Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
Cephalotus   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 617
Joined: Jun 18 2012 12:27pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Sep 13 2019 3:17am

sendler2112 wrote:
Sep 12 2019 12:36pm


So do you also mock 350.org, FridaysForFuture, Sunrise, Extinction Rebelion, ect for using words like emergency, catastrophe, collapse?
I understand and accept I will receive ridicule for jumping through the Overton Window to present essential information that is far outside the consensus trance that most people wish they did not have to hear.
.
So you have asked me what I am personally doing to avoid collapse of society already a year ago. Or was it two?
.
Most of my answer would still be the same. I have yet to move onto a self sufficient homestead or intentional community. Indeed, social momentum prevents most of the world from undertaking such immense shifts in such a short time.
.
One thing that I would add is that now more than ever, I seek to maximize my impact. By Learning. Thinking. Talking. in person and in every media forum that I can. To steer the outcome for better futures.
From your contribution to this thread I do not believe that you reach for a better future like others do. You rather seem to be a doomsday prepper. You consume an abundance of resources and your plan is to consume even more resources for your "homestead" and instead of improving the society, building a better and sustainable world you are predicting doom and gloom and are fighting hard to undermine solutions to that future.

I assume that your homestead concept will include lots of weapons to fight of all the other "unprepared" people when the world of your predictions goes back to the medieval stage, isnt it?
As a long time member of the "peak oil" and "prepper" community it is my experience that lot's of those doomers look quite expectantly to such e a doom and gloom future, because of their fantasies of living like kings among the "sheeply".

I do not agree with that philosophy. I prepare for emergencies and otherwise I try to build a sustainable and better world together with other people. Building a better and sustainable world needs renewabele energies instead of burning oil and coal, it needs electric cars instead of nuclear reactors or horses and it needs community instead of weapons and homesteads = bunkers.

We need solutions for 10 billion people, not solutions for 10 million people.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1253
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Sep 13 2019 6:55am

Cephalotus wrote:
Sep 13 2019 3:17am
From your contribution to this thread I do not believe that you reach for a better future like others do.
Ahh. I see you have baited me into saying something you knew I would say that you could twist into something evil. Very clever. I will remember that one. My idea of how I want to live is more akin to a sharing community in the way that the indigenous people lived at a sustainable level of real time solar, water, and soil flows. Before being overwhelmed. Without any of the resource wars of course. This is my irrational dream that obviously does not fit with 10 billion people and will probably have to wait a few hundred years until we humanely coast back down.
.
At the opposite pole of the StarTrek future that you irrationally envision can facilitate a continued human trajectory of "Green Growth" at business as usual economically healthy 2-3% rates to avoid a crash. This continued exponential growth would see the size of the human economic endeavor doubling again not once, but twice in the next 50 years. And 8 times larger by 2100! This is absolutely absurd to me! And obviously will not happen on a finite planet regardless of how hard it is wished for. Exponential increases of things is a big blind spot in human awareness that we were never evolved to inherently grasp. And we are at the steep end of the hockey stick.
.
Mainly what I am working on is spreading awareness that once you gain an understanding of the scale of the energy footprint of modern human civilization, which you angrily refuse to accept to your core, the nearly 1:1 relationship of energy/ material throughput vs economy, the physical constraints of remaining resources, it must become obvious that a whole new world socio-economic system that equitably spreads human wellbeing while undergoing rapid degrowth is required. Even the IPCC is starting to grasp this while mainly focusing on the environmental waste aspects of our conundrum without even really considering the source/ economy pressures we are under. Which I would argue will hurt us much sooner than climate change.
.
To neglect this and continue promoting a green growth as usual imperative (2 billion, 60 kWh electric cars! = 120 TWh of batteries! Absurd! Which still leaves just 1 car for each 5 people to share.) just leads us higher up the Seneca Cliff to delay a bigger fall.
.
Much better to wisely accept our opportunities and constraints with an informed systems view to bend back down to a sustainable civilization. Western lifestyle throughput must diminish by an order of magnitude over the next 200 years while we accept billions of climate migrants and use our remaining energy bolus to mitigate and build out what we need to survive. And skip some of the intermediate steps that will prove to be still unsustainable.
.
You didn't answer my question and try to make it sound like I am the only one. Do you also mock 350.org, FridaysForFuture, Sunrise Movement, Extinction Rebellion, ect, for using words like "emergency", "catastophe", "collapse"?
.
And again they are only half informed as to the complexity of our conundrum and are primarily focused on the environmental problems with little awareness of the looming economic/ resource limits to growth.
.
.
Image
.
.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1253
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Sep 13 2019 9:15am

