Slashdot Mirror
Renewables Will Be World's Main Power Source By 2040, Says BP (cnbc.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: In a not-too-distant future, renewable energy becomes the world's biggest source of power generation. A quarter of the distances that humans travel by vehicle will be in electric cars. U.S. dominance in the oil market begins to wane, and OPEC's influence is resurgent, as crude demand finally peaks. That is the vision laid out by British oil and gas giant BP on Thursday in its latest Annual Energy Outlook. The closely followed report lays out a vision through 2040 for Earth's energy future, provided government policy, technology and consumer preferences evolve in line with recent trends. BP forecasts that the world's energy demand will grow by a third through 2040, driven by rising consumption in China, India and other parts of Asia. About 75 percent of that increase will come from the need to power industry and buildings. At the same time, energy demand will continue to grow in the transportation sector, but that growth will slow sharply as vehicles become more efficient and more consumers opt for electric cars. But despite the increase in supply, BP thinks two-thirds of the world's population will still live in places with relatively low energy consumption per head. The takeaway: The world will need to generate more energy. The report says natural gas consumption will grow by 50 percent over the next 20 years, increasing in virtually every corner of the globe. "Throughout most of that time, the world will continue to consume more oil year after year, until demand ultimately peaks around 108 million barrels per day in the 2030s," reports CNBC. "This year, OPEC expects global oil demand to reach 100 million bpd."
Meanwhile, coal consumption is forecasted to flatline, as China and developed countries quit the fossil fuel in favor of cleaner-burning and renewable energy sources. "However, BP sees India and other Asian nations burning more coal to meet surging power demand as the nations become more prosperous," reports CNBC.
Meanwhile, coal consumption is forecasted to flatline, as China and developed countries quit the fossil fuel in favor of cleaner-burning and renewable energy sources. "However, BP sees India and other Asian nations burning more coal to meet surging power demand as the nations become more prosperous," reports CNBC.
Nicole Foss on renewables @AutomaticEarth http://bit.ly/2rzS5Pq
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
In 20 years ICE vehicles will be obsolete... Its a given.
[($)]
Well, I think that timeline is unlikely but sure, it's possible. Particularly if we (ever) get fusion practical.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Clearly these folks and their ideas are funded by the oil industry.
--
What the caterpillar calls the end of the world the master calls a butterfly - Richard Bach
Nuff said.
The earth canâ(TM)t afford for BP to be right.
I'm Tony Heyward. We're sorry.
We're sorry.
Taking into account neoliberal, rampant capitalism still dominates the wage slaves and the revolution hasn't happened and the bastards haven't been put up against the wall and fecking shot.
Oh feck, there's a black helicopter, they're coming for me.
Go well
Meanwhile, in the present, we will losing the ability to have picking the correct tense.... are losing... have losing... are lost... well I'm lost.
My guess is we will all be living on Mars by then.
If man is still around that is. I used to hear that question A LOT. Today almost never. 2525 is coming. IF MAN IS STILL AROUND!
You misspelled a word in the middle.
That's not what BP said! They did not claim that renewable energy would dominate, they said renewable AND NATURAL GAS would dominate.
Here's what has been discovered everywhere a switch to wind and solar has been tried, they are nothing more than a proxy for natural gas. When anyone claims that they will switch from coal to wind and solar what they really mean is that they will switch to wind, solar, and natural gas.
Here's where wind and solar just become proxies for natural gas. When building a backup system for wind and solar this backup must be able to come online quickly, in a matter of minutes as the system detects the wind or sun fading. That means natural gas turbines. Well a natural gas turbine is about 30% efficient. Because of the laws of physics, and cost constraints, this is about the best we can do. If this same natural gas was burned in a combined cycle power plant, where water is boiled for steam, then they can achieve efficiencies of about 60%. These plants, again because of physics and cost, cannot come online in minutes but instead take hours. This makes them unfit as backup for wind and solar.
So, what we have with wind and solar is burning the same amount of natural gas as if we had no wind and solar at all. This is building a bunch of worthless monuments to Gaia in hope of appeasing those worshiping this false god. In exchange we get higher energy costs and no real reductions in greenhouse gasses.
Oh, and did they even mention nuclear power? France has relied on nuclear power for much of their electricity supply and did well with that. There's an example of how to run a nation and keep CO2 output low. To those that claim nuclear power cannot be run safely, cheaply, or meet the needs of a modern economy need only look at the radioactive wasteland that is France. Oh, it's not radioactive like Chernobyl? That might be because they knew enough to put a containment dome over their reactors, and not have them run by drunken bureaucrats. What of Fukushima? You mean where thousands were dead and missing from a once in a thousand year tsunami? And only one known death from the actual reactor? That Fukushima? Certainly that's a mess but so is a lot of things from that tsunami. I guess people forgot the damage done by the massive wave and focused on the relative non-event that was the reactor. Oh, and we don't build reactors like those at Fukushima any more, and certainly not like at Chernobyl where they have no containment dome. We build them far safer now.
Nuclear power is safe, abundant, cheap, and reliable. There is no reduction of CO2 output without nuclear power. That's my prediction. We can deal with that reality now or we can ignore the facts and be dragged into the truth later. I don't much care what anyone says, the debate is over (to recycle a phrase) and nuclear is our future.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Heh. Heh. Heheheh. HAHAHAHAHA. That's MIGHTY progressive of them. They're TOTALLY fine with renewables. In 2040, AFTER peak oil, AFTER they've drilled most of the easy oil out of the ground and sold it to be burned and dumped into the atmosphere. After that, they're ALL FINE with the world getting behind renewables.
I guess at that point we can load up our electric vehicles as we mass-migrate out of the collapsed ecosystems that we've caused. Niiiice.
Our lord, Jesus Christ, is a Jew and what he did named him Lord of Hosts. That is an impressive resume, yes?
I'm confused. Are you not going to allow me to use HOST FILES or not?
Jews killed Christ. They hate him because he called them devils and only time Jesus got violent was kicking the pharisee jews out of his father's house which they turned into a bizarre (gold fever is the downfall of jews along with their blatant RACISM https://hardware.slashdot.org/... ) and 110010001000 the JEW had the nerve to call Musk a racist https://slashdot.org/comments.... projecting his own JEW issues in racism.
