America Could Go Fully Electric Right Now

[Meredith Poor + 883]

12 hours ago, SUZNV said:

Besides the efficiency, most of renewable energy simply trade CO2 waste into solid waste: old solar panels, old wind blades, batteries and it is not efficiency in recycling this.

Solar energy is only efficiency in waste land. Elsewhere it is useless in the north in the winter time and it compete with trees/agriculture  for sunlight. The progressive of renewable energy is similar to the progressive to socialism (both use far time frame  that they have gone long by then and will not be hold accountable). 

Three 'waste land' sites that would be great for solar:

https://goo.gl/maps/WY56JqSGfWwcw4A2A (Coal mine in the Powder River Basin)

https://goo.gl/maps/LQAbv53e9au8FSRZ6 (detail in the Permian Basin) Permian Basin is so large that all the solar the US needs would only cover some of it.

https://goo.gl/maps/g7TJNw6t4SaVv5dN6 (Nevada nuclear weapons test site)

We have all kinds of 'waste land'. How it got that way is up to the observer to judge.

[SUZNV + 1,197]

11 hours ago, NickW said:

What % of roof spaces provide agricultural land or forestry?

Solar panels on land can be grazed around so the loss is not as great as often suggested. 

 

1 hour ago, Meredith Poor said:

Three 'waste land' sites that would be great for solar:

https://goo.gl/maps/WY56JqSGfWwcw4A2A (Coal mine in the Powder River Basin)

https://goo.gl/maps/LQAbv53e9au8FSRZ6 (detail in the Permian Basin) Permian Basin is so large that all the solar the US needs would only cover some of it.

https://goo.gl/maps/g7TJNw6t4SaVv5dN6 (Nevada nuclear weapons test site)

We have all kinds of 'waste land'. How it got that way is up to the observer to judge.

 

8 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Some of the 'waste' land covered by solar panels:

https://goo.gl/maps/LLqmPr4HCaEqyA9p8

https://goo.gl/maps/Snawk9QBGijr8x628

https://goo.gl/maps/rGAs9eWokRy3zHVR8

https://goo.gl/maps/kRqhwNo8bXaK4jDZ6

Two in Florida and two in Texas. Note surrounding residential development, agricultural fields, or wildlife preserves.

I know places using solar, I know about the gazed around system.

Let me clarify:

1 Once you put the solar panels there, the land cannot do anything else or can be improved for any other reason, and we did turn many wasteland in useful area for trees/plants/wife life which absorb CO2 with sunlight, especially with many new technologies turning wasteland into livable. Any waste land is a resource potentially. 

2 Solar panels and battery technologies evolving fast.A solar panel thought its life would be 15 years may be replace. of space for a much more efficient panel. The same for battery. This leads to waste accumulate much faster. Someday even lithium batteries will not be useful anymore to make profit from recycling.

3 Even without the use of batteries, then the waste in transmissions. Not everywhere in the world can have useful sunlight in winter, especially if it is cover by snow. Not everywhere have lots of sunlight and wasteland like the US and Australia.

Anybody discuss about the efficiency cost when these reach diminishing return yet? Yes currently  currently the cost it is negligible simply because we are using fossil fuel and don't have that much solar panels or batteries to worry about. How much rubbish each year we could not recycle so far that polluting our world? Currently only plants (land or sea) can reduce CO2 and make more Oxygen in very large scale. Less CO2 omission but less plants and the 0.04% of CO2  in the atmosphere will still be unchanged, the problem with CO2 will be still there. Yet the effort to have more plants/save more forest is not in par with the hype of solar energy, maybe because these arguments benefit no body (both fossil fuel and solar). The easiest waste for recycling is CO2, common sense, with many positive side effects.

I am not against funding for researching solar energy or batteries technologies. Because it can help us explore the space and who know, open a new world. Many innovations we currently used came from space and airplane industries. 

But people has been marketing solar as a silver bullet, a new industry and ignore many potential problems because it is negligible right now is kind of short sight. Fossil fuel currently is a known devil because we used it a lots. We can counter with more plants (a nature sustainable system, growth by themselves, something mother Earth got used to), or put more money on cleaning the pollution or create a growing devil.

I am not in fossil fuel industry. But if someone argues that fossil fuel destroy the world for money, I can say the same thing in the sustainable energy hype.  Both sides are for money. One plainly say that and the other try to put up a lofty cause.

Guess what, nearly half renewable energy in Europe and UK came from burning woods, a loop hole in sustainable energy law. Because when you burn chopped down wood, you assume the carbon not-yet chopped down wood absorbed CO2, kind of similarly to Ponzi scheme:

https://reports.climatecentral.org/pulp-fiction/1/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/epa-declares-burning-wood-carbon-neutral-180968880/

And don't forget about biodiesel is another truly renewable and clean energy, environment friendly, from land water and sun. And it absorbs CO2 to grow as well.

