How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

To round it off I'll add the USA. China, India and USA together are the three largest countries in the world and account for 40% of the world's population. All are now below replacement rate of 2.1 with China's population actually having peaked.

The fertility rate in the United States, which represents an estimate of the average number of babies a woman will have in her lifetime, also increased slightly in 2021 to 1.66, up from 1.64 in 2020, which was the lowest fertility rate the United States has seen since the government started tracking it in the 1930s.

https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2022/05/24/us-birth-rate

You miss the point, Jay....sure, we can use modern technology to stop births, that is not a big achievement. But economic pressures did not stop our fathers and grandfathers from bringing us into the world, so this is a negative, not a positive.

You skipped some parts of the world, Jay. 

And all of that does nothing to stop the hot demand for oil, which continues on a roll.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Citi-And-Barclays-Raise-Oil-Price-Forecasts.html

"Barclay’s also lifted its price forecast citing crude oil sanctions on Russia by the EU. Barclays now sees Brent prices averaging $111 this year and next—an increase of $11 for this year and $23 for next year. Barclay sees WTI at $108 for both years.

Barclay’s estimate assumes Russia’s crude oil production will decrease by 1.5 million bpd by the end of the year, after European Union ambassadors approved last Thursday the plan to ban Russian seaborne imports of crude in six months and refined products in eight months. The sanctions package also includes a ban on tanker insurance for Russian shipments to third countries, to take effect six months after the package is formally adopted."

Edited June 6, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

Here is the level of conversation which the climate protesters can relate to, individuals chaining themselves to poles at public events, warning that the earth has only a few hundred days left before extermination.

This is where the absurdity of climate alarmism has taken society.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-10883101/Casper-Ruud-semi-final-win-Marin-Cilic-stopped-10-minutes-protestor-ties-net.html

"The woman appeared to be a climate-change protestor and sported a T-shirt bearing the phrase 'we have 1028 days left'."

Edited June 6, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

You miss the point, Jay....sure, we can use modern technology to stop births, that is not a big achievement. But economic pressures did not stop our fathers and grandfathers from bringing us into the world, so this is a negative, not a positive.

You skipped some parts of the world, Jay. 

And all of that does nothing to stop the hot demand for oil, which continues on a roll.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Citi-And-Barclays-Raise-Oil-Price-Forecasts.html

"Barclay’s also lifted its price forecast citing crude oil sanctions on Russia by the EU. Barclays now sees Brent prices averaging $111 this year and next—an increase of $11 for this year and $23 for next year. Barclay sees WTI at $108 for both years.

Barclay’s estimate assumes Russia’s crude oil production will decrease by 1.5 million bpd by the end of the year, after European Union ambassadors approved last Thursday the plan to ban Russian seaborne imports of crude in six months and refined products in eight months. The sanctions package also includes a ban on tanker insurance for Russian shipments to third countries, to take effect six months after the package is formally adopted."

We aren't using modern technology to stop births, it is just a natural outcome. With technology people are less interested in having kids. It is just reality, a very foreign concept for you, the world population is going to peak in a few decades. More reality you can't handle is that demand for oil is not up it is supply that is down. That is what the entire 2nd paragraph of your quote says.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

China brings forward launch of solar power plant space station that would beam energy back to Earth

https://news.sky.com/story/china-brings-forward-launch-of-solar-power-plant-space-station-that-would-beam-energy-back-to-earth-12629255

 

[Boat + 1,315]

On 6/5/2022 at 11:07 PM, Ecocharger said:

Wild stuff, Jay. The usual panic line from distraught liberals.

So the only solution to energy problems is to limit population growth? Diminish the birth rate through some weird technological trick? Pathetic defeatism.

Of course we need CO2 to grow crops and feed people and power the O2 sources so the average guy can draw a breath of air into his lungs. I guess none of that matters to the cold minded government managers who desperately promote poorly devised climate models.

We need to revive the public interest in people and human needs.