Jews killed Christ.
Oh, well you can't say they are all bad then. Did you ever meet that Christ guy? He was pretty annoying.
Host files? You were asked why jews are kicked out nation to nation thru time and you ran from https://hardware.slashdot.org/... when asked to explain your JEW RACIST beliefs and yet you had NERVE to call Musk a racist here https://slashdot.org/comments.... ? Come on JEWboy. You cocaine heroin snorting machines with giant snouts you cutoff in rhinoplasty oddly trying to be the goyim cattle you despise when the truth is you despise yourselves and that's the proof in and of itself, you always self-proclaim how SMART you are. I don't see it. I see you run when exposed JEW!
How is Jesus Christ, or Lord and Savior, and the unquestioned Lord of Hosts being relegated to some Slashdot links? This feels like blasphemy to me, and it is my strong belief that you need a session in the Confessional, along with a healthy dose of penance.
You say "cocaine heroin snorting machines" like that is a bad thing. I'm not Jewish, but I think I might convert. They sound like party animals.
Annoyed you are pinned as a racist jew due to your admittedly being a jew + you run when questioned on it https://hardware.slashdot.org/... and your clearly racist beliefs is classic. Yet you had nerve to call Musk RACIST when you jews are the BIGGEST RACISTS OF ALL? Hahahaha. Droll that. Such "smart jews" (not). Dumb thieves that get kicked out of countries constantly or killed for their thievery (zyklon B or ovens, anyone?).
You might have a point. Hmmmm, maybe I should become a Christian? Will that work?
"I am Jewish" by 110010001000 https://slashdot.org/comments.... proving you a liar which all jews are.5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."
Where can we get the BP year 2000 forecast for 2020? See how they did last time.
They have a chance from building third and fourth generation nuclear rather than letting their fear of nuclear power compel them to run second generation power plants well beyond their designed lifespan. The Fukushima nuclear power plant was built before Chernobyl. Even though they did upgrades to improve safety they still had to deal with 1960s technology and all the hazards that came with it. Build something new by learning from 60 years of mistakes and you will get something exceedingly safe.
Japan learned from their mistakes. Or so it seems. They are finally starting to build new nuclear after this, they tried doing without nuclear and that was not sustainable. They were losing big on their economy and their air quality. They also won't be building nuclear power plants based on 60 year old designs.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I'm not Jewish. I'm Muslim. You are crazy!
You were quoted you are a jew then say you lied https://hardware.slashdot.org/... ? You're a lying jew (which you all are) Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."
If your main worry is CO2 reduction, natural gas is pretty good as well - 50% less emissions than coal, so if we really all switched to renewable and natural gas that would be more than 50% reduction in CO2 - way more than any studies say we need to meet.
As you say, nuclear is better (much, much better for all sorts of reasons). But natural gas is good enough for the purposes of greatly exceeding any desired reductions, and it can serve the needs of countries too fearful and ignorant to enjoy the benefits of nuclear power.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
nazi kook
You are 100% correct. So whats the next step? Want to come over?
You're nothing but a liar first quoted saying you are a jew then you lied about it saying you're atheist https://hardware.slashdot.org/... ? You'll never live this down liar.
Darn, you caught me in multiple lies now. So whats going to happen next?
I don't think you get it. Nobody wants jews around. They're parasites kicked nation to nation thru time. Nobody wants to be around you.
OK, then whats the next step? Are you going to do something about it?
Live the shame of being a liar jew https://hardware.slashdot.org/... which is nothing to your kind the vampire parasites of the planet with no shame for being thieves and slime which you ran from when questioned about it only to be shown a liar jew Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording." https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
Coal flatlined for the same reason that natural gas is expected to dramatically increase, not really because over newable, but because they switched to a cheaper fossil fuel which also happens to 40 to 60% cleaner-burning. That's nice, but it's still about 50% is dirty is cold and it still requires a constant and complex supply network instead of just being delivered by more steady un or wind or geothermal with the least amount of supplemental natural gas.
Instead it's more like the US started destroying the planet by hydrofracking shale and now oil and gas are even cheaper than ever.
it also seems a little bit flawed to say that the US dominance in the oil Market is waning when they all of a sudden have all the shale oil and production capacity.
The US might bye relative position be a smaller market for oil, but it's still going to be supplying quite a lot of oil and natural gas and refining quite a lot of oil.
They have so much natural gas and limited infrastructure to distribute it they're trying to liquefy it and distributed that way!
This isn't because they plan to have so much natural gas is because of the nature of how shall oil also produces natural gas.
OK, I'll be living my life in shame from now on. Thanks for letting me know.
Better than being caught a lying jew lying again https://hardware.slashdot.org/... like 110010001000 is quoted admitting he is a jew https://hardware.slashdot.org/... yet trying to lie his way out like the typical jew crooked liar he is per their talmud beliefs of Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."
Damage is done and you did it to yourself lying JEW https://hardware.slashdot.org/... saying you're no jew but quoted saying you are https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
Did I mention I was gay too?
Be ashamed of your racist psychotic jew beliefs https://hardware.slashdot.org/... which you clearly are after you called Musk a racist https://slashdot.org/comments.... but I'd be ashamed of being flushed out as a liar like you were most of all https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
I totally am. How could I think that Musk was a racist? And I lied multiple times. If I wasn't Jewish I would ask Jesus to forgive me.
I don't think you can live this one down being caught a liar publicly like you have 11001000100 because nobody likes liars like you.
That's true. It's going to be really bad if people on Slashdot don't like me. Hopefully they won't find out I lied multiple times. What are the chances they are going to find out though?
"Here's what has been discovered everywhere a switch to wind and solar has been tried, they are nothing more than a proxy for natural gas."
Not a fucking natural gas pipepline around me for blocks. Pure personal solar here, and a large solar plant across from the park down the street powering the whole neighborhood. Learn to properly spec your system instead of listening to idiot salesmen.
Get with the times. Modern solar is fairly efficient now days.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Spot on.
The industry is switching to gas.
All heavy transport, particularly ships and trucks.
Still, I managed to provoke embarrassed silence on the last conference by noting that the incomplete burning will emit methane ( so-called methane slip which however small when scaled to all heavy transport.... ) and how about all those terrible cows farting.....