Edited August 17, 2020 by SUZNV

[Wombat + 1,028]

19 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

I'm not sure what Gen IV technology means. Is this related to nuclear, coal, or 'all of the above'? Whatever it is, it has to compete with solar at 70 cents per watt now and lower in future projects.

[NickW + 2,714]

5 hours ago, SUZNV said:

 

 

I know places using solar, I know about the gazed around system.

Let me clarify:

1 Once you put the solar panels there, the land cannot do anything else or can be improved for any other reason, and we did turn many wasteland in useful area for trees/plants/wife life which absorb CO2 with sunlight, especially with many new technologies turning wasteland into livable. Any waste land is a resource potentially. 

2 Solar panels and battery technologies evolving fast.A solar panel thought its life would be 15 years may be replace. of space for a much more efficient panel. The same for battery. This leads to waste accumulate much faster. Someday even lithium batteries will not be useful anymore to make profit from recycling.

3 Even without the use of batteries, then the waste in transmissions. Not everywhere in the world can have useful sunlight in winter, especially if it is cover by snow. Not everywhere have lots of sunlight and wasteland like the US and Australia.

Anybody discuss about the efficiency cost when these reach diminishing return yet? Yes currently  currently the cost it is negligible simply because we are using fossil fuel and don't have that much solar panels or batteries to worry about. How much rubbish each year we could not recycle so far that polluting our world? Currently only plants (land or sea) can reduce CO2 and make more Oxygen in very large scale. Less CO2 omission but less plants and the 0.04% of CO2  in the atmosphere will still be unchanged, the problem with CO2 will be still there. Yet the effort to have more plants/save more forest is not in par with the hype of solar energy, maybe because these arguments benefit no body (both fossil fuel and solar). The easiest waste for recycling is CO2, common sense, with many positive side effects.

I am not against funding for researching solar energy or batteries technologies. Because it can help us explore the space and who know, open a new world. Many innovations we currently used came from space and airplane industries. 

But people has been marketing solar as a silver bullet, a new industry and ignore many potential problems because it is negligible right now is kind of short sight. Fossil fuel currently is a known devil because we used it a lots. We can counter with more plants (a nature sustainable system, growth by themselves, something mother Earth got used to), or put more money on cleaning the pollution or create a growing devil.

I am not in fossil fuel industry. But if someone argues that fossil fuel destroy the world for money, I can say the same thing in the sustainable energy hype.  Both sides are for money. One plainly say that and the other try to put up a lofty cause.

Guess what, nearly half renewable energy in Europe and UK came from burning woods, a loop hole in sustainable energy law. Because when you burn chopped down wood, you assume the carbon not-yet chopped down wood absorbed CO2, kind of similarly to Ponzi scheme:

https://reports.climatecentral.org/pulp-fiction/1/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/epa-declares-burning-wood-carbon-neutral-180968880/

And don't forget about biodiesel is another truly renewable and clean energy, environment friendly, from land water and sun. And it absorbs CO2 to grow as well.

While in principal I agree that use of productive agricultural land in temperate regions is counter productive consideration of the following points should be considered. 

Solar is so cheap now that its economic to deploy on east and west facing roofs and on walls. 

In urban areas water reservoirs can be used. This helps the reservoir as it reduces algal growth. Also be placing on a reservoir output is increased significantly as the panels can be easily rotated to follow the sun and the cooling effect increases panel efficiency. On the same reservoirs the buffer zones which can't be used for crops / grazing can also be used

Agricultural land in many countries is exhausted. Deployment of solar panels are a productive way of letting the land fallow while it recovers. 

In hot climates:

Deployment of solar panels will actually increase plant growth as it protects the plants from the midday sun

Deserts and semi deserts produce very little vegetation anyway. 

RE Waste

Older panels are not waste after 15 years. They get redeployed and get another 30-40 years life. Ebay is awash with second life solar panels from solar farms that have been up powered. I have 4 sitting on my roof  on the East and west faces (along with the 2 I purchased in 2008) currently producing around 700W. 

 

 

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, Wombat said:

As an aside, I believe Meredith is a man.

[Meredith Poor + 883]

4 hours ago, Wombat said:

Too bad I'm a male, somewhere in the retirement age range.

[SUZNV + 1,197]

2 hours ago, NickW said:

While in principal I agree that use of productive agricultural land in temperate regions is counter productive consideration of the following points should be considered. 

