Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
- Thread starter Hillhater
- Start date
ZeroEm
1 MW
Just responding to how 100 deg F had killed so many 83 years ago. Just shows how not normal 100 is. We accept it as normal and no matter how bad it gets it will be normal. I really try not to be drawn in to this. I feel like one of them Steers in the herd stampeding for the Clift.
Montgomery Clift??ZeroEm said:
finally the definitive answer to the age old question:
i read on a F/B post more CO2 is produced when manufacturing an electric car battery than would be saved by using an electric car. is this true?
manufacturing an EV results in 25% more CO2 emissions mostly due to the battery. driving an EV over 10 to 15 years results in 50% less CO2 emissions than a similar gas car even using today's sources of electricity.from the one hour six minute mark here
don't like the answer, take it up with the university of toronto perfesser.
ZeroEm
1 MW
I'm good with people driving ICE machines, just keep them outside city limits. ICE really shines on our long 80 mph highways, why not put them 20-30 gallon tanks to good use filler up and drive till empty. Don't think ever mentioned CO2, what does it look like? Is it the distortion I see on hot days? Don't think you can compare ICE to EV in a city with all the traffic, freeways look like parking lots and EVs are only using what is needed and ICE are really using the gas.
ZeroEm
1 MW
Built a crappy Solar oven and heated up wax and soaked my chain for a couple hours. This week I can cook a roast in it. Well maybe a better one to cook food in. Chain nice and quite. I'm sure the CO2 cost for the oven was high too.
sendler2112
100 kW
Cephalotus said:
Please wake up. You have been hypnotized to become the hypnotist. Saying it is not so difficult to replace even half of 17.5TW with solar and wind is absurd. It has not started to happen. Not even close. Carbon energy is still increasing. Solar and wind is barely a rounding error on any chart of world primary energy. The only way forward without collapse will require a complete restructuring of social systems to equitably distribute what we really need and prepare to get by on much less energy. De-growth.
.
.
.
.
sendler2112
100 kW
So the salient points of the video are: In the USA, The top 1% own 40% of the wealth and make 24% of the annual earnings. The bottom 80% of all Americans owns only 9% of the wealth. The CEO of a company makes 380 times the earnings of the AVERAGE of all employees in the company. 15% of Americans live below the poverty line. The system is broken and it has gotten worse. In 1976 the 1% made only 9% of the earnings. To take the numbers to the scale of the Global population, the bottom 70% own just 3% of the wealth.
.
https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM
.
.
.
https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM
.
.
Ianhill
1 MW
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2015
- Messages
- 2,871
Isn't it obvious?, The world is dividing apart and squabbling over resourses not uniting, so those with wealth will try and push the lower class down as much as they can and use the poor as a float so they don't drown.
I monitor things myself and the claims of global warming are true there's a warming trend no doubt but the 50 years it's all gone unless we taken action now is bollocks 30 years ago the sea should be 1 metre higher in average and I just don't see that even though my area has one of the largest tide surges globally no land has been reclaimed.
Truth is we really dont now what's gonna happen even a room of the best computers and scitefic allgrthems can do no more than takes guess and each time it has a go the outcome can differ greatly we are truly along for the ride its too late to change a world of wrong doing.
I monitor things myself and the claims of global warming are true there's a warming trend no doubt but the 50 years it's all gone unless we taken action now is bollocks 30 years ago the sea should be 1 metre higher in average and I just don't see that even though my area has one of the largest tide surges globally no land has been reclaimed.
Truth is we really dont now what's gonna happen even a room of the best computers and scitefic allgrthems can do no more than takes guess and each time it has a go the outcome can differ greatly we are truly along for the ride its too late to change a world of wrong doing.
sendler2112
100 kW
Punx0r said:
The best estimates for improved efficiency by the electrification, of everything if we could even do that, are 2 to 1 so we would still need to come up with 9 terawatts. After replacing hundreds of trillions worth of built out machines processes and buildings.
Well, right. But that's like saying if you have an infection, and there's a 90% chance that a given antibiotic will cure it, you shouldn't take it because doctors "can do no more than guess and each time the outcome can differ."Ianhill said:
Great, so we are 5% of the way there (all renewables + nuclear) and that rate is accelerating every year.sendler2112 said:
Note that we don't have to replace anything by a certain date. We just have to maintain a rate of increase so that the depletion of fossil fuel resources is matched by the reduction in need driven by implementation of non-fossil energy sources. These will have a lower EROEI, and thus will not support as rapid an economic expansion as we have seen in the past - but that sort of slowdown has to happen in any case for many other reasons.
sendler2112
100 kW
"All rewables + nuclear" This is a key concept that is lacking in the discussion. Big hydro is being protested against almost as vehemently as nuclear. Solar and wind are thus far a tiny fraction of what is needed. 2% of an eventual 9TW if you like. 17TW currently. We are headed for a future of less. The longer we cling to the false hope of a startrek techno-salvation, the more time we waste in designing an all new world social system that can thrive on degrowth. The more we continue to blame outgroups for there not being enough to go around. The higher we let the peak consumption get before a correction, the steeper the rate of collapse.billvon said:
I think clinging to hopes for a Star Trek techno-salvation, a Max Max apocalyptic collapse or a Little House on the Prairie agrarian society are equally silly, because none of them will happen. The future will be different from anything we imagine. People 100 years ago certainly couldn't have accurately predicted the big issues facing us today (climate change, social media problems, economic stratification) or our solutions. Likewise, we won't see the next problems coming or their solutions.sendler2112 said:
Thus the goal is to get there in one piece. The best thing that's happened in the past 20 years is the rapid growth of renewables and alternative transportation options. This provides a readily-rampable alternative when it _really_ becomes economically unviable to keep using oil. This will require us to use less energy, since the lower EROEI means there's just less to begin with.
