Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

billvon said:

Hillhater said:

1).. Establish beyond doubt, the real relationship between Anthropogenic CO2 and the total rise in Atmospheric CO2

Click to expand...

Done. From Nature:
==============

Now, ready, set - DENY!

Click to expand...

....beyond doubt ?....hardly !..

The Amount of Non-Fossil-Fuel CO2 in the Atmosphere
T V Segalstad (Mineralogical-Geological Museum, University of Oslo, Sars' Gate 1, N-0562 Oslo, Norway)

Stable 13C/12C isotope ratios (expressed as δ13CPDB) can be used to compute the composition of atmospheric CO2. The natural atmo- spheric CO2 reservoir has δ13C . -7l when in isotopic equilibrium with marine HCO3G and CaCO3. CO2 from burning of fossil-fuel and biogenic materials has δ13C . -26l. δ13C reported for atmospheric CO2 was -7.489l in Dec. 1978, decreasing to -7.807l in Dec. 1988 (Keeling et al. 1989; AGU Geophys. Mono. 55, 165-236). In -300 years old Antarctic ice δ13C = -6.31 of trapped CO2 (Friedli et al. 1986; Nature 324, 237-238). If the decreasing δ13C was only caused by mixing natural CO2 with CO2 from burning of fossil fuels or plants (current -79%/-21% CO2 mix; lifetime 50-200 years; IPCC 1989), the current atmospheric CO2 δ13C should be much lower than reported. The December 1988 atmospheric CO2 composition was computed for its 748 GT C (GT = 1015 g) total mass and δ13C = -7.807l for 3 components: (1) natural fraction remaining from the pre-industrial atmosphere; (2) cumulative fraction remaining from all annual fossil-fuel CO2 emissions; (3) carbon isotope mass-balanced natural fraction. The masses of component (1) and (2) were computed for different atmospheric lifetimes of CO2. The result fits a lifetime of -5 (5.4) years, in agreement with 14C studies. The mass of all past fossil-fuel and biogenic emissions remaining in the current atmo- sphere was -30 GT C or less, i.e. maximum -4%, corresponding to an atmospheric concentration of -14 ppmv. The implication of the -5 year lifetime is that -135 GT C (-18%) of the atmospheric CO2 is exchanged each year. At least 96% of the current atmospheric CO2 comes from non-fossil-fuel sources, i.e. natural marine and juvenile sources. Hence for the atmospheric CO2 budget marine degassing and juvenile degassing from e.g. volcanic sources must be much more important, and burning of fossil-fuel and biogenic materials much less important, than hitherto assumed.

Click to expand...

...And.....http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13

Abstract
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees human CO2 is only 5 percent and natural CO2 is 95 percent of the CO2 inflow into the atmosphere. The ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere must equal the ratio of the inflows. Yet IPCC claims human CO2 has caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm, which is now 130 ppm or 32 percent of today’s atmospheric CO2. To cause the human 5 percent to become 32 percent in the atmosphere, the IPCC model treats human and natural CO2 differently, which is impossible because the molecules are identical. IPCC’s Bern model artificially traps human CO2 in the atmosphere while it lets natural CO2 flow freely out of the atmosphere. By contrast, a simple Physics Model treats all CO2 molecules the same, as it should, and shows how CO2 flows through the atmosphere and produces a balance level where outflow equals inflow. Thereafter, if inflow is constant, level remains constant. The Physics Model has only one hypothesis, that outflow is proportional to level. The Physics Model exactly replicates the 14C data from 1970 to 2014 with only two physical parameters: balance level and e-time. The 14C data trace how CO2 flows out of the atmosphere. The Physics Model shows the 14 CO2 e-time is a constant 16.5 years. Other data show e-time for 12CO2 is about 4 to 5 years. IPCC claims human CO2 reduces ocean buffer capacity. But that would increase e-time. The constant e-time proves IPCC’s claim is false. IPCC argues that the human-caused reduction of 14C and 13C in the atmosphere prove human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2. However, numbers show these isotope data support the Physics Model and reject the IPCC model. The Physics Model shows how inflows of human and natural CO2 into the atmosphere set balance levels proportional to their inflows. Each balance level remains constant if its inflow remains constant. Continued constant CO2 emissions do not add more CO2 to the atmosphere. No CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. Present human CO2 inflow produces a balance level of about 18 ppm. Present natural CO2 inflow produces a balance level of about 392 ppm. Human CO2 is insignificant to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Increased natural CO2 inflow has increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Click to expand...

billvon said:

2) Establish beyond doubt the actual effect of increased CO2 and any change in climate.

