - until 1975 rolled around.
Projections for peak oil were pretty accurate in 1980 - until 2010 (most common peak oil prediction) rolled around.

It's easy to predict that everything will keep going the way it is. Predicting the inflection point is what's hard. Once you have a model that accurately does that, people will pay more attention.
Most of the charts are uncannily accurate when we overlay the current values. Some resources like oil have been pulled forward in time by technology which yields a later peak and a steeper eventual drop off.
.
As long as we have oil, we will continue to grow. I highly recommend that we use what we have left to prepare the world for a downward trajectory rather than wishfully thinking we can build it's replacement to keep growing.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9663
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » May 15 2019 5:06am

billvon wrote:
May 15 2019 12:27am
Hillhater wrote:
May 14 2019 10:38pm
Well. In that case you should be able to explain how cutting down forests, and burning the timber , is better for atmospheric CO2 , than coal in the short , near, or medium term ( <50 yrs) ?
Because forests absorb CO2. Burning wood releases it. Closed cycle.
A little over simplistic, even for you bill...
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1801
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » May 15 2019 7:01am

Hillhater wrote:
May 14 2019 5:41pm
jimw1960 wrote:
May 14 2019 8:22am
Biomass is not fossil carbon and if you don't understand why that makes all the difference, then you shouldn't even be in this debate. I'm not saying biomass is the answer; it has drawbacks for other reasons.
I fully understand the difference,..
( i also understand the “commercial” reasons why biomass is an attractive option !)
...but you obviously do not realise why it makes NO DIFFERENCE to the concept of CO2 increase in the atmosphere over the next few decades !.
..which , according to the IPCC/Green/ alarmist/ CAGW/etc,etc...agenda ,...is the critical period.
Infact Biomass is worse (in IPCC theory) than Fossil burning, because it is “Front Loading” its CO2 content, and destroying Carbon “Sink” capacity, in a period when we are repeatedly told we should be eliminating CO2
Yep I agree.
People complaining about the location of the carbon elements or carbon elements bonded to oxygen elements is stupid.
Carbon is the 4th most abundant element in the universe, next to oxygen and hydrogen.
Carbon is literally EVERYWHERE.
Image

It's just no different than saying the water/H2O underground is bad H2O and shouldn't be pumped to the surface because it might hurt the water in the oceans.
Water is everywhere, it simply doesn't matter where it came from. The whole point behind "clean coal" is to have pure co2 emissions and nothing else, no different than the co2 emissions from breathing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_di ... physiology https://youtu.be/vuIlsN32WaE

It's just a "red-herring or Chewbacca-defence" trick used to confuse people.




German Failure on the Road to a Renewable Future
In 2011, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced the country was turning away from nuclear energy in favor of a renewable future. Since then, however, progress has been limited. Berlin has wasted billions of euros and resistance is mounting.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/ge ... 66586.html

If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... 390621dc66
Image
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Germany spent almost $1trillion dollars on renewables for only a tiny reduction in co2 emissions.
Germany will not meet its carbon emissions targets in 2020 despite spending billions of euros
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/ ... 68b5ef872e
it took $930 billion in infrastructure and investments to achieve this goal and only 16.3 per cent of the grid comes from solar and wind with the rest being buffered by hydro and, concerningly, biomass sources which still involve pollution creation through the burning of ethanol and biodiesel. Some scientists, and a growing lobby of green activists, argue it should not be classified as renewable energy at all.
Last edited by TheBeastie on May 16 2019 3:54am, edited 6 times in total.
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles rangehttps://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Consider PAS as your only throttle https://goo.gl/Kg1F8F
Fuel-Cell is the ultimate battery coupled with 4th-gen Nuclear
https://goo.gl/TcKtHs https://goo.gl/ZhFFot https://goo.gl/gfa215
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

billvon   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » May 15 2019 11:33am

sendler2112 wrote:
May 15 2019 4:47am
Most of the charts are uncannily accurate when we overlay the current values.
So were all the peak oil prediction charts. I have a big one here in my office. All were uncannily accurate until 2010, when most of the peaks were supposed to hit.
As long as we have oil, we will continue to grow. I highly recommend that we use what we have left to prepare the world for a downward trajectory rather than wishfully thinking we can build it's replacement to keep growing.
We will always have oil. It will simply become more and more resource (money, energy, materials) intensive to extract.

