We could be free of fossil fuel by 2050

cmann886

Active Member
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.
I don't underestimate tech. I make my living with it. Nevertheless laws of physics don't change. I certainly expect efficiency gains, perhaps even new ways of harnessing and storing power. Even so, it will take land mass for renewables and significant advancements in storage ability to reach your dreams.

But to get enough power for your smart phone to be smart, takes the same amount of electrical power as your refrigerator---not the power for the phone itself but the power needed to support the infrastructure behind it then multiply that times the number of smart phones around the country and you get an idea of what it will take to continue in the life style you've been accustomed to.
 

KerryS

Ignored Member
The amount of computing power of a single disconnected smartphone is still 100s of times more than that first computer. The issue with solar or wind will not be mass. Things will be miniaturized and made more efficient. The problem is storage. As with all things in time this problem will also be solved. The amount of time this takes is the question.

These are not my dreams. I'll be dead. These things are your reality. Good luck.
 

cmann886

Active Member
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?????

Great question. I was quoting one of our executives at a past all employee meeting and will have to do some more research to clarify. Keep in mind that AREVA is a French company and we are in the business of providing CO2 neutral energy...although some credit trading is involved in accomplishing this.

In the mean time a couple of interesting web sites are:

Www.gnei.org
Www.eia.gov
And the UK Parliment office of Science and Tecknology

Relative to carbon emission rates of various methods of generating electricity are:

Photovoltaics 58-35 g CO2/kWh
Marine (wave and Tidal) 50-25 g CO2/kWh
Hydro 10-3 g CO2/kWh
Wind 5.25-4.64 g CO2/kWh (I found at least one peer reviewed article that listed Wind at 13-9; which likely included buiding to road to the wind farms and not just turbine and distribution costs.)
Nuclear 5.05-3.48 g CO2/kWh
Biomass 237 g CO2/kWh (combustion of straw) 25 for gasification of wood chips) g CO2/kWh.
(The above are averaged over the life-time of the generating unit)

Coal 207 lbs CO2/kWh
Natural gas 1.21 lbs CO2/kWh
Distillate oil 1.67 lbs CO2/kWh. To convert pounds to grams multiply by 454.
 
Great question. I was quoting one of our executives at a past all employee meeting and will have to do some more research to clarify. Keep in mind that AREVA is a French company and we are in the business of providing CO2 neutral energy...although some credit trading is involved in accomplishing this.

In the mean time a couple of interesting web sites are:

Www.gnei.org
Www.eia.gov
And the UK Parliment office of Science and Tecknology

Relative to carbon emission rates of various methods of generating electricity are:

Photovoltaics 58-35 g CO2/kWh
Marine (wave and Tidal) 50-25 g CO2/kWh
Hydro 10-3 g CO2/kWh
Wind 5.25-4.64 g CO2/kWh (I found at least one peer reviewed article that listed Wind at 13-9; which likely included buiding to road to the wind farms and not just turbine and distribution costs.)
Nuclear 5.05-3.48 g CO2/kWh
Biomass 237 g CO2/kWh (combustion of straw) 25 for gasification of wood chips) g CO2/kWh.
(The above are averaged over the life-time of the generating unit)

Coal 207 lbs CO2/kWh
Natural gas 1.21 lbs CO2/kWh
Distillate oil 1.67 lbs CO2/kWh. To convert pounds to grams multiply by 454.
Thanks cmann, for the info. Your second site was especially interesting showing the threat of intense hurricanes to oil instillations.

I did a bit of research on solar just to understand 58-35 gCO2/kWh and found this excerpt:
Let’s not hide the fact that manufacturing solar panels requires resources, fossil fuels that release CO2 emissions and add to our carbon footprint. However, it’s been shown in numerous studies that solar panel production releases nowhere near as much CO2 and other greenhouse gases as electric generated from coal, oil, natural gas, etc. (And you still need to produce the equipment to generate electricity from those sources as well.)
http://solarchat.org/reduce-co2-emissions-with-solar-panels/

I could not find any evidence that Soar panels actually emit CO2. So, that would leave CO2 from production costs using fossil fuels.
I look forward to your clarification post.
 
Last edited:

freestoneangler

Not to be confused with Freestone
AREVA is a French company and we are in the business of providing CO2 neutral energy...although some credit trading is involved in accomplishing this.

CO2 neutral, credit trading. A new type of bank and brokerage business is on the horizon. Of course, this commodity won't get corrupted.
 

MileHighFlyGuy

Active Member
Great question. I was quoting one of our executives at a past all employee meeting and will have to do some more research to clarify. Keep in mind that AREVA is a French company and we are in the business of providing CO2 neutral energy...although some credit trading is involved in accomplishing this.

In the mean time a couple of interesting web sites are:

Www.gnei.org
Www.eia.gov
And the UK Parliment office of Science and Tecknology

Relative to carbon emission rates of various methods of generating electricity are:

Photovoltaics 58-35 g CO2/kWh
Marine (wave and Tidal) 50-25 g CO2/kWh
Hydro 10-3 g CO2/kWh
Wind 5.25-4.64 g CO2/kWh (I found at least one peer reviewed article that listed Wind at 13-9; which likely included buiding to road to the wind farms and not just turbine and distribution costs.)
Nuclear 5.05-3.48 g CO2/kWh
Biomass 237 g CO2/kWh (combustion of straw) 25 for gasification of wood chips) g CO2/kWh.
(The above are averaged over the life-time of the generating unit)

Coal 207 lbs CO2/kWh
Natural gas 1.21 lbs CO2/kWh
Distillate oil 1.67 lbs CO2/kWh. To convert pounds to grams multiply by 454.
Sorry I'm late to the party, but I'm curious why burning biomass (Straw 237g/kwh) is so much lower than coal (207 LBS/kwh).
 