Click to expand...

Also done. "Summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850." https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm

Click to expand...

?? NOT done !......where is the linkage with climate changes ?

jonescg said:

Remember how all those stupid scientists in the 1970s were predicting an ice age?

Click to expand...

No.

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

Yes, most CO2 s from natural processes.

But is 5% more CO2 harmless?

Try to add 3000g water to your body every day, but only remove 2850g every day (95%).

So only 5% of your water intake is to much.

Is it harmless if you add 150g of water outside the natural cycle to your body every day?

After just one year you will weight an extra 55kg. After 10 years an extra 550kg.

How the UK transformed its electricity supply in just a decade

Back in 2008, as the Climate Change Act was becoming law, some four-fifths of the UK’s electricity came from fossil fuels – and climate campaigners were resisting plans for a new fleet of coal-fired power stations. Emissions from the sector had barely changed for years, making it the largest contributor to the UK’s total by far.

Since then, the UK has cleaned up its electricity mix faster than any other major world economy. Coal-fired power has virtually disappeared and even gas use is down by a quarter. Instead, the country now gets more than half of its electricity from low-carbon sources, such as solar, wind and nuclear. Renewables have filled the gap left by fossil fuels, along with falling electricity demand.

All this means the government’s targets to phase out coal by 2025 and largely decarbonise the grid by 2030 could be met years ahead of schedule. The grid in Great Britain recently ran for a record 18 days straight without burning coal – the first time this has happened since 1882 – and coal generates less than 5% of the mix overall.

...

By 2025, the UK’s last coal-fired power station will have closed and by the 2030s all but one of the UK’s existing nuclear plants is due to have retired. Only one new nuclear plant – Hinkley Point C in Somerset – is currently being built. Meanwhile, some 1GW of onshore windfarms could retire by 2030 and would need to be “repowered” with new turbines or their output replaced elsewhere...

https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/how-uk-transformed-electricity-supply-decade/

We'll see if Hinckley C goes ahead - it's hugely expensive and keeps threatening to bankrupt EDF, the giant French energy company, who are supposed to be building it.

UK electricity by source. 2019 is not yet in the books and it takes time to tabulate the data from 2018. This chart is the newest I can find and has only one year of data missing so cannot be refuted as totally obsolete.
.
.

.
.
UK Total primary energy by source as of two years ago including waste heat (which might someday in the mid future be improved by a factor of 2.5 if we can transform all technology to achieve the perfect electrification of all activity). They lumped all non carbon energy together at 17% and didn't include a break out for wind and solar which would have been about 5%. Which is similar to the other world leader, Germany.
.
.

.
.

Cephalotus said:

jonescg said:

Remember how all those stupid scientists in the 1970s were predicting an ice age?

Click to expand...

No.

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

Click to expand...

I should have used the [/sarcasm] code

Cephalotus said:

Yes, most CO2 s from natural processes.

But is 5% more CO2 harmless?

Try to add 3000g water to your body every day, but only remove 2850g every day (95%).

So only 5% of your water intake is to much.

Is it harmless if you add 150g of water outside the natural cycle to your body every day?

After just one year you will weight an extra 55kg. After 10 years an extra 550kg.

Click to expand...

Poor analogy there.. you misinterpreted the analysis.
You should have said...” Yes, most CO2 INCREASE is from natural processes.”
Such that for your water example, after that 10 years, only 5% , or 55kg , of the total 550kg weight is due to the “new sources”.!
What those papers point out is, even if there had never been any anthropological CO2, added to the atmosphere, it would still have increased to 390ppm due to either increased emissions from “natural” sources..
..Or reduced sink rates .!
But we do not know which because we do not have the ability to accurately measure all natural CO2 emissions or sink rates.