The "boon" of fracking means that we now have an expensive way to extract more oil - and that expense is all over the map depending on the configuration of the tight oil within the deep-rock formation. This is a very good thing. This means that the price will determine which bearing formations are economical to exploit. At $70 a barrel about half of the fracking sites are economical. At $80 a barrel more become available. This means that supply will be elastic.

As we burn the cheaper oil as fast as we can (which is what we seem to be doing) that will deplete the cheaper wells. Oil prices will rise. This will both reduce consumption and increase available wells. People will begin turning to alternate technologies - EV's and PHEV's to replace gasoline, solar and wind to replace natural gas, solar thermal to replace process heat from oil and natural gas. Some applications (automotive) will see sharp declines in gasoline usage based on price. Some applications (aviation) will not, since good alternatives do not yet exist. Instead they will see more gradual declines as fuel prices "price out" much of the market.

At some point even aviation usage will start to become too expensive; it will use more energy than is in a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil. At this point aviation will contract and will be replaced by things like long distance rail and bus travel. The remaining oil will be used in markets where it is even more difficult to replace it, like feedstocks for plastics.

The big risk of peak oil was a sudden and unstoppable decline in production that no amount of money/effort/time could reverse - and it could happen so rapidly (within a decade or so) that we would be unable to develop alternatives. Fracking means that decline will be spread out over a much longer timescale, giving us far more time to switch over. We still end up with a smaller, simpler, less energy intensive society, but we have a much longer runway to land there.
Last edited by billvon on May 15 2019 11:38am, edited 1 time in total.
--bill von

billvon   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » May 15 2019 11:37am

TheBeastie wrote:
May 15 2019 7:01am
Yep I agree.
People complaining about the location of the carbon elements is stupid.
There are no "carbon elements." Carbon is an element. I assume you mean carbon compounds. In which case -

I bet even you'd complain if that natural, growth-enhancing, miracle carbon compound called CO2 was pumped into your house at tiny (say, 5%) concentrations.
It's just no different than saying the water/H2O underground is bad H2O and shouldn't be pumped to the surface because it might hurt the water in the oceans.
If H20 was pumped to the surface and ended up in your house (say, due to fracking gone bad) again, even you'd complain that that life-giving water is in the wrong location. And if someone down the road pumped out the aquifer below you and your farm withered away - same thing.
Water is everywhere, it simply doesn't matter where it came from.
Really? Water main, sewer, it's all the same to you? And you don't care where it goes, even if it's your house? Again, I doubt it.

Of all the denier defenses posted here this has been, so far, the dumbest.
--bill von

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1103
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » May 15 2019 11:51am

billvon wrote:
May 15 2019 11:33am
The big risk of peak oil was a sudden and unstoppable decline in production that no amount of money/effort/time could reverse - and it could happen so rapidly (within a decade or so) that we would be unable to develop alternatives. Fracking means that decline will be spread out over a much longer timescale, giving us far more time to switch over. We still end up with a smaller, simpler, less energy intensive society, but we have a much longer runway to land there.
There is no alternative to oil at anything nearly the same scale or utility. And it takes energy to build a new system. We need the flaps down now.

billvon   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » May 15 2019 11:55am

sendler2112 wrote:
May 15 2019 11:51am
There is no alternative to oil at anything nearly the same scale or utility.
Given that I drive an EV that I charge with my own solar system, I have to disagree. There are certainly alternatives. They are certainly different - lower energy density, higher cost - but they will scale and are quite usable.
And it takes energy to build a new system. We need the flaps down now.
Agreed there. We need to be doing a lot more now.
--bill von

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1103
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » May 15 2019 12:31pm

billvon wrote:
May 15 2019 11:55am
sendler2112 wrote:
May 15 2019 11:51am
There is no alternative to oil at anything nearly the same scale or utility.
Given that I drive an EV that I charge with my own solar system, I have to disagree. There are certainly alternatives. They are certainly different - lower energy density, higher cost - but they will scale and are quite usable.
And it takes energy to build a new system. We need the flaps down now.
Agreed there. We need to be doing a lot more now.
A few people with home solar and an ev is a very small reduction in energy footprint. Even on your personal scale. If you drive on roads, accept fire, law, medical, education, government, ect services, if you do not grow all of your own food and make all of your own clothes, build your own dwelling, ect, you are still part of a huge societal energy footprint. 17TW worldwide. 3.4TW just for the USA.
.
As David MacKay was able to conclude "If everybody does a little, it adds up to... a little".