Solar is so cheap now that its economic to deploy on east and west facing roofs and on walls. 

In urban areas water reservoirs can be used. This helps the reservoir as it reduces algal growth. Also be placing on a reservoir output is increased significantly as the panels can be easily rotated to follow the sun and the cooling effect increases panel efficiency. On the same reservoirs the buffer zones which can't be used for crops / grazing can also be used

Agricultural land in many countries is exhausted. Deployment of solar panels are a productive way of letting the land fallow while it recovers. 

In hot climates:

Deployment of solar panels will actually increase plant growth as it protects the plants from the midday sun

Deserts and semi deserts produce very little vegetation anyway. 

RE Waste

Older panels are not waste after 15 years. They get redeployed and get another 30-40 years life. Ebay is awash with second life solar panels from solar farms that have been up powered. I have 4 sitting on my roof  on the East and west faces (along with the 2 I purchased in 2008) currently producing around 700W. 

 

 

 

-Currently recycling panel is a problem, with potentially toxic waste. It is cheap because currently it is disposed as E-Waste and not economics wise for recycling. It will eventually lose the efficiency. It is becoming a concern in the last few years. A few of the articles:

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/The-World-Is-Facing-A-Solar-Panel-Waste-Problem.html

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/23/solar-panel-waste-a-disposal-problem/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#5214682d121c

And we do need energy in recycling process. 

-Land fallowing is only 1 to 5 years. We will need to consider the cost of  moving  it to the next land. I would guess labor cost is expensive.

-Growing crop under solar panels seems interesting for it multiple benefit including more plants for CO2, but  seems need up front investment. As long as we can have cheap recycling instead of waste surely solar would be more attractive than now. The same with the battery waste.

But all of that hard works and money instead of focusing in R&D in turn waste land into livable with forest and more trees less CO2 and less climate change. Cali used to be a desert. Less mining and extracting pollution &  waste in the first place.

[Meredith Poor + 883]

3 hours ago, NickW said:

Currently only plants (land or sea) can reduce CO2 and make more Oxygen in very large scale. Less CO2 omission but less plants and the 0.04% of CO2  in the atmosphere will still be unchanged, the problem with CO2 will be still there.

https://mechanicaltrees.com/

This is what's available for carbon capture right now.

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Meredith Poor said:

https://mechanicaltrees.com/

This is what's available for carbon capture right now.

I didnt say that - why is it quoting me? 

[Meredith Poor + 883]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

I didnt say that - why is it quoting me? 

Sorry, I think I highlighted text where you were quoting someone else. My apologies.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

And now, a gift to all you hard working forum members.  A blast from the past!  Why?  Just because we all need a little smile sometimes.

 

[Wombat + 1,028]

9 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Too bad I'm a male, somewhere in the retirement age range.

HaHa, didn't know Meredith was a man's name!

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 8/17/2020 at 7:45 AM, SUZNV said:

-Currently recycling panel is a problem, with potentially toxic waste. It is cheap because currently it is disposed as E-Waste and not economics wise for recycling. It will eventually lose the efficiency. It is becoming a concern in the last few years. A few of the articles:

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/The-World-Is-Facing-A-Solar-Panel-Waste-Problem.html

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/23/solar-panel-waste-a-disposal-problem/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#5214682d121c

And we do need energy in recycling process. 

-Land fallowing is only 1 to 5 years. We will need to consider the cost of  moving  it to the next land. I would guess labor cost is expensive.

-Growing crop under solar panels seems interesting for it multiple benefit including more plants for CO2, but  seems need up front investment. As long as we can have cheap recycling instead of waste surely solar would be more attractive than now. The same with the battery waste.

But all of that hard works and money instead of focusing in R&D in turn waste land into livable with forest and more trees less CO2 and less climate change. Cali used to be a desert. Less mining and extracting pollution &  waste in the first place.

Much of California was a seabed, that includes mountains in the deserts. 

[SUZNV + 1,197]

On 8/17/2020 at 7:45 AM, Meredith Poor said:

https://mechanicaltrees.com/

This is what's available for carbon capture right now.

I rather you make a cons and pros comparison to have some of your own input rather than copy a link and paste as if no one knew about the thing you linked, if you ever truly care about these matters. Surely you gave the marketing side, these are the unmentioned cons:

1 The pollution cost to manufacture materials for theses will be unlikely eco-friendly. Make it eco-friendly? More egg and chicken problems.

2 Turn it to liquid and storage will cost energy. Currently the best use of it is to fill the gap for the extracted oil to have some benefits. Else it is not much different than burying the rubbish to the ground. Save the space for other wastes. This is simply sweep under the carpet. Maybe as good as launch these to space, unless at some point the aliens complain.