Interesting that this just posted on Resilience.org today.
.
"The unspoken phrase of today’s Earth Day is “Recycle, Occasionally Reuse, and Never Utter the Word Reduce”. A quasi taboo on saying “reduce” permeates the lexicon of twenty-first century environmentalism. Confronting the planned obsolescence of everyday products rarely, if ever, appears as an ecological goal. The concept of possessing fewer objects and smaller homes has surrendered to the worship of ecogadgets. The idea of redesigning communities to make them compact so individual cars would not be necessary has been replaced by visions of universal electric cars. The saying “Live simply so that others can simply live” now draws empty stares. Long forgotten are the modest lifestyles of Buddha, Jesus and Thoreau."
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019 ... gy-denial/
.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1253
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Sep 13 2019 12:35pm

His 15 nitpicks miss the point of scale and immeasurable resource use in trying to transition 17+ TW to wind and solar and all of the infrastructure to use it.
.
This other article Resilience also posted today is infinitely better and worth a close study including all of the linked references. This is one to print onto paper and go through with a highlighter. The summary is the same. Degrowth of the world economy is required to avoid catastrophic collapse.
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019 ... eason-why/
.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1253
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Sep 13 2019 10:43pm

I understand why one of my professors, Ugo Bardi, identifies with Cassandra: Gifted to know the future. And then cursed to also maddeningly foresee just as clearly that no one will ever believe her.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra
.

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5262
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Sep 14 2019 8:08am

sendler2112 wrote:
Sep 13 2019 12:35pm
His 15 nitpicks miss the point of scale and immeasurable resource use in trying to transition 17+ TW to wind and solar and all of the infrastructure to use it.
Once again for the umpteenth time: WE DON'T NEED TO GENERATE ALL THE TERAWATTS OF LOW GRADE WASTE HEAT PRODUCED BY FOSSIL FUELS!

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5262
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Sep 14 2019 8:12am

Posted in wrong thread...
Last edited by Punx0r on Sep 16 2019 2:54am, edited 1 time in total.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1253
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Sep 14 2019 8:24am

Punx0r wrote:
Sep 14 2019 8:08am
sendler2112 wrote:
Sep 13 2019 12:35pm
His 15 nitpicks miss the point of scale and immeasurable resource use in trying to transition 17+ TW to wind and solar and all of the infrastructure to use it.
Once again for the umpteenth time: WE DON'T NEED TO GENERATE ALL THE TERAWATTS OF LOW GRADE WASTE HEAT PRODUCED BY FOSSIL FUELS!
True. A complete electrification of everything will be more efficient. I have generally seen an almost 2:1 improvement estimate by the roadmap to renewables report for instance. But recently read through one of the 2018 IPCC reports that stated a predicted 30% savings.

Cephalotus   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 617
Joined: Jun 18 2012 12:27pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Sep 15 2019 4:48am

sendler2112 wrote:
Sep 13 2019 6:55am

At the opposite pole of the StarTrek future that you irrationally envision can facilitate a continued human trajectory of "Green Growth" at business as usual economically healthy 2-3% rates to avoid a crash. This continued exponential growth would see the size of the human economic endeavor doubling again not once, but twice in the next 50 years. And 8 times larger by 2100! This is absolutely absurd to me!
Thisis energy consumption in Germany from 1990 (reunification) to today. Despite rebuilding the East German infrastructure and economy, a still slightly growing population and the largest trade surplus in the world for products, our primary energy consumption has fallen and is now on the level of the 1970th.

