We could be free of fossil fuel by 2050

NDflyfisher

Active Member
California lost 300,000 MW of solar and wind power in the first six months of this year due to lack of energy storage. They lost 6,000 MW of generation just due to the eclipse. China is losing 17% of its renewable energy to lack of storage. Until a giant leap comes about in renewable storage it's not a realistic alternative. Utilities are pushing high % of the grid based on renewable energy away because unless you enjoy brownouts it isn't working. Why keep regulating more renewable if we can't store what is already being generated. Because the government sucks at fully understanding how to run anything. The governments solution to everything is more government and regulations. Renewable energy is great and will reduce energy supply from dirtier sources but it can not stand up on its own.

Paris is a joke. Not a single major industrialized nation is on track of meeting its greenhouse gas emissions cuts. It's all talk that would only hurt the US. China uses 3.5 billion metric tons of coal. The US uses .661. China will be at 4.8 by 2020. We hear about China building massive solar generation yet they are also increasing coal production. But the Paris agreement had us lowering emissions now and China gets years to do something. They have no intention in reducing now or later if it doesn't help their economy. Gas is taking out coal on its own in the US. We don't need to make bad economic deals to get cleaner air. Let the free market do it so we win economically and environmentally.
 
Last edited:

hbmcc

Active Member
The 2050 article, being a summary, does not go into detail. It does broad-stroke analyses that show energy efficiency is achievable with existing technology.

Years ago, I communicated with a business major analyzing true cost of a gallon of gasoline. He had an impressive figure for the actual cost, to the extent of his research, some being concealed by government support to avoid consumer revolt. One thing he missed was military costs to protect petroleum supplies.

The 2050 article is silent on military cost, noting only reduced conflict due to energy independence. The military budget is a juicy plumb to be tapped for more beneficial purposes.
 

Klickrolf

Active Member
I read a bunch of that, not all of it though. I think the best solution would be to minimize the size, to a single home size! Make them available at an affordable price and the market would make the patent'ees trillionaires. If that could work on a small scale we wouldn't need PUD's or public supplies of energy to anyone. No more power lines or wires and poles obscuring my view and no home energy bill. I love it. The thought is so attractive I'd buy one if affordable, and burn wood in the winter to help with the resulting CO2 famine.
 
Last edited:

Alex MacDonald

that's His Lordship, to you.....
Or...we could all burn cow shit, live in a mud hut, and regress back to say, 1820 or so. No thanks; I'll continue to gas up my rig.
 

Roper

Idiot Savant
WFF Supporter
Those of you who applaud this "study" might well look into the environmental impact of mining for lithium. If you love water, you hate mining for lithium.

I might also ask what each of you currently drive, how often, and how far. I assume you're all good gas consumers. Now, try that on batteries. Or do you live in a socialist urban environment depending solely on public transportation, like say, Europe? I didn't think so...

Do you all currently live off grid depending on solar? I doubt it...

So until you all step up and show us how it's done...I'm going to go wash my truck.
 
“To say it is hypocritical to divest while still using fossil fuels is equivalent to telling parents they must remove their children from class while advocating for better schools,” wrote Jamie Henn of 350.org in a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe. “We must fight in the world we have, not the world we want.”
Or...we could all burn cow shit, live in a mud hut, and regress back to say, 1820 or so. No thanks; I'll continue to gas up my rig.
Don't give up yet, Alex, there is an endless supply of bat shit excreted on this forum that could be used as a renewable.:D
 

cmann886

Active Member
To provide sufficient electricity for 650,000 homes & businesses would require:

A single 1150 MWelectric nuclear plant (The size of Watts Bar 2) wchich will produce as much electricity as 1/3rd of all of America’s wind turbines.

A wind farm generating this much power would require 600-800 square miles of land. Solar would require an area as large as Chattanooga Tennessee.

Many who argue for renewables don't understand the land mass that would be impacted, nor the fact that construction of a windmill farm actually results in more CO2 than the wind turbines prevent being produced. (The company that I work for sales large windmills, solar panels, nuclear plants, and has assisted in the construction of some bio-mass plants.).

The reality is that solar and wind are not competitive without government subsidies.

The most economic form of energy generation today is natural gas. It is also relatively clean compared to coal. However, if no competition exists, then you know what will happen to natural gas prices. We should eliminate subsidies, enforce reasonable regulations, and establish a comprehensive energy policy (something that the U.S. Has not had since before Richard Nixon) in a manner similar to what France did in the 1980s. They don't have the luxury of a large land mass and have limited fossil fuels within the country and did not want to be dependent on foreign oil.
 
cmann: Thanks for the interesting post. I get the land mass issue and believe that better technology will play a role. Would you please expand on this comment: "construction of a windmill farm actually results in more CO2 than the wind turbines prevent being produced".

Are you saying that there isn't a point down the line where the CO2 used for production would be negated?????
 

KerryS

Ignored Member
To provide sufficient electricity for 650,000 homes & businesses would require:

A single 1150 MWelectric nuclear plant (The size of Watts Bar 2) wchich will produce as much electricity as 1/3rd of all of America’s wind turbines.

A wind farm generating this much power would require 600-800 square miles of land. Solar would require an area as large as Chattanooga Tennessee.

Many who argue for renewables don't understand the land mass that would be impacted, nor the fact that construction of a windmill farm actually results in more CO2 than the wind turbines prevent being produced. (The company that I work for sales large windmills, solar panels, nuclear plants, and has assisted in the construction of some bio-mass plants.).

The reality is that solar and wind are not competitive without government subsidies.

The most economic form of energy generation today is natural gas. It is also relatively clean compared to coal. However, if no competition exists, then you know what will happen to natural gas prices. We should eliminate subsidies, enforce reasonable regulations, and establish a comprehensive energy policy (something that the U.S. Has not had since before Richard Nixon) in a manner similar to what France did in the 1980s. They don't have the luxury of a large land mass and have limited fossil fuels within the country and did not want to be dependent on foreign oil.

The First Computer weighed 30 short tons (27 t), was roughly 8 feet (2.4 m) by 3 feet (0.9 m) by 100 feet (30 m), took up 1800 square feet (167 m²), and consumed 150 kW of power. Today you carry more computing power with your smartphone in your shirt pocket. Don't under estimate technology.
 

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info
Top