A limit to population may or may not refill an Aquifer. It’s probably to late for the Oceans heating up and oceans rising. Besides Mother Nature is gonna cull a substantial number of humans anyways. The idea of voluntary population decisions based on education just helps in relation to the success of of a program. Woke shyt you can’t comprehend. Lol 

[Boat + 1,315]

It’s kinda like breathing cleaner air. Some see the sense in it and some will never be woke enough. The US for instance makes more bad decisions and put themselves in harms way than they used to. End of life age expectancy is dropping. The unwoke like Trump would say that’s what the freedom of make America Great Again proves. Your free to die quicker. Like Putin, die for the state, it’s glorious. 

[JoMack + 547]

On 6/3/2022 at 9:39 PM, Boat said:

Your side has been making those claims even though solar did not have much of an imprint. That’s changing so we’ll see. Isn’t there a song. Give solar a chance? See how the power plants break down so much and your solution is more? I would take the Russian money out of the grid. Take foreign money out of refining in the US. Why let them control the market and the news. Your paying $8 for nat gas and feeding multiple pipelines to Mexico. That’s ridiculous. Insanity. You would purposely damage the economy of the worlds most successful continent because of a conflict in Europe. This is poor leadership by humans, period.  

REMINDER:  Both sides did not "claim" there was a 4 day blackout by ERCOT in February 2021 when temperatures were 4 degree, so take your nonsense and tell "your side" ya'll are delusional.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

On 6/3/2022 at 10:39 PM, Boat said:

Your side has been making those claims even though solar did not have much of an imprint. That’s changing so we’ll see. Isn’t there a song. Give solar a chance? See how the power plants break down so much and your solution is more? I would take the Russian money out of the grid. Take foreign money out of refining in the US. Why let them control the market and the news. Your paying $8 for nat gas and feeding multiple pipelines to Mexico. That’s ridiculous. Insanity. You would purposely damage the economy of the worlds most successful continent because of a conflict in Europe. This is poor leadership by humans, period.  

The Green Dream is reliant on battery storage to make any possibility of long range success.

With lithium prices skyrocketing, as predicted, that possibility is now looking very dim.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

On 6/7/2022 at 10:45 AM, Boat said:

A limit to population may or may not refill an Aquifer. It’s probably to late for the Oceans heating up and oceans rising. Besides Mother Nature is gonna cull a substantial number of humans anyways. The idea of voluntary population decisions based on education just helps in relation to the success of of a program. Woke shyt you can’t comprehend. Lol 

Based on "education" by some public bureaucrat representing anti-population goals. 

Transforming people into faceless robots.

Edited June 12, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

On 6/6/2022 at 2:45 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

We aren't using modern technology to stop births, it is just a natural outcome. With technology people are less interested in having kids. It is just reality, a very foreign concept for you, the world population is going to peak in a few decades. More reality you can't handle is that demand for oil is not up it is supply that is down. That is what the entire 2nd paragraph of your quote says.

Demand for oil is hot and getting hotter.

[Michael Sanches + 187]

The problem with renewables is:

1. You have to use huge amounts of land. In order to save the environment you have to destroy the environment. It takes a solar farm 450 times the land area of a nuclear plant. The desert is full of life and whole ecosystems are wiped out.

2. You have to use fossil fuels for non peak production.

3. Wildlife is killed. Wind turbines chop up birds and bats by the millions and solar farms bake and kill them.

4. Used solar panels produce a lot more toxic waste (heavy metals) than nuclear plants. The current plan is to ship them to Africa so black people can disassemble them and die.

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

51 minutes ago, Michael Sanches said:

The problem with renewables is:

1. You have to use huge amounts of land. In order to save the environment you have to destroy the environment. It takes a solar farm 450 times the land area of a nuclear plant. The desert is full of life and whole ecosystems are wiped out.

2. You have to use fossil fuels for non peak production.

3. Wildlife is killed. Wind turbines chop up birds and bats by the millions and solar farms bake and kill them.

4. Used solar panels produce a lot more toxic waste (heavy metals) than nuclear plants. The current plan is to ship them to Africa so black people can disassemble them and die.

Whilst I agree with some of what you say not all of it in my view is correct.

Point 1. yes a large amount of land has to be used compared to a nuclear site to produce the same MW output. However there is no need to destroy the environment by doing so, in fact you can actually have livestock in the same area that will graze in between the solar panels quite happily. Their droppings providing fertiliser for plants and therefore insect life to flourish. I disagree that whole ecosystems are wiped out.