Image

(Keep in mind that for primary energy consumption solar and wind is counted as 1kWh for 1kWh electricity produced, but coal or nuclear is counted 3kWh for 1kWh electricity produced)

If you look at the end energy consumption you notice that the biggest consumers are heating rooms and driving cars.

Image

For both sectors using oil or natural gas is still dominant and for both cases we gain better efficiency by factor 3 if we just switch to elecritcity based systems like heat pumps and electric cars.

So I believe that it will be possible very soon, to lower end energy consumption by up to 50%, IF oil and gas stops to be so cheap than today.

Of course Germany is a mature economy with infrastructure already in place and Nigeria for example is not. On the other hand per capita energy consumption in US is twice as high compared to Germany for little real benefit.

So I belive that a high quality modern life is easily possible with lower energy consumption than we use today and I belive that this amount of energy can be supplied by 90% solar+wind and 10% rest (gas, water power, biomass, etc...) without even to have high costs.
Yes it will not work a 2 USD / gallon of fuel, but as the world can show you the price of gasoline is not related to quality of life.

This world will be able to feed 10 billion people with a healty diet without destroying or last remaining natural habitats.

https://www.thelancet.com/commissions/EAT

Yes, this is different from the standard western diet with much less meat and sugar than today. I assume we could get used to it. The benefit would be to gain around 20 healthy years per person in average. The largest reasons for becoming ill now are based on the stuff we eat and the amount we eat.

This is the world I want to have.

People that have well insulated houses in moderate size that are heated with electricity, people using a reasonable amount of cars that are using electricity, a industry similar to that we have now in the 1st world (we do not need more products than we produce today per 1st world person. I now own 10 pairs of shoes, there is no reason and no benefit for life for the average person to own 20 pairs, 40 pears or 80 pairs of them).
People that eat mainly healthy food.
Electricity that is produced mainly by wind and solar power (and for some countries maybe nuclear reactors, but I do not want a million of Bill Gates' nukes sitting everywhere in Afghanistan, Sudan, Lybia, Syria and so on)

So how much power do we need to power a world with 10 billion people that way? 10TW 20TW?

I think that will be enough. A huge amount of primary power today is wasted for inefficient technologies when you turn coal to mostly heat in power plats and oil to mostly waste heat in cars. This is very easy to change with technology.

I belive that this can be done with solar, wind, electric cars and some additional technologies like electrolysis and synthesizing kerosene from green gas...
Mainly what I am working on is spreading awareness that once you gain an understanding of the scale of the energy footprint of modern human civilization, which you angrily refuse to accept to your core,
I do not refuse the energy consumption of today (which would be stupid) but I refuse your doomer approach that this energy can not be provided by sun and wind. Of course it can. This is where you are constantly spreading wrong assumptions and wrong numbers. see for example the "Lithium problem". There si no more problem with Lithium for a future 100% RE world than there are problems with copper in the world of today.
the nearly 1:1 relationship of energy/ material throughput vs economy,
many countries have already proven that this is not true.
the physical constraints of remaining resources, it must become obvious that a whole new world socio-economic system that equitably spreads human wellbeing while undergoing rapid degrowth is required.
Constraint fo resources?

If we can do this shit with our remaining resources we can build our green economy ten times with the remaining resources

Image

Image
Even the IPCC is starting to grasp this while mainly focusing on the environmental waste aspects of our conundrum without even really considering the source/ economy pressures we are under. Which I would argue will hurt us much sooner than climate change.
We have much more fossil fuels than we are allowed to burn.

This is one reason why it is super stupid to still burn coal.

Image

If we burn all of that stuff we weill end up in a +6K or even hotter world.
The last time this happened to the world was at the end of perm when the Sibirian trap super vulcanoes emitted this amount of CO within maybe 2000 years.
We can do that in 200 years.
In those times that amount of CO2 triggered the largest mass extinction in the history of our planet killing 95% of all species in the than poisonous seas and 75% of all species on land.
It was a +15K world at the end of that climate event.
If we repeat what the Sibirian trap has done to Earth atmopshere many million years ago we most likely will experince the same result.