So in all fairness it points out we don't only just emit greenhouse gases we destroy the landscape and it's ability to absorb as effectively through increased deforestation into crop land and meat production etc, also within that time scale of the co2 increase so has the human population more land reclamation into concrete jungles and we ourselfs contribute to the atmosphere through breathing out co2 so I don't blame fossil fuels totally for co2 alone but it's not just that, last time I checked I didn't breath out any heavy particulates or micro fibre plastics they all seem to be going in from our increased industrial activitys.

Don't get me wrong I love a steak and not trying to ram green piece down everyone's throat but thats my formed opinion, what pisses me off is air quality and the lack of concern over people's health we place a tax on sugar fuel etc and charge 5p for a plastic bag when we shouldn't be using them at all one time use plastic items in UK will be banned very soon and I agree with it, city's are swarming with microfibres when we walk in busy shops, underground tubes etc we are literally breathing everyone's clothes and the environments dust things to small for us to filter it travels deep into the lungs of children in prams all sorts what we don't see is what will hurt us.

"Given the math, human tendencies, and the issues pertaining to time, scale and cost, the current green energy movement currently is little more than hot air. It’s just not going to happen in time.

We’re nowhere close to being able to build out the massive energy projects required. The equivalent of 200, 10 MW off shore (or 450, 4MW onshore) wind turbines every day for the next 30 years? That’s a total pipe dream. While at the same time replacing all built out fossil fuel infrastructure with electric.

We lack the political will, the cultural readiness, the proper narrative. Even the appropriate resources.

Beyond those concerns, nearly everything about how we heat, move, cool and manufacture the components of our modern lives will have to be refashioned (and possibly jettisoned) as part of that project.

Such an ambitious undertaking has no historical analog. It’s a ridiculously complex set of problems (which have solutions) and predicaments (which don’t). It’s exactly the sort of situation that politicians will avoid as long as possible, after which it will be too late to do very much about it"
.
https://www.peakprosperity.com/getting-real-about-green-energy/
.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net-zero-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-2050-requires-a-new-nuclear-power-plant-every-day/#776522c935f7

Hillhater said:

Poor analogy there.. you misinterpreted the analysis.
You should have said...” Yes, most CO2 INCREASE is from natural processes.”

Click to expand...

No it isn't.

The additional CO2 from 280pp to 410ppm is 100% from fossil fuels.

It's even more than that, but the oceans and biosphere have absorbed some of our CO2 output. (so far)

sendler2112 said:

We’re nowhere close to being able to build out the massive energy projects required. The equivalent of 200, 10 MW off shore (or 450, 4MW onshore) wind turbines every day for the next 30 years? That’s a total pipe dream. While at the same time replacing all built out fossil fuel infrastructure with electric.

Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Taking Germany as an example.

If you electrify all sectors and depending where we get gases and liquid fuels for ships, planes, gas peakers & Co (some import is an option) we need to produce maybe around 1000TWh/a of electricity in Germany.

This could be 700TWh wind power and 300TWh solar and for simpla caclulation this translates to 200GW wind power and 300GW Solar power over here

If average lifetime of a wind power plant is 20 years and for a solar power plant it is 30 years you need to build 10GW of each for each year.

so far we built 7-8GW each in our best years. 10GW is not far of.

Battery capacity should be around 200GW / 500GWh, add 100GW gas peakers and 100GW electrolyseurs

CATL is now building a 100GWh cell/battery factory in Germany. It is for electric cars, but as you see, this amount isn' problematic either.

We just need to do it.

Much easier (and cheaper) than building new nukes

UK is looking at large sulphur ion based storage, I think 18650s in tesla powerwalls simply are not needed for the grid I get they hold charge well compared to older alternatives but the density is not needed we can drop the exotic materials reduce cost in the long run as much as possible while pushing capacity through the roof only downside I hear is output current will suffer so we will need gigantic factorys purely for housing it all but there will be hours worth of grid capacity that can sit idol for long periods unlike lead acid.

Cephalotus said:

The additional CO2 from 280pp to 410ppm is 100% from fossil fuels.

It's even more than that, but the oceans and biosphere have absorbed some of our CO2 output. (so far)

Click to expand...