3 Maintaining and recycle the materials of old products, not just push it down to next generation.

4 R&D cost.

 All of the above cost for this industry will calculate in CO2 taxes with little profits can be made in a free market. How much sustainable is that?

Compare the cons above with the pros of the plants:

1 Seeds, water and land. With current technologies in farming. Not much R&D is required except 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/13/world/desert-control-liquid-nanoclay-spc-intl/index.html#:~:text=in unlikely places-,In the Dubai desert%2C Norwegian startup Desert Control is working,-the-art farming technologies.

2 No CO2 storage will be needed. More Oxygen generated. Too much Oxygen? less CO2 percentages.

3 No recycling needed.

4 Pay for itself with its whole ecosystem: agriculture , sport fields, leisure  camping,hunting, wild life etc. 

5 The world’s forests absorb a third of global emissions every year. Particles, odors and pollutant gases such as nitrogen oxides, ammonia and sulfur dioxide settle on the leaves of a tree. Trees absorb these toxic chemicals through their stomata, or ‘pores’, effectively filtering these chemicals from the air. Trees also mitigate the greenhouse gas effect by trapping heat, reduce ground-level ozone levels and release life-giving oxygen.

6 Trees act as filter for water pollution before these reaches the sea.

Cons of the plants? Methane, another greenhouse gas. But R&D in capture methane will give much more benefit when turn it into methanol and Hydrogen with is energy, not like capture that useless CO2. We have to find a way to deal with Methane anyway with our water waste garbage fields etc. This problem already exists. A break through in this and we have sustainable eco system even with keep burning oil and bio-fuel. 

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-methane-methanol.html

I do know some new suggestions that want to reduce Green House Gas effect by turn methane into CO2 but that is not sustainable as well. 

Scientists nowadays were mostly fund by industries try to make a big deal via mainstream of their "break through" as silver bullet and competing for lobbying Governments to tap the taxes and increase the stock prices aka economics bubbles. The real solution without innovation (thus no barrier to entry and everyone can do) tends to be ignored by even the Governments. Good luck with regulations/taxes and lobbying to "Save the world". Most of the solutions for slow down global warming is a hoax, especially anything with CO2 emissions. 

Edited August 19, 2020 by SUZNV

[Metalmania + 37]

On 8/13/2020 at 8:20 AM, Meredith Poor said:

"Complete electrification and close to 100 percent renewable energy generation: this is a vision of the United States 15 years from now."

I'm not sure where the 15 years came from, 10 years is more likely. Right now all of this is being framed as a 'possibility'. Even minor decreases in cost will make it a 'certainty'.

"Although it may sound counterintuitive at first, despite this greater electricity demand, total energy demand would fall substantially, the report’s authors say."

If one burns coal or splits atoms, the 'efficiency' is around 30%. 3X thermal watts go in for every electrical watt that comes out. Wind and solar produce electricity from the outset, so there is no thermal conversion. Natural gas combined cycle is a bit better at 60% to 80%, but there is still 'waste heat'. If our peak consumption is around 600Gw (summer day, 5:00 PM), then our thermal conversion at that point is 1800 Gw, or the equivalent in BTUs.

"And it will all cost as much as Joe Biden plans to spend on addressing climate change: some $3 trillion over a decade." $3 trillion / 10 years = $300 billion per year, or essentially 300Gw of new power plant investment each year (assuming utility costs of $1 per watt). Most of this, of course, is storage and transmission capacity, rather than outright generation.

Nuclear is not an option - existing plants aren't competitive. Anything with a boiler is uncompetitive. There are reasons we don't use steam locomotives, and they are similar to the reasons coal and nuclear plants are phasing out.

"Existing technology" of course is a laughable metric, since efficiencies, energy densities, and costs are changing fast. It might still cost $3 trillion due to f***ups. S*** happens. We'd spend the money anyway, even if it was to preserve the status quo. Power plants depreciate over 30 years.

It's a good thing I'm wearing a mask, because I smell bullsh*t!

[Meredith Poor + 883]

1 hour ago, Metalmania said:

It's a good thing I'm wearing a mask, because I smell bullsh*t!

You might smell it, but you can't explain why.

[Meredith Poor + 883]

On 8/19/2020 at 2:48 PM, SUZNV said:

1 The pollution cost to manufacture materials for theses will be unlikely eco-friendly. Make it eco-friendly? More egg and chicken problems.

2 Turn it to liquid and storage will cost energy. Currently the best use of it is to fill the gap for the extracted oil to have some benefits. Else it is not much different than burying the rubbish to the ground. Save the space for other wastes. This is simply sweep under the carpet. Maybe as good as launch these to space, unless at some point the aliens complain.

