Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
- Thread starter Hillhater
- Start date
sendler2112
100 kW
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.billvon said:
.
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 TW
A little over simplistic, even for you bill...billvon said:
TheBeastie
1 MW
Yep I agree.Hillhater said:
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.
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_dioxide#Human_physiology https://youtu.be/vuIlsN32WaE
It's just a "red-herring or Chewbacca-defence" trick used to confuse people.
[youtube]clKi92j6eLE[/youtube]
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/germany/german-failure-on-the-road-to-a-renewable-future-a-1266586.html
If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/04/23/if-solar-and-wind-are-so-cheap-why-are-they-making-electricity-more-expensive/#42390621dc66
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/nsw/germany-will-not-meet-its-carbon-emissions-targets-in-2020-despite-spending-billions-of-euros/news-story/6ecb5e173327c74dd8630b68b5ef872e
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.
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.sendler2112 said:
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.
There are no "carbon elements." Carbon is an element. I assume you mean carbon compounds. In which case -TheBeastie said:
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.
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.
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.
sendler2112
100 kW
billvon said:
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.
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.sendler2112 said:
Agreed there. We need to be doing a lot more now.
sendler2112
100 kW
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.billvon said:
.
As David MacKay was able to conclude "If everybody does a little, it adds up to... a little".
Hillhater
100 TW
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.billvon said:
There will have to be a major reassessment of energy sourcing.
sendler2112
100 kW
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 said:
Hillhater
100 TW
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:
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:
Hillhater
100 TW
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.Hillhater said:
sendler2112
100 kW
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/growth-in-renewables-has-stalled-investment-is-falling-but-why/?fbclid=IwAR1m2KsKkwL2xM1NtD0joK7la0riwP3zjeH3QCd1AfoYpYvvU5eWsJ5zRjc
.
.
"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/growth-in-renewables-has-stalled-investment-is-falling-but-why/?fbclid=IwAR1m2KsKkwL2xM1NtD0joK7la0riwP3zjeH3QCd1AfoYpYvvU5eWsJ5zRjc
.
Hillhater
100 TW
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/australians-vote-first-climate-election-doc-1gl3jf2?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=04d46647b4-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_05_18_01_13&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-04d46647b4-20154709
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/australians-vote-first-climate-election-doc-1gl3jf2?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=04d46647b4-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_05_18_01_13&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-04d46647b4-20154709
jonescg
100 MW
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.
They might have won the election but they failed to take the nation with them.
Hillhater
100 TW
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.
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.
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.
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
furcifer said:
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.
Agreed. You'd need solar plus storage; a lot of storage. And that will take a long time to get to that point.furcifer said:
Fortunately they make pretty big sails (if you wanted to do that.)
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.
Exactly. We should be scrambling NOW.
sendler2112 said:
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
furcifer said:
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
.
Similar threads