To neglect this and continue promoting a green growth as usual imperative (2 billion, 60 kWh electric cars! = 120 TWh of batteries! Absurd! Which still leaves just 1 car for each 5 people to share.) just leads us higher up the Seneca Cliff to delay a bigger fall.
you can argue if the average car need a 60kWh battery but let's use that numbers:

120TWh of car batteries should be doable

Let us assume 240Wh per kg (not counting the battery housing and to give a nice round number) this would translate to 500 Mio tonnes or 500 billion kg of car batteries in 2050

Which resources do you think will prevent humanity to build that amount of batteries?

Lithium?
Cobalt?
Graphite?
Aluminium?
Copper?
Flourine?
...?
Much better to wisely accept our opportunities and constraints with an informed systems view to bend back down to a sustainable civilization. Western lifestyle throughput must diminish by an order of magnitude over the next 200 years
We don't have 200 years.

Energy consumption in 2050 (that's 31 years) should differe very siginificantly from today. If we want to limit global warming to +3K (which means around +4-5K on land masses and maybe +7K in arctic regions and means the extinction of tropical reef, severe drought in many regions, longterm rising of seawater level and flooding of coatal cities) the todays 1st world countries need to limit CO2 emissions to maximum 1t CO2 per person until 2050 (and most of the is from agriculture and some industrial processes).

From todays point of view a +2K world is not possible anymore, even if we shift huge amounts of resources into climate change prevention tomorrow.

So what exactly do you want to tell people in China, India and so on? They should accept to life like medieval peasants again because some US guy tells them there are not enough resources in the world for them to have their 1st car?

This is your plan? Really?
while we accept billions of climate migrants and use our remaining energy bolus to mitigate and build out what we need to survive. And skip some of the intermediate steps that will prove to be still unsustainable.
I doubt that migration over continents will be a solution to climate change. Just the opposite. It will cause wars and destroy resources for nothing good.
You didn't answer my question and try to make it sound like I am the only one. Do you also mock 350.org, FridaysForFuture, Sunrise Movement, Extinction Rebellion, ect, for using words like "emergency", "catastophe", "collapse"?

I can't say anything about them because I only know the names of those. Afaik they are radicals. I'm an engineer. My focus is on energy technology. Others have different skills and can focus on social aspects, political aspects (how to distribute resources, especially the remaining CO2 "budget" between countries), nutrition, birth rates and so on....

I prefer to argue with people about real solutions, I don't want to waste to much time with people that do nothing else than to complain.
And again they are only half informed as to the complexity of our conundrum and are primarily focused on the environmental problems with little awareness of the looming economic/ resource limits to growth.
I guess so. I have little clue about economic aspects and all I do is look at the past and I don't see that energy efficiency is harmful to countries/societies and ultra cheap energy is beneficial, rather the opposite.

I doubt that your prediction of killing(?) mostof the world population and going back to small farming will benefit the economy in any way and I assume that economists will be happier with a prediction of 2 billion electric cars until 2050 compared to a shrinking car production. But what do I know?

What I DO know a lot about is energy technology. I earn my money with consulting in that sector (incl. advice for politics), so I better do.

----

PS: contrary to most of those that claim that we need to "downgrade" our lifestyle for sustainability I never owned a car (most of my girlfriends did), I life in a flat, I only heat one room in winter and I fly rarely. Since 2019 I even reduced meat consumption to around 300g/week. i ride to work on my (electric) bicycles every day no matter the weather.
Still I do not force on people that they have to give up their car (I want less cars in our citites, but this is a different thing) and I abyolutly will not force people in China or India in a lifestyle without a car. This will never ever work.

Absolutely acknowledging that no car is the best car in ecological perspective (and living that life myself, not just preaching it!) i do not predict a no car world, because cars are super practical for many people and billions of people reach for their first car in their life. You have to accept that if you want to change the future for the better.
Of course this is not opposing better public transport, more room for bicycles and less need/distances for every day commuting. All of this id additional to better cars.