Point 2. You can use grid scale battery storage to cope with peak demand and a lack of renewable power (no wind etc). Mega battery manufacturing facilities are being built all over the world right now in order to do just this.

Point 3 Wildlife is undoubtedly killed by wind turbines, an estimated 1.17 million birds annually in the US alone, however this only represents 0.016% of birdlife and if offshore there would be zero bats. Compare this to birds being hit by vehicles on the road which is estimated to be between 89-340 million per year in the US, are we to ban cars?

Point 4. Yes solar toxicity is a major problem. Poorer countries like China, India and African nations such as Ghana burn the waste to salvage the copper wiring and re-sell this. However when burning the waste it gives off carcinogenic and teratogenic fumes. Poor people lose once again!

• Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants.

• If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (52 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km). 

[Inubia + 1]

We have advanced to the point where all reasonable people can conclude that it is possible to build solar and wind installations which contribute significant power to the grid.  We have advanced to the point where reasonable people can conclude that they are not a suitable replacement for fossil fuel power generation and that they are vastly more dangerous and destructive to the environment than nucear power generation.  However the conversation is being controlled by massive digital monopolies which refuse to allow rational discussions to become widespread, and also leaders who are peculiarly totally unable to admit to their own errors and mistakes.

[Ron Wagner + 642]

On 6/3/2022 at 8:24 AM, Professor ML said:

The Wall Street Journal has a left-wing reportorial corps that slants information in favor of social democratic or RINO views. 

To some extent that is true, but of the major publications it is the most balanced. I use many sources and take into consideration their stands. The Epoch Times is not a major newspaper but it is very good IMHO. 

[Polyphia + 67]

5 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

To some extent that is true, but of the major publications it is the most balanced. I use many sources and take into consideration their stands. The Epoch Times is not a major newspaper but it is very good IMHO. 

The WSJ leans right, and The Epoch Times is firmly right and overall, pretty mixed in terms of its reliability.

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 55]

On 6/15/2022 at 5:33 PM, Inubia said:

We have advanced to the point where all reasonable people can conclude that it is possible to build solar and wind installations which contribute significant power to the grid.  We have advanced to the point where reasonable people can conclude that they are not a suitable replacement for fossil fuel power generation and that they are vastly more dangerous and destructive to the environment than nuclear power generation.  However the conversation is being controlled by massive digital monopolies which refuse to allow rational discussions to become widespread, and also leaders who are peculiarly totally unable to admit to their own errors and mistakes.

Solar and Wind together , if built with sufficient capacity, would have 85% full cover of all power needs in areas like the North Sea and the west coast of the USA. That leaves 15% to be covered by batteries (to stabilize output voltage and frequency), by hydro or hydrogen storage (to cover the 15%) and in case of a rare long duration of no wind/no sun (in German called the "Dunkelflaute"), a continent wide HVDC network to transport energy from the other side of the continent.

Wind power itself is not harmful to the environment. Large and slow moving wind turbines have extremely low bird strike numbers. E.g. at least 10x lower than birds killing themselves by flying into buildings. Wind turbine bases/towers and nacelles can be fully recycled. The blades can be shredded and used as road surface. This is now commonly done in Europe.

Solar panels are 90% glass. The other 10% is plastic, copper and some semiconductor material. Plastic can be burnt and used for energy. All other parts are recyclable.

For the USA, solar and wind can replace all power needs by covering 1% of the surface area of the country. This is about half the area that is currently urbanized.

Of course there is space for nuclear. But nuclear has a cost problem. The cost for controlled and safe storage of waste for 300 years, even though it is only a small amount of waste, is equivalent to the cost of building the nuclear plant in the first place. That put all together makes nuclear power around 3-6x more expensive than renewable.

Fossil fuel is not economically attractive if oil prices (and related nat gas prices) stay around or above $100. The alternatives will be cheaper.

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by Jeroen Goudswaard

[Ron Wagner + 642]

If it can actually be sold cheaper to the end customers then I am all for it. The problem in the decades is not rushing the transition and destroying energy supply and reliability. Renewables are far from being able to take that on. Any claims on that must be proven. I am not talking about Europe, but the whole world. 