Ooops!
What do you guys do when the sun goes down? Battery storage?
Considering most here browse below default moderation threshold of 0 we see you try to post bury your lie https://hardware.slashdot.org/... you're SOL considering this is only 75 posts now and it takes way over 110 at least to post burial hide your lies you are caught in. You're pitiful and stupid jew.
Conference of energy producers, I forgot to add. Info first hand. That's my job these days...
Thats not good. You should probably follow me around the site and tell everyone about my lies. That way I can feel shame all the time.
Wow, you must have been the only person at the conference that realized that burning natgas "emits methane". What a genius. I'm sure that is why there was embarrassed silence.
France is starting to phase out their nuclear power plants because they are expensive and evaporating their rivers. Big coal, nuclear, etc. plants need a place to dump the heat they generate, which typically means they put it in a river or in the ocean. Regardless of CO2, they are literally warming the globe.
It is true that natural gas and renewables have so far been a winning combination. But you are lying about renewables being useless. They do not dump heat into rivers and oceans and they require no digging or drilling in the ground or much maintenance once up and running. Larger, smarter, grids mean the electricity, wherever it is generated, can be used where it is needed. This is already happening in places like Germany. But it does require an investment into that grid with new cables and monitoring equipment. As batteries come down in price and increase in capacity, they will slowly replace all of those natural gas plants and the grid can be 100% renewable. This is already happening to a limited degree where it makes sense, such as island nations.
If people get their calculators out and work our total load needed versus total production, even projected renewables would fall short of what is needed. We are putting ourselves back in the stone age. Blackouts, unreliable power at high cost.
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results"
33 "renewable" companies that had federal funds gifted to them by the Obama administration and everyone is either in receivership(*) or near finacial collapse.
What you are seeing with this is that the oil companies just decided to ride the gravy train. T
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)*
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
If you don't have enough HOST FILES I can give you one of mine.
I actually have a few very hostile spare HOST FILES.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Well a natural gas turbine is about 30% efficient.
ROFL
Hey, perhaps you want to re-read my old comments to you. I gave you some hints. Often enough. and the main hint is: read a damn book about energy production/distribution.
if a gas turbine was only 30% efficient, why would anyone buy one?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Thats when the world will need hydro, nuclear, gas, coal.
Gas that will have to be extracted, moved around and turned into energy.
Large production lines will expect a low cost, 24/7 power supply that will not change prices.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I maintain that 'renewables' won't be enough. We need nuclear.
I've heard all the arguments and complaints and they don't move me. We need nuclear, and that's that.
Re "if a gas turbine was only 30% efficient, why would anyone buy one?"
So the cost of power is low at night and the lights stay on.
Advance productive nations that have jobs and that export products need low cost 24/7 power in the real world.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
One of these days a rollercoaster designer is going to say feck it and design a transportaion system that uses a combo of gravity (sorry to the moron below who thinks petroleum is the most energy dense fuel option. Gezus do they not teach actual physics to these morons anymore) and electricity. If we can have wireless phone charging and hills are the next major obstacle, intelligence will win out where it has failed us in the past. It always has.
if a gas turbine was only 30% efficient, why would anyone buy one?
I don't know, how about you ask the people buying them? Also, tell me how efficient they are if you dispute the 30% efficiency. Oh, and provide a citation, like this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
When the gas turbine is used solely for shaft power, its thermal efficiency is about 30%
Then you can tell me again on how solar power is "reliable" while natural gas is "dispatchable". Your answer lies in those definitions.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I've got bad news, coal and nuclear are inadequate power sources because of the carbon or radio-isotope externalities they produce. We can't continue to rely on them because they are a threat to our species due to carbon held heat or radio-isotopes ruining our genome. Coal threatens the planet, nuclear threatens our species DNA, all species DNA come to think of it.
However we can gradually phase them out with a steady increase in Solar PV, Solar Thermal, Wind, Geothermal. The good thing about this is it means a massive jobs growth all around the world as we build a 21st century infrastructure based on all the lessons we learned from those two energy industries.
In the US alone there is terawatts of wind power available even before looking to solar PV or solar thermal. Even better news is that solar thermal is the ideal technology for baseload power. We've got a great future with these technologies. Whilst the transition won't be painless the knowledge that we are looking after future generations whilst taking responsibility for the mess previous generations have left us will mean our existence at this point in time has had a positive effect on those who come after us.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
You didn't mentioned pumped hydro, which places like South Australia are doing in non-mountainous arid regions (not like the Austrian Alps) so that they can completely wean themselves off local gas and imported brown(!) coal electricity from Victoria.
https://www.theguardian.com/au...
https://www.tiltrenewables.com...
https://www.corrs.com.au/think...
Look how they already got rid of local coal completely 3 years ago, and now have 38% wind, and are increasing exports. https://opennem.org.au/#/regio... (click ALL)
Jews killed Christ. They hate him because he called them devils and only time Jesus got violent was kicking the pharisee jews out of his father's house which they turned into a bizarre (gold fever is the downfall of jews along with their blatant RACISM https://hardware.slashdot.org/... ) and 110010001000 the JEW had the nerve to call Musk a racist https://slashdot.org/comments.... projecting his own JEW issues in racism.
Christ was a Jew you f**ing troll.
if a gas turbine was only 30% efficient, why would anyone buy one?
I don't know, how about you ask the people buying them? Also, tell me how efficient they are if you dispute the 30% efficiency. Oh, and provide a citation, like this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
When the gas turbine is used solely for shaft power, its thermal efficiency is about 30%
Then you can tell me again on how solar power is "reliable" while natural gas is "dispatchable". Your answer lies in those definitions.
Natural gas turbines have a max realistic efficiency of about 60%. The main problem with them from a business point of view is firstly the prospect of one day having to actually pay for the emissions, which most of the industry currently does not have to do, and secondly the fluctuations in fuel prices. With wind and solar you don't have those problems. The business case becomes much more predictable and less risky. Granted, you need grid storage for them but for large segments of the market solar packaged sell with a battery storage package that will give you anywhere from one to three or four days of power and the grid storage problem is solvable. Generally the extraction costs of gas are on a general upward trend and there is an ever looming possibility of gas turbine operators having to pay for their carbon emissions while Wind and Solar don't have any extraction costs and produce hardly any carbon footprint. The argument you are having is basically whether film cameras (gas/coal/oil) are the future or digital camera (wind/solar/grid storage) are the future my money is on the latter. If fusion turns out to be possible that's gravy.