billvon   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » May 15 2019 12:55pm

sendler2112 wrote:
May 15 2019 12:31pm
A few people with home solar and an ev is a very small reduction in energy footprint.
Agreed. That has to happen on a much larger scale. Delivery trucks, emergency services, farming, transportation, mining etc.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9663
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » May 15 2019 7:05pm

billvon wrote:
May 15 2019 12:55pm
sendler2112 wrote:
May 15 2019 12:31pm
A few people with home solar and an ev is a very small reduction in energy footprint.
Agreed. That has to happen on a much larger scale. Delivery trucks, emergency services, farming, transportation, mining etc.
Home solar, commercial solar, even with wind etc, will never, and can never, support a progressive , industrialised , civilisation to anything like the standard we currently experience and expect in the future.
There will have to be a major reassessment of energy sourcing.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1103
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » May 15 2019 7:12pm

Hillhater wrote:
May 15 2019 7:05pm
There will have to be a major reassessment of energy sourcing.
And even larger reassessment of energy (and embodied energy in goods and services) consumption. And in addition to fossil energy, many other key nonrenewable resources are also being depleted. There are limits To Growth on a finite planet. And there is no Planet B.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9663
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » May 15 2019 8:06pm

I suspect it will be much easier to find new energy sources, than to control consumption...people are greedy and selfish..
We have many more years of known “conventional” energy sources and likely many more of unknown/undeveloped sources, and new undiscovered technologies.
Gen 4,5,6 + Nuclear will likely Carry the weight for some time, until Musk has mined the Kriptonite on Mars for us.! :lol:
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » May 15 2019 9:44pm

Hillhater wrote:
May 15 2019 7:05pm
Home solar, commercial solar, even with wind etc, will never, and can never, support a progressive , industrialised , civilisation to anything like the standard we currently experience and expect in the future.
There will have to be a major reassessment of energy sourcing.
Yes, there will. There is no way around that. The question you have to answer is - do you want that to be easier and gradual, or sudden and catastrophic?
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9663
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » May 15 2019 10:31pm

It will certainly be sudden and catastrophic if we commit most of our resources and efforts to the wrong/ineffective solutions . !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » May 15 2019 11:45pm

Hillhater wrote:
May 15 2019 10:31pm
It will certainly be sudden and catastrophic if we commit most of our resources and efforts to the wrong/ineffective solutions . !
Not at all. All that oil and gas we have now is a great cushion for making mistakes. And we will make mistakes - and learn from them. And then our successes will start entire new industries and save old ones. Win/win.
--bill von

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1103
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » May 18 2019 3:34pm

World investment in wind and solar has stalled due to poor financial return on investment. I guess what is needed is to start phasing in a world carbon tax right when it comes out of the ground. Which creates the fund for mitigation/ relocation and support of basic living needs.
.
"At the end of the day investors aren’t just going to put their money on a good story, their main objective is to make money from these investments. A look at the renewable energy sector fundamentals analysis shows that the total rating of all listed renewable energy companies fundamentals is just 3.9 out of 10, a rating that signals the renewable energy sector has very poor fundamentals."
.
http://unionsforenergydemocracy.org/gro ... 5eWsJ5zRjc
.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9663
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » May 19 2019 8:28pm

Australia gives its feedback on the Climate debate
Incase anyone missed it,..Australia had its 3 yearly Federal Elections at the weekend.
In an election that was openly claimed by the challenging parties... (Labour, Greens, and many “independent candidates),...as a “Climate Vote”, and an “unlosable election” for climate action proponents Labour/Greens.
Even every opinion poll had predicted the Labour/Greens well ahead for months right up to the election.
Bookmakers even paid out for a Labour win BEFORE the poll started !! :lol: :lol:
BUT..all aussies are not as gulible as some would seem to think, and the “Silent Majority” had their say at Saturdays Polling booths , and returned the moderate, Liberal/National party retained government with an increased majority , and dealt a complete rejection to the labour/Green policies of action on Carbon Reduction.
https://www.afp.com/en/news/15/australi ... 4-20154709
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jonescg   1 GW

1 GW
Posts: 3454
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » May 19 2019 9:13pm

If the coalition won with 85-90 seats I'd agree that it was a 'rejection' of climate action. But they just scraped in with 77 seats.
They might have won the election but they failed to take the nation with them.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9663
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » May 19 2019 10:46pm

Its called Democracy.
Outside of N Korea , i doubt you can find one government that has “taken the nation “ with them.
Face it.. the Majority of Aussies didnt buy into the climate scare, despite all the ludicrous exaggerations, misleading information, and lies, churned out by the lab’/green/getup bunch.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

furcifer   100 W

100 W
Posts: 161
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » May 19 2019 11:34pm

Fun thread.

