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

[ron johnson]

It looks like people are finally waking up to the fact that renewables are doomed. Nukes are the only option for those that want zero carbon emissions. Short twitter thread on the state of renewables: https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/...45073667969025

New Michael Moore backed documentary coming out on renewables: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...he-humans.html

[SB]

Pretty nice weather last couple days.

[KQ]

Pretty nice weather last couple days.

Rained like Seattle here today - it was glorious! Sometimes I really miss the rain.

[WMD]

It looks like people are finally waking up to the fact that renewables are doomed. Nukes are the only option for those that want zero carbon emissions. Short twitter thread on the state of renewables: https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/...45073667969025

New Michael Moore backed documentary coming out on renewables: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...he-humans.html

We aren't taking the bait to start fighting about solutions, thus allowing doubt to grow so we don't agree to get off fossil fuels.

The answer is to get off fossil fuels. Period.

[iceman]

It looks like people are finally waking up to the fact that renewables are doomed. Nukes are the only option for those that want zero carbon emissions. Short twitter thread on the state of renewables: https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/...45073667969025

New Michael Moore backed documentary coming out on renewables: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...he-humans.html

The tech's not completely sorted yet so it NEVER will be!!1!11

what bullshit

[ron johnson]

The tech's not completely sorted yet so it NEVER will be!!1!11

what bullshit

The biggest problem with renewables isn't a technological problem. It's a natural problem. In order to produce significant amounts of electricity from weak energy flows (solar, wind), you have to spread them over enormous areas, thus resulting in huge economic and environmental costs.

[ron johnson]

We aren't taking the bait to start fighting about solutions, thus allowing doubt to grow so we don't agree to get off fossil fuels.

The answer is to get off fossil fuels. Period.

So are you in favor of nuclear?

Or would you rather waste trillions of dollars on an ideological non solution?

Or how about go back to pre modern living?

[iceman]

The biggest problem with renewables isn't a technological problem. It's a natural problem. In order to produce significant amounts of electricity from weak energy flows (solar, wind), you have to spread them over enormous areas, thus resulting in huge economic and environmental costs.

JFC the area needed isn't even big, never mind "enormous". Learn something: https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-mu...power-the-u-s/ There are already significantly more efficient panels readily available than there were when those estimates were made, so the area currently (ha) required is significantly smaller than the article says. And much more efficient panels are in the pipeline and not far off.

The problems are transmission and storage. These problems are being worked on by very smart people. Progress will inevitably be made.

Build me a nuke that can supply power for these costs: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/los...ts-kwh/558018/

Hint: You can't come anywhere near close.

[Svengali]

Is Ron just a denier here for gear swap?

[iceman]

All I know is he's a moran.

[WMD]

"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/

[reckless toboggan]

"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/

Whoop, whoop!

[old goat]

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.

[SB]

Rained like Seattle here today - it was glorious! Sometimes I really miss the rain.

I love a good rain storm, especially this time of year when it is dry.

Just not too much rain.

[mcphee]

So are you in favor of nuclear?

Or would you rather waste trillions of dollars on an ideological non solution?

Or how about go back to pre modern living?

What's the dumbfuck senator from Wisconsin doing here?

[ron johnson]

JFC the area needed isn't even big, never mind "enormous". Learn something: https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-mu...power-the-u-s/ There are already significantly more efficient panels readily available than there were when those estimates were made, so the area currently (ha) required is significantly smaller than the article says. And much more efficient panels are in the pipeline and not far off.

The problems are transmission and storage. These problems are being worked on by very smart people. Progress will inevitably be made.

Build me a nuke that can supply power for these costs: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/los...ts-kwh/558018/

Hint: You can't come anywhere near close.

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.

[iceman]

Nope.

[ron johnson]

"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.

[ron johnson]

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.

[Bunion 2020]

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.

[old goat]

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.

[SumJongGuy]

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

[ron johnson]

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?

[neufox47]

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.

[Bunion 2020]

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.