Some with electricity. There is nothing against stoping to waste that in huge amounts,, but this can and will only happen if electricity is expensive. As long as it stays cheap as dirt 95% of people will just waste it as they do today.
If electricity is allowed to cot more it is no problem to produce it by solar and wind.

Some with heating buildings. We have many old houses in Germany that consume 3000lif oil every year just for heating. ( i assume many US americans will just laugh about that number usiing even more).
This is rediculous. Using precious oil just to heat the air. Why do people this? because still oil is cheap as shit.
If oil would cost 2-3€/l noone would waste it that way and use it for such nonsense. If oil would cost 2-3€/l on the other hand you can make it from water, electricity and atmospheric CO2 over and over again, as long as the sun allows life on Earth.

If you ask me if I prefer a technological world like today where I would have to pay 0,50€ for 1kWh of electricity and 3€/l of oil I would take that world over any world that would force me sitting on a donkey and planting potatoes for my living with a precious bee wax candle of my wooden desc.

I don't want to go back to the year 1900 and neither does most of the rest of the world population.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1253
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Sep 15 2019 6:30am

How much of German per capita and per GDP energy reduction that the chart shows is because of unseen embodied energy they are still using that now comes back in from the energy ledgers of elsewhere after outsourcing some of mining, refining, manufacture, ect to the far East in steadily increasing amounts over the last 30 years since globalization?

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1253
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Sep 15 2019 8:44am

Cephalotus wrote:
Sep 15 2019 4:48am
I'm an engineer. My focus is on energy technology. Others have different skills and can focus on social aspects, political aspects (how to distribute resources, especially the remaining CO2 "budget" between countries), nutrition, birth rates and so on....

I prefer to argue with people about real solutions, I don't want to waste to much time with people that do nothing else than to complain.
And again they are only half informed as to the complexity of our conundrum and are primarily focused on the environmental problems with little awareness of the looming economic/ resource limits to growth.
I guess so. I have little clue about economic aspects and all I do is look at the past and I don't see that energy efficiency is harmful to countries/societies and ultra cheap energy is beneficial, rather the opposite.

This is the problem of why so many advisers to leaders cannot understand what I am saying and why I have made it my work to educate everyone I can reach. Reductionism and Specialization may help at the end levels for the focus of specific tasks but decisions as to the direction of society must come from informed understanding of the complete system. Reductionism in higher education has been described as a process of focusing more and more closely on less and less until soon, you know everything there is to know about nothing.
.
"In "The Wellspring of Reality," the introductory essay to his seminal 1975 volume Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking (public library), Fuller decries specialization as the enemy of synergy and proposes a reframing of culture that could "get all of humanity to educate itself swiftly enough to generate spontaneous social behaviors that will avoid extinction." At its epicenter he places the value of wide curiosity and generalist knowledge."
.
https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/03/0 ... nergetics/
.
Modern "Expert" economist advising for continued 3% growth are obviously not aware of the material throughput that is required to see the world economy 8 times larger by 2100. Classic market economics has no price signal for the actual material that is being dug up. Only for the cost of extraction. Which is obviously increasing since we use resources according to the best first. And no price signal for the waste. And classical market theory assumes that whenever one input becomes too expensive, it will automatically be substituted by another. Ad Infinitum. Each time we dig up and refine and even reuse our raw materials, some entropy occurs. Some is lost to further use. Humans are born to be time blind to the future. How long do you really think our critical resources will be maintained? At 8 times the consumption of today in 2100 so that all 10 billion people on earth can eventually have their own 60 kWh car? 100 years? 300? What are they going to do in 300 years from now when all of the low entropy raw materials, soil, and ancient ground aquifers are too remote to dig up because we have used the best first? Hop on a star ship and move to another planet that is better than this one? Bring asteroids back from the belt and insert them into low orbit to mine? Is 300 years really so far away that you can find no empathy for them?
.
Blind faith in Green Growth comes from a lack of system understanding and will eventually come up way short on a world level even if there are slight efficiency gains from lifestyle changes and apparent reductions in energy consumption in certain regions from outsourcing as Germany shows. World advisers need a better system understanding to at least craft a plan B to have ready for a resilient response to face the cracks that are already appearing in the current growth based free market Capitalist scenario.
.
Cephalotus wrote:
Sep 15 2019 4:48am
I doubt that migration over continents will be a solution to climate change. Just the opposite. It will cause wars and destroy resources for nothing good.
People choosing to migrate is not up to you and it has already begun and will obviously increase to the billions level over the next 50 years. And will take a miracle of human understanding and sharing to avoid nationalistic bloody defenses of border walls and world resource wars.
.
If you really want to advise world leaders you cannot just know about one thing any longer. You must learn how everything fits together.