The classic IPCC propaganda ...
You obviously didnt read/totally ignored the research results.

Ianhill said:

UK is looking at large sulphur ion based storage, I think 18650s in tesla powerwalls simply are not needed for the grid I get they hold charge well compared to older alternatives but the density is not needed we can drop the exotic materials reduce cost in the long run as much as possible while pushing capacity through the roof only downside I hear is output current will suffer so we will need gigantic factorys purely for housing it all but there will be hours worth of grid capacity that can sit idol for long periods unlike lead acid.

Click to expand...

1). Storage Batteries do not produce electricity. They need a reliable generation source to charge them!
2). So you need sufficient generation capacity to RELIABLY power the daily demand, AND further RELIABLE generation capacity to recharge the batteries at the same time.
3). We dont have the realistic ability to do either of those , let alone build sufficient storage capacity to provide 24/7 supply continuity.

The problem is the resesrch you produce is not peer reviewed it has no sciecntific place agreed, if one crazy loonie tune with a phd released how the world is emulated from a Amiga 500 tucked away in his cupboard I'm sure people will cling on to it but the truth of the matter will never change it's crap.

Want to learn something new I suggest watch a YouTube video by potholer54 and have a look at his latest history of earth video you can either waste 33 mins and have a giggle or learn something he goes out of his way to explain fact from fiction there are people that get a phd in a field and earn a honest career not everyone is out to screw their family's future.

I don't know what its like in your area but grid where i live is stable and if you think it's at 24/7 capacity with no spare your mistaken wind generation is not fully utilized to it's max I regularly see turbines sat idol waiting for demand switching between them to share the load at peak so I do think and know with a battery they can operate alot more and generate 24/7 regardless of demand and batterys will clean up the noise on the grid for a much more stable frequency.

Hillhater out of interest how you on this site lol u bash it to shit what topic u build something on etc u seem to have knowledge but also a hate very appropriate name lol.

Hillhater said:

The classic IPCC propaganda ...
You obviously didnt read/totally ignored the research results.

Click to expand...

The research results support his claim, actually.

So you need sufficient generation capacity to RELIABLY power the daily demand, AND further RELIABLE generation capacity to recharge the batteries at the same time.

Click to expand...

Correct. California currently has the capacity to do that; we overgenerate at noon. Nice problem to have, one that's solvable by batteries.

We dont have the realistic ability to do either of those

Click to expand...

My house does that. So do a great many off-grid homes, on-grid homes with storage and microgrids. Wake up and smell the power.

Ianhill said:

I don't know what its like in your area but grid where i live is stable and if you think it's at 24/7 capacity with no spare your mistaken wind generation is not fully utilized to it's max I regularly see turbines sat idol waiting for demand switching between them to share the load at peak so I do think and know with a battery they can operate alot more and generate 24/7 regardless of demand and batterys will clean up the noise on the grid for a much more stable frequency.

Click to expand...

Ian, i believe you are in the UK ? (No profile !)....so you should remember what happened on Aug 9th.....
..5 million consumers ( probably 10-20 million people) were blacked out due to grid shutdown caused by instability !
Windfarms are not fully utilised 70% of the time, due to lack of wind (30% CF) and often shut down because their unpredictable and erratic supply makes the grid unstable !
Wind farms can only generate 24/7 if the wind blows consistently 24/7.....how often does that happen ?
Also the UK is dependant on the European interconnectors (France, Netherlands) to ensure supply continuity during peak demand periods .

billvon said:

Hillhater said:

The classic IPCC propaganda ...
You obviously didnt read/totally ignored the research results.

Click to expand...

The research results support his claim, actually.

Click to expand...

Nope..
From the research results summary...

....The mass of all past fossil-fuel and biogenic emissions remaining in the current atmo- sphere was -30 GT C or less, i.e. maximum -4%, corresponding to an atmospheric concentration of -14 ppmv. ...

Click to expand...

billvon said:

So you need sufficient generation capacity to RELIABLY power the daily demand, AND further RELIABLE generation capacity to recharge the batteries at the same time.

Click to expand...

Correct. California currently has the capacity to do that; we overgenerate at noon. Nice problem to have, one that's solvable by batteries...