Alternatives are great but good luck getting a Boeing 777 off the ground with solar. You need some pretty big sails on a freighter.

You can't tax carbon without shooting your economy in the foot. Even if you could it just makes it cheaper somewhere else.

millions of years of sequestered carbon released in the last 150 years. there's no putting that genie back in the bottle. don't buy beachfront property.

we've spoiled ourselves on cheap energy and reaped the rewards. at least some of us have, most of us have yet to. the "haves" denying the "have nots" the same opportunity is downright mean.

So basically we're stretching out the last drops of dino juice hoping some technology will come along to save us. If it doesn't we'll be scrambling to build nuke plants and shaking our heads at how we let the NIMBY's ruin the world by not embracing the inevitable 75 years sooner.

people just don't understand how much energy we use or how much energy there is in a gallon of gas.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1103
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » May 20 2019 5:53am

furcifer wrote:
May 19 2019 11:34pm
You can't tax carbon without shooting your economy in the foot. Even if you could it just makes it cheaper somewhere else.
Sooner or later we will be forced to accept that we are stuck here together on one planet and must learn to work together so that nothing is cheaper anywhere else. Applying appropriate cost signals to the pricing of non-renewable resources worldwide right when they come out of the ground is a must. As is applying cost signals to the waste streams. So that humans can start making better choices with a view toward deep time.

billvon   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » May 20 2019 7:50am

furcifer wrote:
May 19 2019 11:34pm
Alternatives are great but good luck getting a Boeing 777 off the ground with solar.
Agreed. You'd need solar plus storage; a lot of storage. And that will take a long time to get to that point.
You need some pretty big sails on a freighter.
Fortunately they make pretty big sails (if you wanted to do that.)
You can't tax carbon without shooting your economy in the foot. Even if you could it just makes it cheaper somewhere else.
The economy will also get "shot in the foot" once oil becomes prohibitively expensive, which it will. The question is, do you want that to happen:

1) now, when we have the money (and oil) to switch to alternatives or
2) in 50 years, when the economy has been hammered by climate change AND running out of oil?

It takes money, resources and time to change our energy source. We should start now.
So basically we're stretching out the last drops of dino juice hoping some technology will come along to save us. If it doesn't we'll be scrambling to build nuke plants and shaking our heads at how we let the NIMBY's ruin the world by not embracing the inevitable 75 years sooner.
Exactly. We should be scrambling NOW.
--bill von

furcifer   100 W

100 W
Posts: 161
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » May 20 2019 8:34am

sendler2112 wrote:
May 20 2019 5:53am
furcifer wrote:
May 19 2019 11:34pm
You can't tax carbon without shooting your economy in the foot. Even if you could it just makes it cheaper somewhere else.
Sooner or later we will be forced to accept that we are stuck here together on one planet and must learn to work together so that nothing is cheaper anywhere else. Applying appropriate cost signals to the pricing of non-renewable resources worldwide right when they come out of the ground is a must. As is applying cost signals to the waste streams. So that humans can start making better choices with a view toward deep time.
Yah, well that's basically world socialism. Good luck getting Americans to even consider it. And I can't blame them, socialism has been a disaster anywhere it's been tried. The free market works, except when 6 billion poor people need fossil fuels to survive the same way the western world has been living for the last 150 years.

No democracy is going to elect to give up their standard of living. So I have the feeling the way this all plays out is the rich will have to learn to mitigate the effects of climate change while the poor burn coal.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1103
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » May 20 2019 8:50am

furcifer wrote:
May 20 2019 8:34am
No democracy is going to elect to give up their standard of living. So I have the feeling the way this all plays out is the rich will have to learn to mitigate the effects of climate change while the poor burn coal.
Eventually the poor will come walking from afar with their pitch forks to take what they need from the rich rather than starve while we all suffer the steepest collapse that the Seneca Effect can offer from dwindling non-renewable resources having made no corrections in our currently selfish growth based trajectory.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_effect
.

Post Reply