Actually once renewables exceed about 20% of the mix the requirement for backup starts to fall. Geographic distribution and high levels of predictability, combined with a distributed nature that means a single failure only takes out tens of megawatts instead of a gigawatt or two all make renewables more reliable, not less.
Battery tech is going to make peaking plants unprofitable in the next decade or two max. Gas and other types of peak coverage can't react fast enough to compete with batteries. Environmental considerations don't even come into it. Best of all it allows individual energy users to buy their own batteries and avoid those high peak rates completely. Industrial users will level out their consumption, domestic users will charge up when it's cheapest and their solar isn't providing enough during the day.
Any plan based on the old economics of base load and peak demand is going to fail. The nature of the grid and energy consumption is changing.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Nu-cle-ar
Pow-er
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Okay, now tell us how we're going to do this in the flat, central belt of the US.
Is every wind turbine ALSO going to house a giant water reservoir?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
given that by The Paris Agreement we need to be carbon neutral world wide at the latest by 2040. As we probably cannot eradicate peat/coal burning everywhere in the world by that date, the industrialized countries need to be carbon neutral ten years earlier and decidedly carbon negative by 2040. Having any private transport based on fossil fuels in 2040 in the west seems to be totally out of question.
It's c6gunner.
coal use will flatline and not decrease, oil consumption will increase 50%? all by 2030!
i thought the plan was to make sure the use of all those energy sources would have been decreased dramatically by then, or the earth is lost.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
EVs are not convienent. Yes they are if you don't go far from home. But I don't want to be tethered to my home, ever.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Japan isn't building new nuclear plants. The only "new" one is a third reactor at Shimane, which was scheduled to go online in 2011 but was delayed. Not only due to Fukushima, but due to a new previously unknown fault line being discovered in the area and additional safety upgrades being required.
No new designs are being build, and there are no serious plans for any. Japan's nuclear industry is going bust, e.g. Westinghouse, as global demand for their products falls. The industry is trying to pivot away to renewables but they were late to the game and China is on their doorstep.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So today we are burning fossil fuels FF/Total > 50%, and by 2040 we can have FF/Total 50% so they are no longer the main source. Congratulations, you can stop worrying now.
BUT -- while this makes good headlines, this is absolutely meaningless regarding the actual amount of FF being burned (and the corresponding CO2 emissions).
You can easily have a relative decrease of FF/Total while having a huge and dangerous increase in FF measured in absolute terms.
In Canada, we don't have enough gas stations in a lot of places. Who can afford a second car or rental to take you everywhere you need to go when you have already sunk $30K+ on an EV??
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
especially at night
"At the same time, energy demand will continue to grow in the transportation sector, but that growth will slow sharply as vehicles become more efficient and more consumers opt for electric cars."
Hm. OK, so you folks that'll be making that happen must have some sort of idiotic "free energy" herbs or something, yes?
When energy demand growth slows sharply with more electric cars and more efficiency. Sorry BP, I think yer full of crap, as always, but nevertheless, despite your sterling reputation as a huge corporate bully/pirate/thief/rectum, I think you missed a variable in the equations that brought you to this dubious conclusion.
How about showing your work, eh?
and secondly the fluctuations in fuel prices
Not just fluctuations. Americans are blissfully unaware how fucking expensive natural gas is in most parts of the world. Only complete idiots would regularly burn it for electricity.
Ezekiel 23:20
Is every wind turbine ALSO going to house a giant water reservoir?
There actually was a suggestion for something like that.
Ezekiel 23:20
Here's where wind and solar just become proxies for natural gas. When building a backup system for wind and solar this backup must be able to come online quickly, in a matter of minutes as the system detects the wind or sun fading. That means natural gas turbines. Well a natural gas turbine is about 30% efficient. Because of the laws of physics, and cost constraints, this is about the best we can do. If this same natural gas was burned in a combined cycle power plant, where water is boiled for steam, then they can achieve efficiencies of about 60%. These plants, again because of physics and cost, cannot come online in minutes but instead take hours. This makes them unfit as backup for wind and solar.
This is utter bullshit reasoning because not only don't we have to "detect the wind or sun fading" since we have predictive models, we also have geographically dispersed generation. The changes in the aggregate output literally take hours and an overwhelming fraction of them (90%+) is accounted for by those models, so why would it be handled mostly by fast-acting sources? That's completely irrational! Who upvotes this garbage?
Ezekiel 23:20
You are blissfully unaware that "natural gas" is nearly worthless and is often literally just burned for no use at all. What makes natural gas expensive is transportation.
Dirt is also worthless but costs a lot to have delivered to specific places. Getting a ton of dirt deliver in to a NYC apartment would cost a fortune but the dirt is still worthless. You wouldn't criticize people for "wasting dirt" etc.
In America we have two options: burn the natural gas as it leaves the ground because it is worthless to us or burn it in a natural gas power plant. If we transported it to "you" so you can use it "better" the cost of transport would be more than it is worth to you (or there is an opportunity for an oil business to make money... call them up).
>Westinghouse
Any why did this company go bankrupt. Lawsuits. Lots and lots of lawsuits that prevented them from building!
>Nuclear is expensive!
>Look at these companies that were sued into oblivion that proves my point
What is the cost of nuclear without those lawsuits?
prospect of one day having to actually pay for the emissions
Cheap energy helps poor people. What you and others that parrot this line is that poor people will have to pay for daring to increase their standard of living.
A shame. Why do you hate poor ppl.
Distinction without a difference.
That's not what BP said! They did not claim that renewable energy would dominate, they said renewable AND NATURAL GAS would dominate.
The CNBC article is poorly written. If you go directly to the BP Energy Outlook paper it appears to predict that renewables will account for over half of the increased energy demand - but not total power (as least that's how I read it).
Energy derived from the sun is not renewable. The sun will run out of hydron in a couple billiom years.
The correct term is Non-Carbon-Emittting or NCE
which also includes nuvlear fission and geothermal (which is derived from nuclear fission, at the core)
We won't be able to totally replace fossil fuels unless we develop more of the latter two sources, or get local fusion (intead of relying on the reactor that is 93 million miles away.