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 55]

2 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

If it can actually be sold cheaper to the end customers then I am all for it. The problem in the decades is not rushing the transition and destroying energy supply and reliability. Renewables are far from being able to take that on. Any claims on that must be proven. I am not talking about Europe, but the whole world. 

Most of that "whole world" is actually doing quite well on renewable by themselves. Let's clean up our own backyard first.

 

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

3 hours ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

Most of that "whole world" is actually doing quite well on renewable by themselves. Let's clean up our own backyard first.

 

I think that might be a little out of date.

Also it doesnt look like there was much investment in new FF power plant projects in the US last year

[Ron Wagner + 642]

10 hours ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

Most of that "whole world" is actually doing quite well on renewable by themselves. Let's clean up our own backyard first.

 

Ask Europeans how that is working out for them. As I said it will take decades for renewables to take over. You are showing only electrical production with very few electric cars. That will be a very big drain on the electric production and take a long time to take effect. Most energy use is by ICE vehicles, diesel vehicles, ships, trains, farming equipment, etc. electrical power is much smaller and that is what you are showing. The electrical use in the most populous areas rely on coal as in India and China etc.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/06/20/bp-review-new-highs-in-global-energy-consumption-and-carbon-emissions-in-2019/?sh=11ef0c6f66a1

Edited June 23, 2022 by Ron Wagner

[Boat + 1,315]

13 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

If it can actually be sold cheaper to the end customers then I am all for it. The problem in the decades is not rushing the transition and destroying energy supply and reliability. Renewables are far from being able to take that on. Any claims on that must be proven. I am not talking about Europe, but the whole world. 

Good news, your finally giving in to the idea renewables can work. I also believe this transion will happen over decades mainly because of the size of the markets and supply chain requirements. Where there is little wind and poor sun there will be more expense that nat gas will have to cover. And remember a dangerous Putin type could have a clone in the supply chain for batteries for example. The world may politically divide further and FF in areas make a huge comeback. The idea is to chart the path of commonsense and return the power to the people. Lol I need to build a soapbox. 

[Boat + 1,315]

21 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

Ask Europeans how that is working out for them. As I said it will take decades for renewables to take over. You are showing only electrical production with very few electric cars. That will be a very big drain on the electric production and take a long time to take effect. Most energy use is by ICE vehicles, diesel vehicles, ships, trains, farming equipment, etc. electrical power is much smaller and that is what you are showing. The electrical use in the most populous areas rely on coal as in India and China etc.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/06/20/bp-review-new-highs-in-global-energy-consumption-and-carbon-emissions-in-2019/?sh=11ef0c6f66a1

In Texas we burn a lot of FF refining oil. Just think how much bluer out skies will be in a decade. Blue skies develop woke thinking. I sense a trend in our future. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

47 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

Ask Europeans how that is working out for them. As I said it will take decades for renewables to take over. You are showing only electrical production with very few electric cars. That will be a very big drain on the electric production and take a long time to take effect. Most energy use is by ICE vehicles, diesel vehicles, ships, trains, farming equipment, etc. electrical power is much smaller and that is what you are showing. The electrical use in the most populous areas rely on coal as in India and China etc.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/06/20/bp-review-new-highs-in-global-energy-consumption-and-carbon-emissions-in-2019/?sh=11ef0c6f66a1

And two thirds of that fossil fuel consumption is lost in waste heat. 

[Ron Wagner + 642]

4 hours ago, Boat said:

In Texas we burn a lot of FF refining oil. Just think how much bluer out skies will be in a decade. Blue skies develop woke thinking. I sense a trend in our future. 

We have very blue skies here in central Illinois and pretty much all over aside from Chicagoland. Hardly anything aside from blue sky and beautiful clouds that bring our rain. 

[Ron Wagner + 642]

4 hours ago, Boat said:

Good news, your finally giving in to the idea renewables can work. I also believe this transion will happen over decades mainly because of the size of the markets and supply chain requirements. Where there is little wind and poor sun there will be more expense that nat gas will have to cover. And remember a dangerous Putin type could have a clone in the supply chain for batteries for example. The world may politically divide further and FF in areas make a huge comeback. The idea is to chart the path of commonsense and return the power to the people. Lol I need to build a soapbox. 

The focus needs to be on Asian and other high coal dependent countries. The West is doing the best it can.