Cephalotus   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 617
Joined: Jun 18 2012 12:27pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Sep 15 2019 10:58am

sendler2112 wrote:
Sep 15 2019 6:30am
How much of German per capita and per GDP energy reduction that the chart shows is because of unseen embodied energy they are still using that now comes back in from the energy ledgers of elsewhere after outsourcing some of mining, refining, manufacture, ect to the far East in steadily increasing amounts over the last 30 years since globalization?
VERY difficult to quantify.

Germany has a huge electricity suprlus and we also have a huge surplus in trading goods (based on value)

On the other hand many low level goods or resources that we import have low value but high energy consumption

For other resources like aluminum Germany switched to recycling. More than 90% of Aluminum produced in Germany comes from recycled aluminum

What is available is CO2 import and export numbers.

Goods we import contain 506 million t of CO2, goods that we export contain 579 Mio. t CO2, so if you set CO2 = energy use Germany would be a small net exporter of energy.

https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesel ... onFile&v=5 (see p. 6, in German)

Cephalotus   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 617
Joined: Jun 18 2012 12:27pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Sep 15 2019 11:05am

sendler2112 wrote:
Sep 15 2019 8:44am

People choosing to migrate is not up to you and it has already begun and will obviously increase to the billions level over the next 50 years. And will take a miracle of human understanding and sharing to avoid nationalistic bloody defenses of border walls and world resource wars.
We have borders, especially a sea that is deviding Africa from Europe. You can protect that border quite easily IF you want to do so. If you do so that kind of migration stops immediately. East Germany had lots of experience stopping migration. I don't say this in any positive way, just to name an example how easily you can secure a border if you want. And this was in a time before drones, computer AI, robots, face recognition, cheap thermal imaging and so on...

Europe in 2050 will have maybe 500 million people, Africa in 2050 will house maybe 2.5 billion people if it is not possible to stop birth rates faster than predicted. Nigeria alone has more new children per year than all European countries together.

If anyone believes that it is a solution to bring 1 billion people from a hellhole Africa to Europe I say get a sense of reality. This will never happen and it can not happen, because the only realistic result of doing this result would be two hellhole Africas.
Last edited by Cephalotus on Sep 15 2019 2:14pm, edited 1 time in total.

Cephalotus   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 617
Joined: Jun 18 2012 12:27pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Sep 15 2019 11:13am

sendler2112 wrote:
Sep 15 2019 8:44am
At 8 times the consumption of today in 2100 so that all 10 billion people on earth can eventually have their own 60 kWh car? 100 years? 300?
Population will shrink again after 2050, maybe a bit sooner. Difficult predict over long times.

80% of world population will live in large cities by than. In large cities not every person needs a car. 1 car for 5 persons should do it easily. Maybe we find solutions for even less car ownership, this would be a good thing.

Prediction for technology in 2100 is very difficult.

What would have people in 1919 predicted for the year 2000? I assume most of it would have been far of.
Last edited by Cephalotus on Sep 15 2019 2:19pm, edited 1 time in total.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1253
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Sep 15 2019 12:27pm

Cephalotus wrote:
Sep 15 2019 11:13am
sendler2112 wrote:
Sep 15 2019 8:44am
At 8 times the consumption of today in 2100 so that all 10 billion people on earth can eventually have their own 60 kWh car? 100 years? 300?
Population will shrink again after 2050, maybe a bit sooner. Difficult predict over long times.

