Page 22 of 62 FirstFirst ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ... LastLast
Results 526 to 550 of 1528
  1. #526
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    "One of the biggest challenges facing energy systems based entirely on clean, zero-emission wind, water and solar power is to match supply and demand with near-perfect reliability at reasonable cost. Our work shows that this can be accomplished, in almost all countries of the world, with established technologies.” Jacobson was even more upbeat: “Based on these results, I can more confidently state that there is no technical or economic barrier to transitioning the entire world to 100% clean renewable energy with a stable electric grid at low cost.”

    https://news.stanford.edu/2018/02/08...ewable-energy/
    This is hilarious. This is from the same guy who's previous paper on the same thesis was widely critiqued, after which he decided to sue the authors of the critique for $10 million rather than engage in the scientific process.

    Just looking through the summary you linked a couple of quotes stood out that make you question the study's methodology:

    "For the study, the researchers relied on two computational modeling programs. The first program predicted global weather patterns from 2050 to 2054. From this, they further predicted the amount of energy that could be produced from weather-related energy sources like onshore and offshore wind turbines, solar photovoltaics on rooftops and in power plants, concentrated solar power plants and solar thermal plants over time."

    -This is total guesswork, and I wouldn't put much faith on models predicting 30 years out based on past performance.

    "Overall, the researchers found that the cost per unit of energy – including the cost in terms of health, climate and energy – in every scenario was about one quarter what it would be if the world continues on its current energy path. This is largely due to eliminating the health and climate costs of fossil fuels. Also, by reducing water vapor, the wind turbines included in the roadmaps would offset about 3 percent of global warming to date."

    -I'm betting they are using many worst case scenarios to attribute costs on health and climate. On energy costs I'm betting they aren't properly accounting for the disposal, replacement, and environmental costs associated with wind, solar, and batteries since none of these proposals ever do.

    Here is a deeper look into Jacobson's proposal: http://euanmearns.com/the-cost-of-10...al-2018-study/

    So when he says he "can confidently state that there is no economic barrier to transitioning the entire world to 100% clean renewable energy..." what he means is $100+ trillion is no big deal. And then don't forget that much of this infrastructure has a shelf life and needs to be replaced every 20-30 years.

  2. #527
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    In the first place I don't believe anything about global warming from someone who says renewables when what they mean non-carbon. Nuclear is non carbon, but not renewable. Ethanol is renewable but not non carbon. If you can't get that right I can't take you seriously.

    In the second place, the technology exists today for a zero carbon economy. The technology also exists for us all to have flying cars (but not autonomous flying cars) but we don't have them. The issues are cost, politics, and the willingness of all of us to drastically change our lives and to have far more government control of our lives than we have now.
    Nitpick much? Everyone associates renewables with solar and wind, and to a lesser extent hydro, geothermal, and ethanol.

  3. #528
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    11,811
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Nitpick much? Everyone associates renewables with solar and wind, and to a lesser extent hydro, geothermal, and ethanol.
    I guess I am not everyone.

    To me Solar and Wind are carbon reduced forms, hydro is Kinetic, Geo-thermal is passive and ethanol is a scam.

    But that is just me.

  4. #529
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,751
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Nitpick much? Everyone associates renewables with solar and wind, and to a lesser extent hydro, geothermal, and ethanol.
    That's why I don't take seriously the opinions of everyone, just the opinions of scientists who understand the importance of precision in scientific discussion. It's not the word that matters, it's what the word tells me about the qualifications of the user.

  5. #530
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,024
    Quote Originally Posted by Not bunion View Post
    I guess I am not everyone.

    To me Solar and Wind are carbon reduced forms, hydro is Kinetic, Geo-thermal is passive and ethanol is a scam...

    But that is just me.
    =free stuff farm subsidies for the politically connected
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  6. #531
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    That's why I don't take seriously the opinions of everyone, just the opinions of scientists who understand the importance of precision in scientific discussion. It's not the word that matters, it's what the word tells me about the qualifications of the user.
    Do you take seriously the research paper WMD linked? Notice he generalizes solar and wind as renewables?

  7. #532
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    7,938

    Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    You don't have to look far to find problems with that analysis (just check the comments). You are looking at closer to a land equivalent closer to the size of California. I would call that enormous.

    The storage and transmission problems are so immense that you cannot count on progress to solve them. They may be unsolvable. You cannot just go ahead haphazardly spending on solar and wind with the hopes that the constraints will be solved in time. Just take a look at Germany, flat carbon emissions since 2009 despite $600 billion spent on renewables, and a 50% rise in electricity prices.

    Many solar costs are ignored - subsidies, the need to replace every 20-30 years, disposal costs, etc. The environmental costs are rarely considered. These solar plants are located in deserts and need water for cooling. Chemical use (dust suppressants, dialectic fluids, herbicides) can end up contaminating groundwater. The mining operations needed to produce the panels and batteries are massive, and there might not even be enough rare earth minerals available to make everything required.