Or reduce the worlds population to a few hundred million.
Typo in subject.
Technically, ROMANS killed Christ. They crucified him and finished the job with a spear to the ribs.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
And I have the sticker to prove it.
Have gnu, will travel.
...how fucking expensive natural gas is in most parts of the world.
What makes natural gas expensive is transportation.
No shit, Sherlock! :-p What else could it be, gas fairies?
Ezekiel 23:20
Energy that costs money to clean up in the future is not cheap. Just like any other kind of predatory lending.
Ezekiel 23:20
so take it for what it is. The day that renewable overtake fossil fuel will come earlier than 2040. I predict it will be more like 2030 than in 2040.
What is the cost of nuclear without those lawsuits?
Fascism, because you can't have that nuclear without those lawsuits without denying access to the courts.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Thumbs up! The Old solid high-pressure water-cooled Nuclear Reactors are simply unsafe. They must be replaced with fail-safe low-pressure Thorium reactors. The liquid state of the reactants means the Thorium reactors can use chemistry to allows burning all of the reaction products and separate out the out put products that have a short half life and are completely safe in a yer or two. So there is nothing that needs to be stored forever in the ground.
Technically, ROMANS killed Christ. They crucified him and finished the job with a spear to the ribs.
Technically, the existence of Christ is still a fable, since the closest reports of his existence are literally thirdhand hearsay, and all the artifacts which were supposed to prove it which have been subjected to scientific inquiry have turned out to be fakes.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Seems you offer false choices and zero sum thinking.
Renewables aren't to be easy - that's for sure. A very good physicist collected, collated and crunched some numbers and made them available in book form and for free at:
Sustainable Energy – without the hot air
http://withouthotair.com/
Spectrum suggests that thermal solar plants are ideal backup for wind and PV solar:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/green-tech/solar/china-stumbles-on-path-to-solar-thermal-supremacy
You miss the main way to avoid hydrocarbon use is to avoid the energy use in the first place such as by using energy efficiency measures. Bye bye pickup truck and poorly insulated home.
I believe modern Siemens combined cycle plants can get going in an hour. There may be consequences for the plant lifecycle and it's probably not desirable to keep doing that. Combined with other peaking storage such as battery, pump storage the it may only be necessary to use gas for sustained shortages.
Current generation nuclear reactors require hundreds of tons of mildly enriched uranium. Even if we had a standard, reliable, easy to build reactor now we'd have difficulty building enough. I'm all for building what we can btw
I maintain that 'renewables' won't be enough. We need nuclear.
Show your math.
I've heard all the arguments and complaints and they don't move me.
And your FUD doesn't move me. Show your math.
We need nuclear, and that's that.
Show your math.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Did you know that in the dark ages, there were these things called manual transmissions, where a person controlled the transmission instead of a computer. In those dark days, you could "push start" a vehicle by, well, pushing it. No battery needed to start the car or keep it running. In fact, Sprint Car class racecars don't have a transmission or an electrical system, and get around the track quite adequately without it.
Here's what has been discovered everywhere a switch to wind and solar has been tried, they are nothing more than a proxy for natural gas. When anyone claims that they will switch from coal to wind and solar what they really mean is that they will switch to wind, solar, and natural gas.
Give it time. Battery prices keep going down. I think that flow batteries are particularly well-suited for grid storage, they just need to become price competitive with lithium ion batteries. But even lithium ion plus renewables are becoming competitive with natural gas.
A Massachusetts Institute of Technology spinoff
hopes to create battery storage technology capable of replacing fossil fuel-based power as the primary source of baseload electricity delivery across the grid. By doing this 50% of present-level carbon emissions generated by U.S. power generating utilities can disappear.
Ted Wiley, Harvard Business School, and a founding member of the company, Baseload Renewables, states, “You can currently put batteries next to solar and wind power and create an output for four hours, but we want to develop a battery to shape renewables into a 24-hour block.”
The initial goal has focused on decreasing the cost of energy storage by a factor of five. To do this the company is looking at sulfur which costs less than any other element when used to store electrons. Abundant and ten times more energy dense than lithium-ion, developing sulfur-based battery technology would be a global game changer.
What Baseload Renewables is out to invent is a flow battery using a polysulfide solution containing chains of sulfur atoms. In the MIT patent application that inspired the spinoff, the technology is described as an air-breathing aqueous sulfur rechargeable system.
When Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) built a 20 megawatt/80 megawatt-hour (MWh) energy storage system in Southern California early last year, it was a critical turning point for the industry. Not only was energy storage going to be the supplier power at peak times for the grid, replacing off-line natural gas facilities, but the project was deployed in a matter of months...
Energy storage is already starting to take some of the value formerly reserved for natural gas peaker plants, and GTM Research senior advisor Shayle Kann said recently that as energy storage systems become even more economical, he "can't see why we should build a gas peaker after 2025."
Portland General Electric (PGE) is planning to develop a first-of-its-kind renewable energy facility that would combine utility-scale wind, solar and energy storage. Once completed, PGE will be able to supply about 50% of its customers' electricity needs with emissions-free generation, the company said on Tuesday.
The project, known as Wheatridge Renewable Energy Facility, will combine 300 MW of wind generation, 50 MW of solar and 30 MW of battery storage. It will come online in stages beginning with wind generation in 2020.
No, you don't need gas plants that can come online in minutes but you do need base-load gas plants. Co-Gen plants that get that fabled 60% efficiency but require a longer start up are in fact feasible as base-load today because of Tesla's battery systems, like the one they've installed in Australia. The battery back-up doesn't provide base-load, it simply fills in the gap while the efficient Co-Gen plant spins up.
"show your math"
Why? Any 'math' either side of the issue presents is based on theories and statistics that may or may not represent the future.
The real problem is sociological more than it is anything else:
o Unless there is a mass die-back of our species, there will always be more humans, not fewer
o People are never going to use less energy, they're only ever going to use more energy
All the solar panels and wind generators you can build, sooner or later, won't cover it all.
Meanwhile you're covering up arable land with solar panels, instead of growing food for the ever-burgeoning ranks of humans.