80% of world population will live in large cities by than. In large cities not every person needs a car. 1 car for 5 persons should do it easily. Maybe we find solutions for even less car ownership, this would be a good thing.

Prediction for technology in 2100 is very difficult.

What would have people in 1919 predicted for the year 2020? I assume most of it would have been far of.
So let me just say this. I greatly appreciate your posts and understand that you are spending a great deal of your own personal time in crafting these well documented replies. I try to stay open to learn from anyone whenever good information is presented. I know that my own bias has become strong in a direction that seems contrary to the green growth propositions. I am actually not opposed to wind and solar power at all. But am an outlier and outnumbered by 1,000's to 1 by green growth advocates who do not yet know about some of the interrelationships that I have recently learned and so have had to adopt a devil's advocate stance in order to get my my singular voice to even become audible above the other 1,000's that think we will just put up some solar panels and wind mills and have it made. If only the greedy white men in the oil companies would get out of the way. It is not so simple. But thank you again anyway. I am fortunate to converse with you. Despite what others may think of me I really am working toward the good of the future and encourage everyone to challenge yourselves to let down your guard and let in the new information that Hagens and dozens of the other thinkers that I post about are generously sharing with us.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsgxopI ... zhnozJUsBV
.
I am probably still outnumbered in my own country by people that don't think anything needs to change at all.
.
So back to the discussion. One thing to pick on in the chart is to remember that the years following 2008 were a world financial crash so it is expected to see energy use go down in many markets as they tighten their belts. In 2018 Germany was once again entering an economic slow down after a few previous years of growth.
.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... pe-economy
.
Image
.
.
But other charts do show that Germany has made admirable progress on doing more with less and as they increase the share of domestic product involved with world banking and finance in stock markets which is less resource intensive.
.
.
Image
.
.
I have no ocean separating migration from my border. Poor people are already walking by the millions. When we hit +3C there will be heat waves with wet bulb temps well above fatal all across central America. Poor people will not stay where they are to die if there is a chance at life somewhere else. It seems that the current plan is walls. How long does that do anything without resorting to bullets? How long will your ocean function as a wall?

Cephalotus   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 617
Joined: Jun 18 2012 12:27pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Sep 15 2019 2:17pm

Cephalotus wrote:
Sep 15 2019 11:13am

Population will shrink again after 2050, maybe a bit sooner. Difficult predict over long times.

80% of world population will live in large cities by than. In large cities not every person needs a car. 1 car for 5 persons should do it easily. Maybe we find solutions for even less car ownership, this would be a good thing.
I'm wrong on that one.

Population is estimated to grow for longer in the standard scenario. Shrinking population after 2050 is reather a "best case" scenario:

Image
Last edited by Cephalotus on Sep 16 2019 6:59am, edited 1 time in total.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1253
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Sep 15 2019 6:51pm

It would require a huge investment by the West of education and plans such as a minimum income with job guarantees throughout Africa and the middle East to even begin to free women from the oppression they are under and give them a right to choose that two is enough.
.
.
Image
.
.
We now have the Catholic Pope who is a scientist and is trying to guide his people with a modern sense (without going too far as to get thrown out) so maybe there is hope for the evolution of these religious groups that social conditions change over time and sometimes the written word from 1,000's of years ago may not be the right plan forever.

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5262
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Sep 16 2019 5:24am

Over 1 trillion tons of carbon (1000 GT) is stored in the top 3 metres of artic soil ready to be released due to permafrost melting:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/12 ... er-thought

This is one of the reasons why climate models are criticised as being imprecise: the expected temperature rise for a given increase in atmospheric CO2 is not known for certain. It might be given as a range of 2-5°C because the climate sensitivity is not well known as the existence or severity of positive feedback loops like the above one in the artic are not readily predictable. It does not mean the models are unreliable.