    So after we spend all this money on a system that is currently unfeasible and unpalatable to the people and politicians, we have to count on the rest of the world to do the same. It's insane.
    You have no idea what you are talking about other than you spread bullshit you read off some science denier page. I don’t see many sources for your bullshit either, just your opinions and naysaying against actual scientists and industry experts.

    The cheapest electricity being produced today is from solar. Take out the subsidies and they are still the cheapest production around. Solar has and continues to get cheaper and will for many years. Fossil fuel sources are not getting cheaper.

    And the big issue is available real estate? Surely you can’t be that stupid. The roof space alone in most countries is enough area to accommodate most if not all energy needs. That is space that is being used for almost nothing. Further your assertion that these systems need to be replaced every 20-30 years is bullshit. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile..../amp/7475.html. Current degradation rates are .4% annually, while that won’t go to infinity it will go well beyond the 20 year warranties and 30 year useful life estimates.

    Lastly, you make the argument that disposal and environmental costs aren’t included in renewables? Like they are for fossil fuels? JFC. When the lifetime environmental costs of fossil fuel systems is compared to renewables, renewables win in the vast vast majority of cases.

  8. #533
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    11,811
    You have no idea what you are talking about other than you spread bullshit you read off some science denier page. I don’t see many sources for your bullshit either, just your opinions and naysaying against actual scientists and industry experts.

    Pretty much. Ron, what the fuck? Are you so fucking chicken with your bullshit trolling that you are afraid to reveal who you are? Cause you obviously know your way around the forum.

    13 posts, 4 in New Roolz to fulfill the requirements to post and the rest all in this thread.

    Ron, you ever ski with anyone here? Asking for a friend.

    Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

  9. #534
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    46,770
    A friend wants to ski with him?

  10. #535
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,024
    Yep GGSTix KOOK friend is back!
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  11. #536
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,130

    Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

    Ron uses the denier websites for his info. He has no data or references to back up his claims, so he just spews more garbage to hide that. He uses standard denier tactics from the tobacco industry - do just enough to create doubt. If you create doubt in whether something is true (such as does smoking cause cancer or can wind, water, solar power the world) people will not act and change can't happen.

    He is correct that Jacobson's first paper on getting the world to 100% wind, water, solar received a lot of criticism from utilities and energy companies. Surprised? So Jacobson and his team went back and showed there are multiple solutions, not just the one in the first paper. Now the industry critics just want to say his results have been questioned even though the questioning came from them. Their goal is to create doubt because his research shows we don't need their dirty fuels anymore.

    Last August, Mark Jacobson, a renewable energy expert and senior fellow at the Precourt Institute for Energy at Stanford University, was the leader of a study that identified how 139 countries around the world could obtain 100% of their energy from renewable sources by 2050. But that study got some pushback from people who questioned its assumptions. The naysayers said the study relied too heavily on energy storage solutions such as adding turbines to existing hydroelectric dams or storing excess energy in water, ice, and underground rocks.

    A Response To Critics

    Those criticisms stimulated another piece of work from Jacobson and his colleagues at the University of California at Berkeley and Aalborg University in Denmark. They are now back with a new report they believe thoroughly addresses the concerns brought up by skeptics of the first report. It begins by breaking those 139 counties into 20 regions and proposing energy storage solutions uniquely suited to each region.

    Here’s how Jacobson summarized the work and the findings in an email to CleanTechnica:

    The previous paper (in Joule) estimated the number of devices in each of 139 countries needed to provide power for each country in the annual average with 100% wind, water, and solar (WWS).

    This new paper takes the next step, which is to divide the 139 countries into 20 world regions, then to see if the grid can stay stable in each region every 30 seconds for 5 years, and what is the resulting cost.

    Utilities and policy makers alike are concerned that all the wind and solar we propose for the annual average numbers in the first paper won’t allow the grid to stay stable — that the lights will go out. This is the biggest barrier for the large-scale implementation of renewables.

    This paper new shows that there is not only one solution but multiple solutions to the grid reliability problem — thus large penetrations of renewables can indeed keep the grid stable at low cost.

    In addition, we find that the wind turbines needed would reduce global warming by ~3% and quickly. That is a new conclusion as well.
    https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/08...ewable-energy/

  12. #537
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    46,770
    Don Johnson's dumber kid brother strikes again.

  13. #538
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    11,811
    What is fucked up is I have an acquaintance with that name. Glaciologist, avalanche forecaster, SAR etc etc as well as a damn good guy.

    Fuck you Ron.

  14. #539
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,130
    This is definitely not that Ron Johnson. He is a good, honest guy with integrity, unlike this jong.

  15. #540
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    in a box on the porch
    Posts
    4,193
    The irony will be, just as 100% renewable energy is achieved, Yellowstone will blow. The survivors will be burning coal in a cave somewhere.