Click to expand...

Odd then that California currently has to rely on IMPORTING 25%+ of it electricity to meet demand !

billvon said:

We dont have the realistic ability to do either of those

Click to expand...

....My house does that. So do a great many off-grid homes, on-grid homes with storage and microgrids. Wake up and smell the power.

Click to expand...

That is a very clever house bill ....to be able to accurately measure the NATURAL CO2 emissions and sinks worldwide.!
...WAKE UP and read the post again ......and try to understand the issue.

Another reason why intermittent Wind and Solar are not as clean as you might hope...

https://nsjonline.com/article/2019/08/duke-energy-application-points-finger-at-solar-for-increased-pollution/

“ . . . Crawford provided information from a team of Duke subject matter experts confirming NOx emissions would be lower if there were no solar power on the electric grid.

Without any solar power in the mix, “a typical combined cycle combustion turbine emits NOx at approximately 9-11 lb/hr, assuming 24 hours of ‘normal’ operation,” Crawford said. That is equivalent to 264 pounds of NOx emissions daily. When those same plants are operated to supplement solar power facilities, daily emissions more than double to 624 pounds a day, based on a table in Duke’s application.”

“Renewable energy sounds good, but it performs terribly. If you want electricity available when you need it, you don’t want intermittent, unreliable, renewable energy,” Kish said. “It’s like a cancer on an efficient grid, with its ups-and-downs forcing other sources to pick up the slack in the most inefficient ways, which, in some cases, are more polluting.”

“It’s great for the Wall Street financiers, and those in it to make a fast buck while the sun shines, but it’s leaving us with an increasingly unstable grid and externalities such as more pollution,” Kish said. “The regulators have to remember that their job is to make sure that quick buck artists don’t pick the pockets of consumers and leave them with a weaker, less resilient grid.”...

Click to expand...

sendler2112 said:

"Given the math, human tendencies, and the issues pertaining to time, scale and cost, the current green energy movement currently is little more than hot air. It’s just not going to happen in time.

We’re nowhere close to being able to build out the massive energy projects required. The equivalent of 200, 10 MW off shore (or 450, 4MW onshore) wind turbines every day for the next 30 years? That’s a total pipe dream. While at the same time replacing all built out fossil fuel infrastructure with electric.

We lack the political will, the cultural readiness, the proper narrative. Even the appropriate resources.

Beyond those concerns, nearly everything about how we heat, move, cool and manufacture the components of our modern lives will have to be refashioned (and possibly jettisoned) as part of that project.

Such an ambitious undertaking has no historical analog. It’s a ridiculously complex set of problems (which have solutions) and predicaments (which don’t). It’s exactly the sort of situation that politicians will avoid as long as possible, after which it will be too late to do very much about it"
.
https://www.peakprosperity.com/getting-real-about-green-energy/
.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net-zero-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-2050-requires-a-new-nuclear-power-plant-every-day/#776522c935f7

Click to expand...

Great post, I remember when you said something along the lines of "it doesn't matter if co2 is bad or not, we need to think about replacing fossil fuels because we will run out eventually anyway", and I thought you were so right.

That's when I started to focus even harder on nuclear technology, because it's the only practical future, like the UK stats show only 17% of energy coming from Wind/Solar is crap and Germany is just the same, even if it's just 5x times more co2 than Nuclear based France then its still a complete joke, they would never allow cars to emit 5x times more co2 than other cars, so I do not get the logic of allowing it for electricity generation, it's obvious RE is about politics/money power.

I stopped closely watching BEVs (battery EVs) because all the major manufacturers are building EV factories so its quasi-completed and done, they are mass producing them now, it will take the place of most petroleum cars in the 1st world in time, people who are crossing their fingers wondering if BEVs are going to make it are dumb.

