How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy

[Polyphia + 13]

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 + 13]

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 by Jeroen Goudswaard

[Ron Wagner + 312]

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 + 13]

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 + 2,069]

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 + 312]

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 by Ron Wagner

[Boat + 1,250]

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 + 1,250]

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 + 1,214]

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 + 312]

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 + 312]

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. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 1,852]

On 6/22/2022 at 11:08 PM, 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.

 

Electrical demand is the vast minority of energy demand.

Remove hydro then talk.  Hydro other than in portions of the Himalayas, Africa, and small sections of S. America are all built out and vast majority there is done as well.  Electrical demand is multiplying multiple times over existing requirements if you cut coal/oil/ng. 

[specinho + 276]

not too sure if this generalization of concept could stand but...............

 

 

 

 

If we are not users or the ones experience it, we could still make mistake in judgement regardless how smart we think we could get our team to be........... or how experienced the personnel could be in the working field but never a user......

The more they try to modify in order to flow with the crowd, the more we realize things become worse in designs, in functions, in practicality etc...........

 

 

If it is less appropriate to form strategy or policy by government officers and leaders who do not share the enthusiasm or who have not lived with the society/like everyone else enough to know what problem they are trying to solve, but just going with the crowd, why act in hast at all........?

 

Edited June 25 by specinho

[Michael Sanches + 128]

We are looking at new renewable power generation (wind & solar) and forgetting the danger the old renewable sources are in.

Lake Mead has gone down from 1200 feet to 1000 feet. At 925 feet Hoover Dam stops generating power and at 825 feet Hoover Dam is closed and no longer lets water go down the Colorado river.

The Hoover Dam produces 4.5 billion kw hours of electricity which powers electricity for  8 million people.

 

[Michael Sanches + 128]

On 6/23/2022 at 1:08 AM, 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.

 

Your map is incomplete and, therefore, misleading. Norway gets 97% of its power from Hydroelectric. In the US Lake Mead has decreased from 1200 to 1000 feet. At 925 feet Hoover Dam  halts all power generation, which supplies power for 8 million people. At 825 feet Hoover Dam stops releasing water and the Colorado River dries up, denying water to millions.

The same is true with Nepal. They could provide hydropower for all of Nepal and India. But, they are too corrupt and need to factor in 90% of funds will be stolen. The final report of the $2 billion in Aide they received for the earthquake was 100 small wooden homes built. Of course, they hired hundreds of relatives as consultants and bough many hundreds of fancy cars for themselves (so they could get to work and go to meetings.) The corruption is so flagrant that they cover the government parking lots with giant tarps so the people won't deface the cars. (Yes, I lived there and saw this.) It is so bad they voted in a Communist government for improvement.

[Michael Sanches + 128]

On 6/23/2022 at 4:38 PM, Ron Wagner said:

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

China, India, Indonesia, Japan and Vietnam have signed up to build 600 new coal powered power generating plants. Italy is thinking of reopening coal plants. Germany and Austria are already gearing up to restart coal plants.

The good news is I made a bunch of money on coal stocks in the last 6 months. Thank you, Biden! Keep screwing America!