Klickrolf

Active Member
Sorry I'm late to the party, but I'm curious why burning biomass (Straw 237g/kwh) is so much lower than coal (207 LBS/kwh).
Coal is biomass but it was created by compression of biomass. So coal is more concentrated than early stage biomass (made that up just for you, it's true). But then again, if CO2 is there it will be released into the atmosphere. Trouble is it takes lots more early stage biomass to generate the energy provided by coal. So you can burn 1 pound of coal or 1000 pounds of early stage biomass and get equal results (made that up too, bigger is usually better, make your own calculation, you provided the numbers needed, I prefer exaggeration). Please don't forget that we need more CO2 in our atmosphere if we hope for a more productive planet. More CO2, not less, just facts based on my understanding!
 
Last edited:

Klickrolf

Active Member
I've learned @Rob Allen is way more intelligent than I so I doubt he'd bother stealing my password. Besides, my password is outside the realm of potential theft. We're talkin' 60+ characters including chinese, zulu, and canadian. And the textual denotations put it out there even further. Sorry, hasn't happened.
 

cmann886

Active Member
Thanks cmann, for the info. Your second site was especially interesting showing the threat of intense hurricanes to oil instillations.

I did a bit of research on solar just to understand 58-35 gCO2/kWh and found this excerpt:
Let’s not hide the fact that manufacturing solar panels requires resources, fossil fuels that release CO2 emissions and add to our carbon footprint. However, it’s been shown in numerous studies that solar panel production releases nowhere near as much CO2 and other greenhouse gases as electric generated from coal, oil, natural gas, etc. (And you still need to produce the equipment to generate electricity from those sources as well.)
http://solarchat.org/reduce-co2-emissions-with-solar-panels/

I could not find any evidence that Soar panels actually emit CO2. So, that would leave CO2 from production costs using fossil fuels.
I look forward to your clarification post.
You have it correct, these values are inclusive of entire life cycle of the generating unit from construction through decommissioning, not just in the conversion to energy process, like burning coal or natural gas. When we debate energy options we must look at the entire picture, and in some cases suspend our initial beliefs long enough to learn a little more about the topic. The movie Pandora's promise is an excellent example of a group of individuals who did just that. Currently our best option seems to be Natural gas for quick construction and reliable consistent, affordable supply, but it is far from carbon free and has no promise of staying low cost. Solar power is nearly all construction and distribution cost, as is wind power. Coal, Natural gas and nuclear also have an additional fuel component in both $ and CO2 costs. The fuel component of nuclear is the lowest of these three and coal is the highest.
CO2 neutral, credit trading. A new type of bank and brokerage business is on the horizon. Of course, this commodity won't get corrupted.
Any business involving people can and likely will become corrupted. The point is that it is not possible to produce CO2 free electrical power, so any business who advertises CO2 neutral production of electricity is either lying or taking advantage of CO2 credit swaps.
 

cmann886

Active Member
America the Powerless; Facing our nuclear Power Dilemma by Allan Walter is another, albeit dated source of information about nuclear power. It was first published by a former neighbor in 1995. It is written in a non technical manner, discusses Three Mile Island and Chernobyl . It has a good discussion of economics and waste disposal. However the relative price of natural gas is wildly different today so some of the economics of alternatives are different.

The country needs a comprehensive energy policy and has for a very long time. The better informed we all are about all energy options the better chance we have of getting politician to make better/more comprehensive energy policy decisions.

Unfortunately this frequently becomes more of an emotional discussion than a fact based technical discussion. We need a good fact based debate because so much lies in the balance if we don't get it right.
 

2kayaker

Active Member
Long on promises very short on detail.

Sounds great to me but dams are out of the question so scratch that off the list.

Windmills disrupt migratory routes for birds. So wind is out

so better invest heavily in solar.. and my new solar vehicle needs to be able to tow my solar bass boat for as far as i need to go without gaving to recharge.
The battery backup for grids is essentially solved, go to 'ambri.com'". 1962 land on the moon and return ... No way. We're Americans : we can!
 

2kayaker

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.
Ambri (ambri.com) and a few others have got the grid. Storage answers. You might adjust your argument..Did. "The Free Market" build the Hoover Dam for everybody.? And a little parable for the China problem- " Going to college costs money but will likely lift your family out of poverty because of your career. Your older brother has declined to go - Do you now opt out of college ?
 

Old406Kid

Active Member
Ambri (ambri.com) and a few others have got the grid. Storage answers. You might adjust your argument..Did. "The Free Market" build the Hoover Dam for everybody.? And a little parable for the China problem- " Going to college costs money but will likely lift your family out of poverty because of your career. Your older brother has declined to go - Do you now opt out of college ?
I assume that you realize that this thread has been dead since 2017.
 

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