sendler2112 said:
"Jacobson’s paper has become the bible of alternative energy and is the most referenced paper on the subject used by policymakers and activist groups. And that is scary. Another ideology masquerading as science."
.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/06/26/debunking-the-unscientific-fantasy-of-100-renewables/#5b2b955529f9
.
I like this bit in the article as it points out many of Jacobson's flaws
- assumes unlimited hydroelectric power as backup, with new installations equivalent to 600 Hoover Dams; this is more power than we produce from all sources today.
The amount of land needed for Hydro is massive compared to other renewable sources, interestingly.
As always mentioned, when you got it naturally accuring setup, then hydro is a no-brainer, but once its done, its done, its not viable to somehow magically just create more forever.
sendler2112 said:
It's interesting to see that TerraPower have recently brached to the side of their complex Traveling Wave Reactor and now have a research facility and USA permissions to persue a Molten Salt Reactor.
.
http://uwckb.ans.org/2017/docs/---NEW---_170807_-_MCFR_for_Utilities_-_FINAL.pdf
.
That is interesting! Also says in that PDF they expect generation costs to be equal to natural gas.
This was my biggest concern about the original Bill Gates Terra power-reactor, it was still water based. Molten Salt just seems so much more bulletproof.
On another subject. Looking at these tweets from the "Climate Council" is just amazingly misleading garbage.
https://twitter.com/climatecouncil/status/1003457922872029185
For us its funny but a lot of people believe this stuff, share these memes on Facebook etc. I think humans do adapt, sooner or later they will get a gutful and naturally seek better information.
I listened to Alex Jones for a little while for entertainment, and while it might be amusing for a few hours or even casual listening for a week, most people realize that they are wasting their time listening to a man whos merely just making up "the world news" as he wished it was rather than what it is.
Unbelievably, I think Alex Jones is very healthy, because it helps people understand the full spectrum of information available on the internet and Alex Jones should be allowed to spew as much stuff onto the internet as he wants because its the very best stuff for adapting to how to process whats real and whats fake much more quickly than the general hyperbolic media the majority of people receiving from mainstream media today, which is technically equally as cancerous.
Alex Jones show is quite well presented, it copies CNN style news presentation, thus tricking the mind to fully accept its information.
But so does the official "Climate Council", its very well presented information, often very slick videos are created that are the equivalent quality of something like CNN or Bloomberg, but its very much next level garbage.
Alex Jones show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QIJCovEdAU
[youtube]5QIJCovEdAU[/youtube]
There are
A LOT of people that want Alex Jones banned, but absolutely
zero of these very same people would want Climate Councils content banned, this is why both should be allowed to go as hard as they want, because humans are way too biased to be choosing whats allowed to be banned and not be banned, people instead need to be fully exposed and learn to adapt. Even if a lot of programs need to be put in place to help people learn about bad information.
In reality, I don't see how the garbage above is any different than what generally accepted as ways to fight GHG emissions, with renewables that end up really being massive natural gas burning with large amounts of gas leakage at 84x GWP, causing technically more warming then just coal.
Check out Climate Councils main "about" on their Twitter account.
On another subject, Looking at the last 3.2 days of South Australia's electricity with its practically 100% wind capacity only providing 4% of the states' electricity.
This is one of the core reasons why wind/solar are so expensive, because you spend all the money on the infrastructure just to get as little as 4% while still having to spend money to back it up. Its like always requiring at minimum having two cars to go anywhere you need, the costs at the minimum double.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Natural_gas_transmission_leakage_rates#Leakage_Rates_Worldwide_and_in_the_United_States
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gas-power-plants-methane-emissions-120-times-more-study-purdue-edf-greenhouse-global-warming-climate-a7641471.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential#Values