  16. #541
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    7,938
    Quote Originally Posted by skiballs View Post
    The irony will be, just as 100% renewable energy is achieved, Yellowstone will blow. The survivors will be burning coal in a cave somewhere.
    Thats definitely how we should live. No chance we just end up in a cesspool of our own making.

  17. #542
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    in a box on the porch
    Posts
    4,193
    It's going to happen, one way or another.

  18. #543
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    You have no idea what you are talking about other than you spread bullshit you read off some science denier page. I don’t see many sources for your bullshit either, just your opinions and naysaying against actual scientists and industry experts.

    The cheapest electricity being produced today is from solar. Take out the subsidies and they are still the cheapest production around. Solar has and continues to get cheaper and will for many years. Fossil fuel sources are not getting cheaper.

    And the big issue is available real estate? Surely you can’t be that stupid. The roof space alone in most countries is enough area to accommodate most if not all energy needs. That is space that is being used for almost nothing. Further your assertion that these systems need to be replaced every 20-30 years is bullshit. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile..../amp/7475.html. Current degradation rates are .4% annually, while that won’t go to infinity it will go well beyond the 20 year warranties and 30 year useful life estimates.

    Lastly, you make the argument that disposal and environmental costs aren’t included in renewables? Like they are for fossil fuels? JFC. When the lifetime environmental costs of fossil fuel systems is compared to renewables, renewables win in the vast vast majority of cases.
    You only have to look one page back to see that you don't know what you are talking about. neufox47: "Video is obviously from a moron and not a scientist. Yes most ice loss is from calving not “melt” so therefore melt doesn’t exceed new snowfall."



    Do you realize that there is a big difference in the cost between solar farms and solar on roofs? The levelized cost of energy for residential solar roof is 4-7x higher than that of utility scale. So that means you are back to the land use problem. And not all land is created equal when it comes to solar.

    We don't know if the current degradation claims of .4% annually will hold up, since it will take 30 years to find out. A .8% degradation rate will mean that in 25 years the panel will be operating at 82.5% of year 1. To replace that 18% you either need more land, or need to replace.

    All of this is ignoring the real costs of storage and transmission.

    On batteries:
    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611683/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/

    On solar waste:
    https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/a...r-waste-crisis
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael.../#69749673121c

    If solar and wind are so cheap why are they making electricity so expensive?
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael.../#4b34217e1dc6






  19. #544
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by Not bunion View Post
    Pretty much. Ron, what the fuck? Are you so fucking chicken with your bullshit trolling that you are afraid to reveal who you are? Cause you obviously know your way around the forum.

    13 posts, 4 in New Roolz to fulfill the requirements to post and the rest all in this thread.

    Ron, you ever ski with anyone here? Asking for a friend.

    Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
    Long time lurker, finally caved and made an account after the building annoyance I get everytime I read nonsense gets posted in this thread.

    Ron Johnson is a character from Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

    You guys sure are friendly.

  20. #545
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Moose, Iowa
    Posts
    5,818
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Long time lurker, finally caved and made an account after the building annoyance I get everytime I read nonsense gets posted in this thread.

    Ron Johnson is a character from Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

    You guys sure are friendly.
    Electricity costs in states that have lots.of wind...like Iowa...are going up slower than the national average. Fact.

    And fuck off with your bullshit links from deniers and Koch Bros boot licking shills.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

  21. #546
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    11,811
    Long time lurker, finally caved and made an account after the building annoyance I get everytime I read nonsense gets posted in this thread.
    Bull fucking shit.Click image for larger version. 

Name:	bullshit.png 
Views:	39 
Size:	94.6 KB 
ID:	291135

  22. #547
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    298
    It doesn't let you post until you have made 5 posts in that thread.

  23. #548
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    11,811
    No shit sherlock.

    Life is far too short, later tater.

  24. #549
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by uglymoney View Post
    Electricity costs in states that have lots.of wind...like Iowa...are going up slower than the national average. Fact.

    And fuck off with your bullshit links from deniers and Koch Bros boot licking shills.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    Common alarmist tactic. Stick your fingers in your ears if you ever hear a POV you don't like and try to discredit the source rather than the information. But I'm curious, which links are from deniers and Koch Bro's shills?

  25. #550
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,751
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Do you take seriously the research paper WMD linked? Notice he generalizes solar and wind as renewables?
    In the first place he didn't link an article, he linked a summary of the article published in Stanford's PR publication. In the second place, the author of the PR piece refers to clean renewable energy--which is a fair description of non-carbon, non nuclear energy. (Ethanol is renewable but not clean (assuming by clean we mean not CO2 producing); nuclear is not renewable. So yeah--the article meets my criterion for proper use of the scientific vocabular, not that anyone besides you and me cares.

    As for the article itself, it reinforces what I believe, that the problem is not technological but sociopolitiical and economic. The key sentence is in the last section-- "Jacobson and his colleagues said that a remaining challenge of implementing their roadmaps is that they require coordination across political boundaries." We can't even cooperate within our political boundary.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •