Quote:
Originally Posted by sendler
Now you are being just as intentionally over simplistic the other way. Electricity production and storage from rebuildable sources is not without losses. Round trip electrolytic Hydrogen production is 30% for example. And you are ignoring the fact that the recent examples I gave have already stated total energy requirements that were cut to 1/2 of the current levels. Which is what the studies have shown would be real world feasible with a complete and ideal electrification of everything.
.
And you are repeating the same mistake that the media has taught you by saying that "we need only 900-GW worth of CAPACITY for our requirements".
.
When in fact the capacity factor for the best solar farm in the USA is 31%. And onshore wind in ideal locations will be similar. Solar farms in my area average 13.7% capacity factor. Onshore wind barely more.
.
So we would need 3-TW CAPACITY of rebuildable energy capacity using your number. 5-TW using mine. Plus storage. We are not that far apart. Either one is immense in real world scale as I have shown repeatedly.
.
I wish we could stop these back and forths. It is a waste of time.
.
I'm not anti rebuildable energy. I'm pro math.
|
The 900-GW figure has nothing to do with capacity factor.Basically 2/3 rds of the primary fossil fuel energy is lost in conversion,from chemical to heat.
I have a hard time accepting an across-the board average 50% thermal efficiency.Some people above our pay grade,who deal with these numbers for a living have a problem with it also.
If you're truly pro-math,then you'll want to dust off that old thermodynamics textbook.
The media hasn't taught me a thing.I went to college primarily to study this stuff,and I've been purposefully looking at it since October,1973.
In addition to the renewables at hand,we need an additional 900-GW to cover our total needs,if you were to fix the landscape in 2014.
If,and only if,capacity factors across the board were locked-in at 30%,and there could be no additional geographic distribution of power generation,or improvements in power generation technology,or end-user efficiency could we categorically say that,we need X-amount of anything!
With the stroke of a pen,the ISO standards can be modified for all residential,commercial,and industrial construction.National laboratories can be tasked and funded for emergency energy efficiency research and development on top of what they're already doing.We can have additional fees,disincentives,regulations,restrictions,morato riums,whatever was needed to get results.It's a fluid battlefield.A reading of American history will show you that the federal government has a precedent for such activities.It's probably where the 'Green New Deal' came from.
If YOU can come up with 100% carbon-capture and sequestration,plus removal of extant atmospheric greenhouse gases,down to pre-industrial revolution levels,then we're there.
Until that day,the US Constitution says that we MUST pursue something akin to the Green New Deal.And anyone against that is a public enemy,by default.