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

[iceman]

A friend wants to ski with him?

[SumJongGuy]

Yep GGSTix KOOK friend is back!

[WMD]

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/

[iceman]

Don Johnson's dumber kid brother strikes again.

[Bunion 2020]

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.

[WMD]

This is definitely not that Ron Johnson. He is a good, honest guy with integrity, unlike this jong.

[skiballs]

The irony will be, just as 100% renewable energy is achieved, Yellowstone will blow. The survivors will be burning coal in a cave somewhere.

[neufox47]

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.

[skiballs]

It's going to happen, one way or another.

[ron johnson]

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

[ron johnson]

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.

[uglymoney]

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

[Bunion 2020]

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.

[ron johnson]

It doesn't let you post until you have made 5 posts in that thread.

[Bunion 2020]

No shit sherlock.

Life is far too short, later tater.

[ron johnson]

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?

[old goat]

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.

[WMD]

Renewable Energy Costs Take Another Tumble, Making Fossil Fuels Look More Expensive Than Ever

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominic.../#5f882b6ee8ce

The cost of renewable energy has tumbled even further over the past year, to the point where almost every source of green energy can now compete on cost with oil, coal and gas-fired power plants, according to new data released today.

Hydroelectric power is the cheapest source of renewable energy, at an average of $0.05 per kilowatt hour (kWh), but the average cost of developing new power plants based on onshore wind, solar photovoltaic (PV), biomass or geothermal energy is now usually below $0.10/kWh. Not far behind that is offshore wind, which costs close to $0.13/kWh. . .

These figures are contained in the latest Renewable Power Generation Costs report, released today by the Abu Dhabi-based International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), an inter-governmental body with around 160 members.

The most attractive renewable energy sources, from a cost perspective, are onshore wind and solar PV. IRENA says onshore wind costs of $0.03-0.04/kWh are now possible in places with good natural resources and the right regulatory and institutional frameworks.

It also points out that new solar PV projects in countries such as Chile, Mexico, Peru, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have seen a levelized cost of electricity of as low as $0.03/kWh – helped by the fact that governments have been holding competitive bidding processes when launching contracts to develop new power plants.

[WMD]

If wind and solar are so expensive, how did LA manage to sign a contract for PV + battery for less than the cost of natural gas?

Besides contributing to global warming, gas-fired power generation is just too expensive. In the industry, it’s well-known that solar energy is about half the cost of gas generation, and that solar plus storage is more reliable and still cheaper than a new gas-fired plant. But that fact seems like it’s almost a secret in the energy and climate debate in Washington, D.C.
...

We can build dispatchable large-scale solar plus storage power plants for less than 5 cents per kilowatt-hour. And gas peakers are just the first of the gas power plants to be economically obsolete. In sunnier parts of the country, solar plus storage can beat the costs of combined-cycle gas plants.

http://labusinessjournal.com/news/20...-clean-energy/

New Solar + Battery Price Crushes Fossil Fuels, Buries Nuclear

Los Angeles Power and Water officials have struck a deal on the largest and cheapest solar + battery-storage project in the world, at prices that leave fossil fuels in the dust and may relegate nuclear power to the dustbin.

Later this month the LA Board of Water and Power Commissioners is expected to approve a 25-year contract that will serve 7 percent of the city’s electricity demand at 1.997¢/kwh for solar energy and 1.3¢ for power from batteries.

“This is the lowest solar-photovoltaic price in the United States,” said James Barner, the agency’s manager for strategic initiatives, “and it is the largest and lowest-cost solar and high-capacity battery-storage project in the U.S. and we believe in the world today. So this is, I believe, truly revolutionary in the industry.”

The solar price is half the estimated cost of power from a new natural gas plant.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcm.../#49f390a95971

[neufox47]

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

Man are you dumb. D.. U.. M.. B..

The map he is using is called surface mass balance. Study your hooked on phonics, maybe follow along with a pencil pointing at words and go slowly. Maybe you can comprehend the below sentence which is literally the first thing on the surface mass balance site.

http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
The map illustrates how the surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet gains and loses mass on a daily basis. This is known as the surface mass balance. It does not include the mass that is lost when glaciers calve off icebergs and melt as they come into contact with warm seawater.

[JongDoe]

Originally Posted by old goat View Post

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.


Bingo. This is exactly why we will never move away from carbon sources, regardless if you believe global warming is a problem or not.

[Bunion 2020]

This is exactly why we will never move away from carbon sources, regardless if you believe global warming is a problem or not.

Never?

Never is an extremely long time. Maybe not in my life and I don't know your age but it will happen.

[SKIP IN7RO]

Never?

Never is an extremely long time. Maybe not in my life and I don't know your age but it will happen.

I for sure lean to the never in my lifetime, and maybe not even in my toddler nephew's life.

For example, durango-residents-call-for-100%-renewable-energy-by-2050

[Dozens of area residents are asking the Durango City Council to set a goal of powering the city with 100% renewable energy by 2050, even if there isn’t a clear path to achieve the objective.]

[JongDoe]

Never?

Never is an extremely long time. Maybe not in my life and I don't know your age but it will happen.

It's kinda like if a tree falls in the forest. If it's not in my lifetime it didn't happen and doesn't matter. but yeah it will be several generations at least IMO.

[Bunion 2020]

I for sure lean to the never in my lifetime, and maybe not even in my toddler nephew's life.

For example, durango-residents-call-for-100%-renewable-energy-by-2050

[Dozens of area residents are asking the Durango City Council to set a goal of powering the city with 100% renewable energy by 2050, even if there isn’t a clear path to achieve the objective.]

The optimist in me disagrees. Think of how far some technologies have advanced in your lifetime if there is a market.

Suddenly the idea of putting a cost on carbon or pollutants makes a lot more sense if you have to pay for the impact of your actions. And just as suddenly that Free Market that so many love to sing about has reason to advance what are currently unpalatable (expensive) alternatives.