I now moved my focus onto when Fuel-Cells and wondering when they will really become mainstream, because of its added benefits of making electric flight very viable it's far more interesting to watch the developments.
https://www.engadget.com/2019/05/29/skai-could-be-the-first-fuel-cell-powered-flying-taxi/
https://interestingengineering.com/look-to-the-skai-the-future-of-flying-vehicles-is-here
https://www.kbb.com/car-news/skai-high-bmw-designworks-and-alakai-take-on-air-mobility/2100006830/

The other thing I have realized is at the same time fossil fuel for electricity has won the war for the next few decades, I don't know if the general public understand it but the ADANI Carmichael coal mine in Queensland is fully approved and its located out in the middle of nowhere complete with a brand new rail-line for a reason, that reason is so that it can be expanded and made super huge, its quality coal, and they could expand it to power all of India for probably 100 years. https://www.adaniaustralia.com/projects-businesses/mine
This coal mine will be the first major coal mine in the Galilee Basin which is estimated to contain up to 247,000km2 of juicy coal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilee_Basin

[youtube]mFqe7mkPI0Y[/youtube]
^You can see here the official Green Peace Australia celebrating Labor's Annastacia Palaszczuk winning the state election with her win based on the strong promise to never allow the ADANI coal mine to be approved, but a few years later while still in power she completely changed her mind and helped speed up the approval process for the mega-coal mine, she even stayed in power rather than stepping down.
Fact is if the current Labor state government couldn't stop the approval/development of this super-mega-coal mine then the fact is no one can stop it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIdvtW8_10M
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annastacia_Palaszczuk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilee_Basin#Coal_mining_leases

If you want another reminder that both sides in the green movement are all about the money and merely telling people what they like to hear, check this article.
Al Gore's was paid $320,000 by the Queensland Government/Annastacia to come to Queensland for a dinner.
Al Gore then dined with the Queensland Premier who also spoke and likewise avoided mentioning Adani coal mine.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-07/adani-mine-not-mentioned-as-al-gore-speaks-in-brisbane/11191116
If Al Gore was about saving the world he wouldn't be accepting money from and dining with the lady who has pushed forward the approval process for the biggest coal mine the world is likely to ever see, but Al Gore can't resist the money.

I made this meme during our last Xmas holiday break, just for my self as a weird piece of art I am not sure why but I was curious of how it would look, I think I did it because of the faces, you get to see the supposedly "battled faces" of those who hate coal and did everything they could to stop it and failed but most importantly made themselves very wealthy in the process.
I wanted to practise my image-editing skills and it would have taken less time than those people making human formations of "STOP ADANI".
When I used to watch cable TV, they would frequently run ads of "Worlds most extreme .... , tonight, on Discovery Channel", and I would think to my self ooh that sounds like an entertaining TV show, so that line kept popping back in my head for this meme.

Despite there being a Labour/Greens government in Queensland, despite all the constant and remarkable protests the ADANI/fossil fuel group won.
https://www.google.com/search?q=stop+ADANI
https://d1u4oo4rb13yy8.cloudfront.net/article/70420-lyswwnibun-1507359343.jpg

^There are tons of these Stop ADANI protest images/articles over the years.

Almost everyone below is Australian, most are in politics/renewable energy fund boards/something similar and basically all of them made themselves remarkably wealthy claiming to hate fossil fuel and trying to stop fossil fuel, but pretty much failed spectacularly.
Some of the faces look remarkably innocent but I believe they were mostly in it for money and are true geniuses in riding the madness of the world.


What brute-forced the ADANI coal mine through despite all the opposition? The brute power of real demand for the product and the raw power of real economic viability.
It's clear that fossil fuel will continue to just increase in use on a global scale alongside alternative/RE energy on the side.

You spend precious waking hours making memes?

Wow.

Cephalotus said:

sendler2112 said:

We’re nowhere close to being able to build out the massive energy projects required. The equivalent of 200, 10 MW off shore (or 450, 4MW onshore) wind turbines every day for the next 30 years? That’s a total pipe dream. While at the same time replacing all built out fossil fuel infrastructure with electric.

Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Taking Germany as an example.

If you electrify all sectors and depending where we get gases and liquid fuels for ships, planes, gas peakers & Co (some import is an option) we need to produce maybe around 1000TWh/a of electricity in Germany.

This could be 700TWh wind power and 300TWh solar and for simpla caclulation this translates to 200GW wind power and 300GW Solar power over here

If average lifetime of a wind power plant is 20 years and for a solar power plant it is 30 years you need to build 10GW of each for each year.

so far we built 7-8GW each in our best years. 10GW is not far of.