But saying "therefore society must collapse to X level" isn't supportable either. For all we know, small modular thorium reactors could start powering every airplane, small town and large ship in the world in 40 years - and suddenly we're growing again. And that's just the technology we can see coming. It might be one of the cold-fusion reactions, an easy to support hot-fusion reaction, even just much, much better batteries that store energy in atomic rather than chemical processes. A cheap 10 kilogram, 10 megawatt-hour battery would change the world so much that it would be unrecognizable in 10 years.
Or a global war could send society back 100 years. Or climate change could redraw the borders of the world. Or a pathogen could wipe out most of humanity, and turn our current oil supplies into 500-year supplies. Or we could keep going with exactly the same technology, and slowly replace our energy and raw materials sources, ending up with a less energy intensive society. The only thing that's really certain is that we don't know which of those will come to pass.
It could be something as simple as water. Currently half of the World's population experience severe water scarcity for at least one month per year and demand is set to rise by 20-30% by 2050. Armed conflict over water resources is becoming increasingly likely, a situation only worsened by climate change.
Ianhill
1 MW
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2015
- Messages
- 2,871
Punx0r said:
You don't know my lifestyle to make that assumption, I don't ride jets on holidays and have an electric bike that I travel on with very little to call my own people in my area don't tend to have alot.
My impact on this planet is minimal i'm far from the worst consumer try and ask someone why they have this opinion, could it be when those that say I need to use less are the highest consumers and those that say I run up the debt are the true debt carriers while I live with no debt to my name.
Ianhill
1 MW
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2015
- Messages
- 2,871
billvon said:
If there's 90% chance of rain i wear a jacket csnt you see I'm not denying the fact of a warming trend im saying the problem we have is the hype train people jump on and say stupid things with little scientific proof I'm in no doubt that we make a change read my previous posts in no fool and do study and learn scientific principle which leads me to conclusion long term effects are truly unknown outside of the meaning disastrous to our species no one can truly say what will happen and the media ain't helping the situation there's a global ignorance towards it all and in top there's the other side saying 2050 we all be gone so we need that happy medium and we need it fast I see.
I truly see it as when we needed the leg off yesrs ago but it never happened now we blood cancer and the chance of survival is dramatically reduced never mind the antibiotic.
Even if you don't know for sure? The models weather forecasters use are just guesses.Ianhill said:
No, they're not. We have pretty good estimates for a lot of what is going to happen. And many of the predictions we made in 1990 have come to pass, so we know those estimates are at least fairly accurate. It's not a guy guessing somewhere - it's done with as much rigor as that weather forecast that you rely on.
No one is saying "we will all be gone."
Ianhill
1 MW
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2015
- Messages
- 2,871
See what I mean it turns into attack all time just brutal,
Back to the thread topic uk have been installing wind and solar removing coal plants not expanded hydro storage taking the screw on nuclear giving great subsidy to gas topper plants, eventually we will run a mixed gas supply with hydrogen and methane mix to extend how long the supplys last till we find a viable alternative and we are currently looking at long term storage options.
How do I know this because I do research on the manifesto of the government in power call me a pleb I laugh at it becuase the length and pettiness of this thread shows it's all about dick length nothing else.
Back to the thread topic uk have been installing wind and solar removing coal plants not expanded hydro storage taking the screw on nuclear giving great subsidy to gas topper plants, eventually we will run a mixed gas supply with hydrogen and methane mix to extend how long the supplys last till we find a viable alternative and we are currently looking at long term storage options.
How do I know this because I do research on the manifesto of the government in power call me a pleb I laugh at it becuase the length and pettiness of this thread shows it's all about dick length nothing else.
Ianhill
1 MW
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2015
- Messages
- 2,871
billvon said:
Have a watch of the age of stupid they dont give us too long ! I see idocrazy coming before this.
How can you be so certain when we do not know our future actions ? other than we are screwed no one knows, becuase it can end in so many different ways can we predict everything ?
Ianhill said:
I wasn't asking you to justify your socioeconomic status. My problem is climate fatalism is often an excuse for laziness or indifference. All citizens and consumers can exert preasure of governments and businesses to be more environmentally responsible.
Because some changes are "baked in" at this point - even if we stopped emitting all CO2 tomorrow (which we won't.)Ianhill said:
We do have a pretty good idea. So again, saying 'no one knows' is like saying 'no one knows if smoking causes cancer' as a reason to keep smoking.
Similar threads