Then there's the NIMBYs. Bad enough fighting them to build nuclear power plants for the comparatively small acreage they need, let alone the massive amount required for solar installations. They'll also find some complaint about the inevitable energy storage facilities needed to make 'renewables' practical.
Yell and scream and insult me all you want, this is my position on the subject, and I see no reason to change it.
The obvious problem with thermal solar is the same as with concentrating photovoltaics: it's useful in a vastly smaller subset of locations than PV solar.
Ezekiel 23:20
Why? Any 'math' either side of the issue presents is based on theories and statistics that may or may not represent the future.
True; actual development has show us that nuclear has a negative learning curve, renewables have positive learning curve, and the growth is constantly underestimated. So, yes, the future seems to be rather clear, save for some kind of unpredictable revolution that can't be counted on.
Ezekiel 23:20
Not sure what the confusion is. The Math involved states this can't be achieved.
I'll try to make this simple for the Sheeple:
It takes non-renewable energy to make renewable energy sources, and the inputs to create the product are more than the product will produce in a 10 year period. It also takes non-renewable energy to maintain renewable energy sources and to end-of-life those resources at some point in the future.
When The Adults consider ALL of the energy inputs to make wind and solar, it is not possible to switch over without a massive investment in burning oil.
There is also the issue of 'rare-earth minerals', which at the current time some are running low and all have a very high non-renewable energy input to extract.
Everyone who has even the remotest of clues knows it will be coal. #MAGA
So why wouldn't you keep the water warm for most of the day using a small gas flame, then crank the gas turbine up to eleven to both make up for the renewable loss and heat the water to the point where you have the combined cycle system running before the renewable drops completely off the grid?
Surely, the command and control of such a system can't be all that difficult.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Technically you are only ROMAN after serving 20 years in the legion. ;P
So the filthy dirty jewish legionair who killed Jesus with a spear: was not a ROMAN.
However you could argue that the court who convicted him was ROMAN.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The liquid state of the reactants means the Thorium reactors can use chemistry to allows burning all of the reaction products and separate out the out put products that have a short half life and are completely safe in a yer or two. ... a) a thorium reactor is usually not run on molten thorium ... and the rest just nonsense.
While the sentence is technically very long, it is not that long. Anyone can comprehend it.
However you made 4 scientific (or is it 5) mistakes on chemistry and physics
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Stop editing wikipedia articles to your liking.
A gas turbine has 40% efficiency up to 45%. Higher efficiencies are possible in obscure configurations but are not practical.
There is no grid in the world that uses a gas turbine with 30% efficiency. You basically would need to make it artificially inefficient.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Natural gas turbines have a max realistic efficiency of about 60%.
The gas turbine alone, no. You probably mean a "combined cycle gas plant" which is using the exhaust of gas turbines to power steam turbines.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Still, I managed to provoke embarrassed silence on the last conference by noting that the incomplete burning will emit methane
They were embarrassed for the guy that doesn't know about catalysts.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
o Unless there is a mass die-back of our species, there will always be more humans, not fewer
All we need to reduce population is education. When you educate people, you rapidly head towards zero or even negative pop growth.
o People are never going to use less energy, they're only ever going to use more energy
EVs, heat pumps, LEDs, and CFLs all put the lie to that statement.
Meanwhile you're covering up arable land with solar panels, instead of growing food for the ever-burgeoning ranks of humans.
Bullshit. We're putting wind generators in arable land, where it coexists with those activities. We're putting panels over homes, over parking lots, over businesses, and over desert.
Then there's the NIMBYs. Bad enough fighting them to build nuclear power plants for the comparatively small acreage they need, let alone the massive amount required for solar installations.
NIMBY reaction to nuclear and solar are not at all the same, nor even similar.
Yell and scream and insult me all you want, this is my position on the subject, and I see no reason to change it.
I just want you to support it. You have so far only tried to do that with bullshit. Bullshit doesn't stack that high.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"All we need to reduce population is education. When you educate people, you rapidly head towards zero or even negative pop growth."
Stopped reading right there. Your basic premise is so completely and utterly out of touch with reality and human nature that I almost can't believe someone would say that.
"All we need to reduce population is education. When you educate people, you rapidly head towards zero or even negative pop growth."
Stopped reading right there. Your basic premise is so completely and utterly out of touch with reality and human nature that I almost can't believe someone would say that.
Stopped because you have an aversion to facts, you mean. This is actually what happens. It's actually what's happening, in fact. All the best-educated nations are now concerned about population replacement.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Can you make your point any more difficult to understand? Hard to tell whether you're supporting what I'm saying or not.
What nobody seems to be willing to recognize is that the current designs of nuclear reactors are expensive to build operate and maintain, but that it doesn't have to be that way. There are simpler, safer designs I've heard and read about that would make it less expensive to build operate and maintain. There's also thorium which is safer than uranium. Then there's eventually fusion. Throwing nuclear power on the scrap-heap is just plain dumb.
In the US alone, if we magically made all cars electric by waving a wand, it would require *AT LEAST* a doubling of current total electrical production to meet the needs of all the new electric vehicles. No amount of solar farms, wind farms, hydroelectric dams, geothermal plants, etc. could possibly replace the existing electrical generation plants let alone more than double current production. This has always been the pie-in-the-sky thinking behind electric vehicles. The incomprehensibly massive amount of electrical power needed to replace carbon fueled vehicles can never be achieved without some hitherto unknown miraculous scientific breakthrough in electrical generation.
Not to mention where the raw materials necessary to makes these replacement vehicles. At present, it takes 1/2 ton of Li-ion battery to power your typical electric car (like a Tesla Model 3). In 2016, there were roughly 270 million vehicles operating in the US, that's 135 million tons of Li-ion batteries just to replace existing vehicles in the US. At the same time, over 6 million vehicles were sold in 2016. Even including used vehicles, your looking at around 3 million tons of Li-ion batteries *per year*.
In the long term, we also have to deal with the environmental crisis waiting down the pike -- disposal/recycling of these 1/2 ton Li-ion batteries when they wear out or the vehicles reach the end of their life cycles. And you had better believe that recycling is a must as there aren't enough raw materials to make these Li-ion batteries from existing resources.