Battery capacity should be around 200GW / 500GWh, add 100GW gas peakers and 100GW electrolyseurs

CATL is now building a 100GWh cell/battery factory in Germany. It is for electric cars, but as you see, this amount isn' problematic either.

We just need to do it.

Much easier (and cheaper) than building new nukes

Click to expand...

You are an expert on Germany. But you keep forgetting that Germany is only .08 billion people out of 8 billion. Germany did not produce those 7GW per year of new wind and solar capacity all by itself for those few years that it was at that level. How much of the world's total solar and wind raw materials and manufacturing capacity did that represent? You were 20% short of your modest goal of 1000TWh/ year in 30 years, so for the world to achieve your per capita energy wealth and make the goal of having it done in 30 years, so that the first ones can start to be rebuilt in 30 years perpetually, world installation of wind and solar would have to increase 120X beyond what you did for a couple years at the peak.
.
1000TWh/ year of rebuildable electricity is a lofty goal and will be much better than nothing but is realistically a little low in order to replace what Germany is currently using for Primary energy. Currently almost 14,000 PetaJoules which is 3,900 TWh/ year. Many industrial heat processes that now use thermal gas or coal, such as cement and steel, which will be needed in huge quantities for wind installs, will not see any efficiency gain from switching to electric. So estimates of efficiency improvements from full electrification of human civilization are closer to 2:1. Leaving 1,500 TWh/ year for Germany. 70,000 TWh/ year for the World! would be less than half of the total primary energy we are now using. And 3 billion people still cook and heat with wood as their only means.
.
Scale.
.
World.
.
And then there is the question of retrofitting or replacing all built out machinery and infrastructure that uses carbon fuels world wide.
.
Along with battery production. When GigaFactory 1 was announced, it was stated to at once double the world's capacity of production. With .035 TWh/ year. Has it ever had a year that matched it's stated capacity yet? World capacity is now stated to be about .4 TWh/y. Projected to be 1TWh/y by 2025. Just to replace the worlds 1.3 billion current gas/ diesel light vehicles, to say nothing of farm tractors and heavy trucks, with electric cars with 60 kWh batteries, requires 80 TWh of batteries! Just for cars and light trucks! And most people in the world do not even have one yet, but want one. And we talk of a proposed addition of another .1 TWh GigaFactory like it is a big deal.
.
Scale
.
World
.
I'm not studying all of this, and saying all of this to be negative. I am being pragmatic given the real data. To save the future as best as possible as we face down the approaching bottlenecks of debt reconciliation, Energy/nonrenewable resource/ water/ fertile soil/ ect depletion, and mass migration/ mass extinction.
.
Greta gives us a new buzz word in the media. Fairy tales. We have fairy tales by under informed economists and politicians of eternal exponential growth on a finite planet. And just as inaccurate, fairy tales of a possible Green replacement to the same standard that we have now. While (forgetting) uplifting the exploited Global South. Many of our demands are untenable. Net zero in 12 years? Extinction Rebellion demands that it be so within 5 years. This will certainly precipitate the collapse that they claim to be fighting against. Be pragmatic. Maybe it is better to slide down now under control to a simpler, more cooperative way of life, rather than keep growing to a higher, steeper "Seneca Cliff".
.
Many of our ideas will turn out to be wasted moves. Such as individual families living in "green" McMansions. Such as executives earning 500 times the amount as the base employee. Such as mail ordering whatever frivolous "green" gadget "the market" has advertised (brain washed) us to want, before throwing it away to lust after the next thing. Such as "green" 60kWh personal vehicles for each of the eventual 10 billion people on Earth.

Sendler I feel your pain this is a serious mess we are in and most think its a few moves on a chess board to fix.
The Sentinelese tribe with no outside contact to modern culture will have no clue what's going on, we are like Egyptian gods with knowledge but they ain't afraid to chop you up and eat you.

Nothing is normal when u really lo0k.

sendler2112 said:

Many of our ideas will turn out to be wasted moves.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Which is why we should be going full bore on all those ideas now, so we make the mistakes while energy is still (relatively) cheap and the cost of failure is low.