3 Maintaining and recycle the materials of old products, not just push it down to next generation.

4 R&D cost.

These arguments are brought up over and over, for solar, for wind, now for air capture. No one puts numbers on it. I would ask you how you know this, but every time I ask anyone else to produce facts they cuss me out and say 'you started the post, you do the research'.

Plants such as trees and crops convert solar energy to biomass at about .2 to .6% efficiency. Algae converts solar to biomass at about 6% efficiency. While it is technically possible to use plants to remove all the CO2, it involves a lot of water, and a lot of surface area that is presently desert would have to be turned into ponds (for algae) or forests. We could also expand carbon capture at sea.

The world is turning into a junkyard of abandoned equipment, including railroads, aircraft, manufactured homes, motor homes, boats, construction equipment, and so forth. This problem isn't limited to CO2 capture equipment - it needs to be addressed more comprehensively.

Most of the R&D is already done, and in any case R&D has a life of it's own. Since people don't know what research will produce, they invest in it hoping for 'some kind of payoff', which often produces unexpected results.

[SUZNV + 1,197]

4 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

These arguments are brought up over and over, for solar, for wind, now for air capture. No one puts numbers on it. I would ask you how you know this, but every time I ask anyone else to produce facts they cuss me out and say 'you started the post, you do the research'.

Plants such as trees and crops convert solar energy to biomass at about .2 to .6% efficiency. Algae converts solar to biomass at about 6% efficiency. While it is technically possible to use plants to remove all the CO2, it involves a lot of water, and a lot of surface area that is presently desert would have to be turned into ponds (for algae) or forests. We could also expand carbon capture at sea.

The world is turning into a junkyard of abandoned equipment, including railroads, aircraft, manufactured homes, motor homes, boats, construction equipment, and so forth. This problem isn't limited to CO2 capture equipment - it needs to be addressed more comprehensively.

Most of the R&D is already done, and in any case R&D has a life of it's own. Since people don't know what research will produce, they invest in it hoping for 'some kind of payoff', which often produces unexpected results.

No one put number on that because any governments  can do that world wide without any IPO stocks or R&D subsidies and no one lobby for that. We have trees that need lots of water and trees that need much less. Most of your sources of opinions came from marketing and lobbying for an tech IPO or stocks or government subsidies or regulations. As I pointed out all of your  sources of solutions , or opinions are simply convert CO2 "waste" problem into solid or liquid toxic waste problems. That is a  fact.

Edited August 25, 2020 by SUZNV

[Meredith Poor + 883]

42 minutes ago, SUZNV said:

No one put number on that because any governments  can do that world wide without any IPO stocks or R&D subsidies and no one lobby for that. We have trees that need lots of water and trees that need much less. Most of your sources of opinions came from marketing and lobbying for an tech IPO or stocks or government subsidies or regulations. As I pointed out all of your  sources of solutions , or opinions are simply convert CO2 "waste" problem into solid or liquid toxic waste problems. That is a  fact.

They are all opinions. Where those opinions came from is another matter.

Question for anyone reading this: what is 'Dry Powder' in the context of investment banking and how much is available?

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

7 hours ago, Metalmania said:

It's a good thing I'm wearing a mask, because I smell bullsh*t!

That's your breath, brush your teeth.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 8/16/2020 at 10:00 PM, SUZNV said:

 

1 Once you put the solar panels there, the land cannot do anything else or can be improved for any other reason,

Not true at all. Lots of plants like shade.

[NickW + 2,714]

22 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Not true at all. Lots of plants like shade.

Especially in hot sunny dry climates

[SUZNV + 1,197]

42 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Not true at all. Lots of plants like shade.

Yup, we can both have tall trees and grasses if we plan to grow something there. And you would have plant the plants before installing the solar panel with all of the digging for watering system not in the other way rounds, so it cost more for solar invesment. And your choice would be limited  and  these plants tend to need more water or slow in growing.

Edited August 25, 2020 by SUZNV

[SUZNV + 1,197]

1 hour ago, Meredith Poor said:

They are all opinions. Where those opinions came from is another matter.

Question for anyone reading this: what is 'Dry Powder' in the context of investment banking and how much is available?

The chemical wastes from mining for the batteries components and dispose them are not opinion but fact , unlike yours. 

Edited August 25, 2020 by SUZNV

[Meredith Poor + 883]

2 hours ago, SUZNV said:

The chemical wastes from mining for the batteries components and dispose them are not opinion but fact , unlike yours. 

How much waste is produced, and how does this compare to the wastes from coal burning power plants?