And speaking of long-term problems; I've heard from most electric car enthusiasts that the 30 minute+ recharge time (at a supercharger station) just means you can have a meal while you wait for your car to charge up. Fine and dandy since currently there just aren't that many EVs on the roads, but what happens when most of the public is driving around in EVs? It will make the gas lines from the 70s oil embargo seem like the good old days.
And again - this is just the US; God forbid you start factoring in all the current ICEs around the world. You certainly aren't going to see an EV revolution in countries that don't have a reliable electric grid to being with. For the foreseeable future, carbon fueled vehicles are going to be a part of the picture. They certainly won't be 'obsolete' in 20 years - sheesh ;(.
The truth made you foe me? Run away, run away... and cry.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Dude. Have some respect for Hans Rosling. He only died a couple of years ago, and you're acting like you've never even seen his remarkable videos that explain that yes, education and specifically women's education is a driver for lower family unit size and increased longevity.
Here's a great introduction to the topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I'm always blown away by the story of Bangladesh he tells: from an average 7 babies per woman and lifespan of 50 years in 1972 to 2.2 babies per woman and lifespan of 70 years in 2017. That is one heckuva drop, powered by education. But Bangladesh is not alone -- this is a pattern across dozens of countries.
"They have a chance from building third and fourth generation nuclear"
This. It's the way forward. But the Nuclear Boogeyman seems so deeply embedded in peoples' subconscious that most can't seem to get around it. The newer designs are less complicated, less expensive, and safer. But getting people over that threshold where they're even willing to listen to you about it seems almost impossible.
Yeah, that's still not gonna work in the US. Notice how the generator station STILL relies on a large elevation change, even with everything subterranean to operate.
I think you're forgetting just how FLAT the Central US can be. And there's 750,000 or so square miles of flat.
Yes, like with nuclear, geothermal, etc, it can be a locational/situational thing.
I merely think that a hybrid nuclear+renewables solution is a more intelligent fit.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Pump up from underground water aquifers and then extract energy as it's allowed to drop back down into the aquifer?
Easy solution: You dig two holes, of differing depths. Also safer that way (no chance of a dam burst).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
What nonsense. Hopefully it should be obvious to anyone how switching to a form of electricity which is commonly smoothed and supplemented by X is very different from switching to X. Wind and solar are not natural gas any more than a modern F1 car is electric.
Also 30% is a hilarious underestimate of NG turbine efficiency. Modern passenger car ICEs are more efficient than that. Whose ass did you get these figures out of?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If only it were that simple.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
What nobody seems to be willing to recognize is that the current designs of nuclear reactors are expensive to build operate and maintain, but that it doesn't have to be that way. There are simpler, safer designs I've heard and read about that would make it less expensive to build operate and maintain
What you don't seem to be willing to recognize that this is EXACTLY the thing that led to the negative learning curve. ALL of the "let's make it cheaper!" efforts in the past have resulted in making it MORE expensive, including the most recent AP1000 or EPR efforts. I wish as much as anyone for it to be different this time, but the chances are rather slim.
Ezekiel 23:20
Yeah it's about that simple. Big holes, with construction equipment. Lined with concrete I guess. Plus a few pipes, turbine and pump in between.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
What EV on the market today can haul a boxload of plywood or 4x4s over a muddy road? Almost every trip into town will likely be carrying heavy supplies. Just where I am, doing home renos, we need heavy loads from town. I can't imagine running a farm.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Then we will just have to wait for these people to "age out" as Bill Nye put it euphemistically.
It wasn't that long ago when the "atomic age" was supposed to bring the end of poverty and open the door to exploring the solar system and beyond. Then we got a generation that grew up in the age of "The China Syndrome" and "The Day After". These people grew up fearing nuclear power, and they've been teaching the next generation to fear it. This is starting to fade. I saw it happen before my very eyes.
In a modern history class in college, I was taking summer classes as a "non-traditional student" (meaning I was older than the rest of the class, but younger than the professor) I had a professor instruct the class on how China is investing heavily in solar power. I raised my hand and pointed out that China is also leading in nuclear power investment. He pointed out that nuclear power is hazardous, it can blow up in our faces. I pointed out that new nuclear is not built like old nuclear. He mentioned Fukushima. I countered that Fukushima was built before Chernobyl. He was a bit at a loss for words and now the students started to raise their hands and ask about nuclear power. The professor felt a sudden need to move on to the next topic.
It's very easy to flip people on nuclear power if they hadn't spent decades steeped in a culture that feared nuclear power for decades. This one small history class in a Midwestern university now has a seed in their minds that maybe nuclear is not as dangerous as it used to be. This professor will soon find it difficult to continue the same lecture he's done for the last decade in modern history and have students take it in as gospel. There will be more "non-traditional students" to dispute his "facts". Some of them might in fact be on the GI Bill like me, and perhaps (unlike myself) a "bubble head" that worked on modern nuclear power in a Navy submarine.
Nuclear power is exceedingly safe, and the more people exposed to this will prove it to the rest. One such example is the veterans of the US Navy that served aboard nuclear powered vessels. Nothing is as convincing as first hand knowledge. We can't have a modern Navy without nuclear power. We won't keep our modern economy without nuclear power either. As the existing nuclear power plants reach their end of life we will be forced to build more. Once we start building more it will be difficult to stop it again.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Geographic distribution and high levels of predictability, combined with a distributed nature that means a single failure only takes out tens of megawatts instead of a gigawatt or two all make renewables more reliable, not less.
Geographic distribution works great for nations that span multiple time zones like Canada, USA, Russia, China, and India. What are island nations supposed to do? Shiver in the dark? Places like Japan and Hawaii cannot rely on wind and solar for their power. Nations with unfriendly neighbors will not be willing to hand over their economy to an adversary by sharing their electric grid with them. We see this in Europe with concern on the increasing reliance on foreign produced electricity and natural gas. South Korea would never consider a shared electric grid with North Korea and/or China. Do you think that Cuba would want to run an underwater power line to Florida? That would be political suicide for any socialist dictator. If their own people didn't string him up for selling out to the "capitalist pigs" then surely some American politician will use it as leverage against them.
I can agree that in a large nation, or group of friendly nations, could potentially build a "super grid" capable of supporting their economy on a mix of wind, hydro, and solar. Few such nations or federations exist in the real world. The rest of the world will have to find another solution. That solution must include nuclear power, and then also some wind, hydro, and natural gas. It's that or they shiver in the dark.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Thank You for the refreshingly rational input on the subject.