To put that in perspective, annual human carbon emissions from fossil fuel use are about 10 billion tons (GT). We're screwed if any appreciable fraction of that carbon store is released. Unless of course you don't believe CO2 causes climate change, in which case you personally will be fine.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10142
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Sep 16 2019 5:58am

Punx0r wrote:
Sep 16 2019 5:24am
This is one of the reasons why climate models are criticised as being imprecise: the expected temperature rise for a given increase in atmospheric CO2 is not known for certain.........
Very true .
But, the real reason climate models are criticised ( except for the unique Russian model ), is because they repeatedly fail to predict anywhere close to what actually happens..
And yes, i am confident i will be fine ! :wink:
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1253
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Sep 16 2019 6:28am

Hillhater wrote:
Sep 16 2019 5:58am
And yes, i am confident i will be fine ! :wink:
Just because I am 60 years old and live at 44* North does not mean I should have no empathy for those that are born today. The 15- 20 year olds are really starting to understand that the next 50 years will be nothing like the last. And will be taking to the streets every Friday to protest. And these are the entitled kids of the Global North. Kids in the exploited Global South are already and have always been born into inequity and have no voice to even try to rise up.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10142
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Sep 16 2019 8:05am

Part of the reason why “the kids in the north” are in a generally better situation than the “kids in the south” is because they have benefitted from generations of compulsory education.
By being allowed ( encouraged) to reduce that oportunity to learn , they risk slipping back down the cultural ladder, rather than helping others to rise up it .
Our education system and teachers are destroying the future of our society faster than any climate effect.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jimw1960   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 782
Joined: Jul 23 2008 4:44pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jimw1960 » Sep 16 2019 8:28am

Hillhater wrote:
Sep 16 2019 5:58am
Very true .
But, the real reason climate models are criticised ( except for the unique Russian model ), is because they repeatedly fail to predict anywhere close to what actually happens..
And yes, i am confident i will be fine ! :wink:
That statement is absolutely false. The Earth has warmed just as even the earliest climate models from the 80s has predicted. And you preferred Russian model from IPCC AR5 would have underpredicted the global average surface air temperature of the past three years. Also that model and dozens of others are being updated for the next AR6 report that will be coming out next year.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10142
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Sep 16 2019 9:44am

If the models are as good as you suggest, there should be no need to “update” them.
And if you have any scientific education, you would know how rediculous the concept of a “ global average”. surface temperature, is.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5262
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Sep 16 2019 10:25am

You must have come across the principle of "continuous improvement" in your career?
Hillhater wrote:
Sep 16 2019 8:05am
Our education system and teachers are destroying the future of our society faster than any climate effect.
Ah, I see you're progressing up the Ladder of Denialism!

1) CO2 doesn't cause climate change
2) OK, CO2 does cause climate change but it's not our emissions that's going it
3) OK, it is our emissions that's doing it, but it's not a bad thing
4) OK, it is a bad thing, but we can't do anything about it
5) OK, we could do something about it, but it isn't as bad as *whatever*

Congrats, one or two more steps and you might reach reality :shock:
Last edited by Punx0r on Sep 16 2019 5:13pm, edited 1 time in total.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1253
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Sep 16 2019 10:30am

Hillhater wrote:
Sep 16 2019 8:05am
Part of the reason why “the kids in the north” are in a generally better situation than the “kids in the south” is because they have benefitted from generations of compulsory education.
By being allowed ( encouraged) to reduce that oportunity to learn , they risk slipping back down the cultural ladder, rather than helping others to rise up it .
Our education system and teachers are destroying the future of our society faster than any climate effect.
Kids today have an increased opportunity to learn much more than the normal things they would learn in grade school due to the internet if the are dedicated.
.
Radical social change never happens without a social disruption. Ghandi's emancipation of India, French revolution, Labor revolts, Civil rights movements ect.
.
50 years since "The Limits To Growth" was published. 30 years of carbon agreements and new carbon energy buildout still outways new solar and wind capacity 4:1 year after year.

Post Reply