I'd like to point out that I'm a Reformed Anti-Nuke; back in the 80's I voted to shut down Rancho Seco. Obviously I've done an about-face on that.
I'm not a Republican/Conservative, and I'm not anti-renewables; but I honestly don't see it as a long-term all-in-one solution either.
Nuclear can be safe and can be clean, even the 'waste products'. Science and innovative engineering will lead the way.
Meanwhile we continue to work on practical fusion power, and who knows what else theoretical physicists will come up with? A hundred years from now, when we're all long dead, our descendents might be using something even more exotic than fusion for all we know.
that some people can have things spoon fed them and still deny anything they see
Anything they see, such as the annual PV installations exceeding 100 GW and STILL increasing exponentially? That alone defeats your cherry-picked list of small inconsequential companies, but as you say, even spoon-feeding you with information won't make you see the light.
They are after all rioting over the increased taxes to pay for all that green power
While we are here lets look at the cost of electricity in Europe
https://medium.com/solardao/el...
The fact that you can force people to use these at gun point doesn't make them a good idea. As my list demonstrated without subidies on top of supsidies they still wind up being little more than nothing but a good way to divert money to political allies. France is showing the world that you can only go so far with this.
I just read their paper, which is a response to another paper which clearly lays out how to move the USA to 100% renewables by 2050, notably 10 years later than Shell's date. The response paper mostly says, "Building it all will take lots of stuff, thus is impossible! Let's build Thorium!" which is, well, pretty stupid. We ALREADY move lots of stuff, called coal, oil, and gas, out of the ground and pay trillions for it. We ALREADY spent trillions building coal and nuclear power plants and putting them all over the place with the required infrastructure. Our previous efforts over the last 100 years easily dwarf what is necessary to move to renewable energy. Yeah, sure you have to replace solar panels every 20-40 years, but we already dig out, transport and burn tons of coal EVERY SINGLE DAY. Yes, sure, moving to renewables is a massive project. But creating our current infrastructure was a larger project, and keeping our current system going is also a large project.
One takeaway from their paper that is actually against their arguments is a concept they call an ESB, or one Empire State Building of water, which is how much water one needs to move to create 250MWhrs of power. If they are correct, than this is pretty awesome. You make a water column and pump or drop that much water to make 250MWhrs. So easy, so much power. It takes 5-10 years to make a building like that, but a water column is just a simple hole. We could easily make many of those per year. 250MWhrs is a lot of power. That's 50 of those absolutely massive 5MW turbines. Plus, unlike batteries, a water column like that lasts a LONG time. Think Hoover Damn long time. Plus, it uses whatever water you put in. It doesn't have to deal with fish or debris from trees or whatever. We can put them deep underground, so even if there is a war, these things keep working. Pretty awesome
And your point with that is...what, that Germany developed identically to the rest of Europe in the time period in question
No my point is that you are a liar who is more than capable of blathering on no matter what is put before you
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
Gee amazing how the more " RENEWABLES " a country has the more expensive its power has become.
And yes when I think of France a country that had the lowest energy prices in Europe abundant natural resources and renewables come to mind /sarcasm.
BTW your religious bias is showing.
And yes when I think of France a country that had the lowest energy prices in Europe
Only an ignorant who doesn't live here could say bullshit like that. "Lowest energy prices in Europe", my ass!
And yes when I think of France a country that had the lowest energy prices in Europe
Gee Amazing how you keep proving my points for me, I call you illiterate you demonstrate you can't differentiate between present and past tense
I say renewables are a cult that can't accept anything that contradicts their position, you try to brush off that price of power in europe is directly correlated to use of renewables (Particularly solar and wind).
Well I am done. It's pretty clear my points have been proven especially since you could present a chart that clearly shows just which nations have high costs and think it proves your point about the inevitability of solar. (Hint Norway is really poor for solar it's especially bad when your night's can last for days.)
Why don't you check out of your basement for a while, and maybe not get all your views from your social media bubble, with like minded idiots to cheer you and feed your BS thoughts.
I know you are a troll, and a worst kind of. You know, I was on internet when you weren't even born, *maybe* just a twinkle in your dads... scrotum. And your trolling isn't something you kids came up with it. When kids do stuff that was hot like 20 years ago, don't others still call them names for it? They sure did back in my days in school, but internet and trolling weren't old back then. We were the technological generation, you millenials even lack the basic understanding on how programs and your computer devices work. You are late followers with nothing new, congraz :D
Oh, and real christianity was a sect of judaism, they were all jews and I don't recall Jesus ever mentioning that his followers should drop the term "Jewish" and use "Christian" instead. It's a Jewish religion, which by politicians of ancient Rome decided to *twist* it into method of controlling people (and making money off them, and especially infidel ships, countries, etc.) - that started "modern christianity", which had right from the beginning stuff that didn't belong to Jesus teachings, nor his disciples. Much not even in bible, like what all these all levels of priests, popes, cardinals, clergyman... Did bible tell about them? Didn't it kinda said that something like this would not be very nice thing to do? And how much is left christianity in modern day church? But if you wan't to be pure, pretend that you can leave what Rome and Vatican have done behind, believe in traditional original christianity (sometimes also called pre-christian, because it hadn't been utilized for profit yet, I guess :D), but what is real christianity a huge number of times closer than modern BS christianity? Well, Judaism... Your christian God is also God of Jews, and apparently a father of a Jewish religious figure.
LOL
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Did I mention I was gay too?
That's brilliant, not even a reply after that one :D But you know his just a trollboi, maybe (likely) highly against Jews, but how much do you think you can argue with someone with those views (and intelligence in expressing them) and not get frustrated when you have, but he doesn't have even what could be called arguments, yet he struts away after every post like he had just won the turnament?
My suggestion (unless you want to provide more entertainment ;P ) is that you stop feeding this troll (and flag all his racist posts you get from him), because trolls don't thrive on arguments, they thrive on being noticed and they are hooked on it like a toddler to crack.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
As WindBourne foolishly claims here new ICE cars will probably stop selling in about 2 more years.
He probably thinks in 20 years we will all have battery powered jet-packs...