The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Which is it? Are renewables price competitive now, or later in 2051? If they are price competitive now, then what is the explanation for it not replacing current energy production while reducing electric bills?

Any country that takes drastic measures to mitigate fossil fuel consumption without worldwide participation puts themselves at a competitive disadvantage. As my wife always says "I'll go first after you."



Is that based on nameplate generation, or real world generation? We need something like 10x nameplate generating capacity to not only cover local energy needs, but provide other regions with energy when their local weather isn't producing enough... and that all assumes that a totally intertied grid is already solved.

Renewables are competitive today.If total costing is the metric.
The electric bill reflects what the market will bear.It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the actual cost of production.Electric rates are structured at 150% of cost.It's why we have lobbyists.
Can you flesh out your comment about competitive disadvantage? Once capital costs are amortized out and written off,renewables have free fuel for the remaining life of the 'plant.'
An example would be Canada's Alberta Tar Sands.In 1978,cost of production was $28 /bbl.
In 1997,when the production facilities were paid for,their cost was only $11/bbl.
'Normal' oil in 2000 was selling at $27/bbl
Canada was getting rich! Just as renewables do.
Wind turbines,for instance, are 'free' by age 10-years,then $300,000/year/turbine (2-MW) revenue,free for 10 more years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Lomberg predicted that by 2016,the oil and gas industry would be spending $1-trillion a year for a resource for which 2/3rds of it would be going up in smoke if all combusted.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

The other issue that constantly clouds the discussion is that oftentimes when people talk about what is needed to replace "power" what they don't realize is that they are being quoted info on replacing electricity only. Not total energy. Which is much larger and harder to replace the density and transportability and storability of fossil fuel.

I can't imagine anyone arguing the fabulous energy density of liquid fuels,but as to climate change,the argument is,that we can't afford to burn it;and we need to transition away from internal combustion as fast as we can.
If you want to set aside fossil fuels for mining and agribusiness it's fine by me.
For the exception of aircraft,most other mobility issues can be handled without it.

[freebeard]

Something also to consider:
*Lomberg reports that 43% of American energy use is wasted.page 125.
(with energy efficiency measures,the US could reduce it's overall load by 43%,reducing the amount of renewable infrastructure by the same amount without any loss of service)

This comports with R. B. Fuller's suggestion to raise the overall efficiency of everything from 4% to 8%.

Renewables are competitive today.If total costing is the metric.

Doing the right thing of course has zero monetary value.

If you want to set aside fossil fuels for mining and agribusiness it's fine by me.
For the exception of aircraft,most other mobility issues can be handled without it.

To be phased out relative to bio-fuels?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

No, connecting the grid is a matter of economics. We don't will things into being, we act on that will, which requires expenditure of resources. Expenditure of resources has to be weighed against the opportunity cost (the things you can no longer afford if you expend resources a particular way)


Yeah, just like cancer is just something we have to design for. Very complex problems are no simple task, which isn't to say they aren't solvable or unworthy of making an attempt, but a reliable interconnected grid powered almost exclusively by renewable energy is seriously difficult. I mean, we're pretty sophisticated as a species now, in fact the most sophisticated we've ever been, and we don't already have this wonder system in place.



Well, we're not talking about an existential threat to the entire planet, therefore economics is nearly everything.



It isn't just a medium of exchange. It's also a:

• Unit of Account- Standard numerical monetary unit of measurement of market value of goods and services
• Standard of Deferred Payment- Method of settling debts. When you perform work for an employer, they become indebted to you, and settle this debt by issuing a paycheck.
• Store of Value- Relatively stable store of value until it is converted to a medium of exchange at a later time

In other words, money represents future ability to produce goods and services. No money, no goods and services, and no extremely complex and resource intensive renewable energy systems.



I don't know who Lomberg is, so I'm unfamiliar with how well regarded he is regarding the discussion at hand. Reputation aside, if any person has compelling evidence to support a claim, I'm very eager to see it, and willing to accept reasonable conclusions.



I'd look to other countries that have receding populations as a study in what works well, and what does not (Japan). I'm not convinced the contraction is the steep cliff you allude to, and anticipate more of a gentle downward slope.

As long as people are laboring for their money, it is immoral to take that earned money to distribute to those who have not labored. When robots are doing most of the laboring and there are no jobs for people, then distribution of wealth is moral.

*The grid is being inter-tied as we speak.
*Obviously,some economists did the life-cycle-cost-analysis and grid-tie won out.
*As a mechanical engineer I can tell you that,once a decision to do something is made,then bricks and mortar fly.There are zero technological hurdles to a nationwide grid,with renewables powering it.
*If you've followed extant literature on climate change,then there is no other conclusion except that it is an existential global threat.
*Since you're quoting Lomberg verbatim I presumed that you'd read his Skeptical Environmentalist of 2001.He's an associate professor of economics,teaches statistics,in the Political Science Dept, of a Norwegian university.His idol was Professor Julian Simon,of which you also quote.
*The US Dollar was redeemable in gold as well as silver when I was a child.Since 1964 that is no longer so.All you have is the faith that someone else will accept them in exchange for a product or service.As paper or coin they have no inherent value.

[freebeard]

*The grid is being inter-tied as we speak.

Not complete until it crossing the Bering Strait.

*The US Dollar was redeemable in gold as well as silver when I was a child.Since 1964 that is no longer so.All you have is the faith that someone else will accept them in exchange for a product or service.As paper or coin they have no inherent value.

That must be why they added 'In God we trust' in 1956.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

This comports with R. B. Fuller's suggestion to raise the overall efficiency of everything from 4% to 8%.



Doing the right thing of course has zero monetary value.



To be phased out relative to bio-fuels?

Every time I bring that up I get slammed.
I only farmed for 6-months,so I don't know a lot about it,but our tractor did an awful lot with little diesel.
If all biomass which goes towards Ethanol production for motor fuels was diverted to bio-diesel production,I thought this might put a dent in the needs of farm equipment.But I'm told I'm wrong,with no information to put forwards with which to substantiate the claim.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

The free market doesn't work. Every year 1% of the world population runs off with 78% of the new wealth. And for what? to squander it at the expense of future generations.
And these are the best of times. With no growth there is no investment. No free market investor is going to invest in something that loses 10% every year. But we still need to build out a whole new way of life after fossil fuel.
.
Once increasing access to energy turns the corner, and GDP enters perpetual de-growth, the creationist money system we have been using for the last 50 years will collapse under a burden of debt interest that has nothing to repay it.
.
For all Americans under the 70th percentile of annual income, growth has been over for 20 years due to globalization.

Do you have some particulars with which to flesh these comments out?
Whatever is going on,it's only a reflection of what people do when given a construct as we see today.Nothing is set in stone.As an individual yo have infinite options for how to behave.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Renewables are competitive today.If total costing is the metric.

Competive for peak, intermittent electricity only. They have a hidden cost in that near 100% thermal backup is still equired to prevent blackouts and maintain baseload stability.

Originally Posted by aerohead

Once capital costs are amortized out and written off,renewables have free fuel for the remaining life of the 'plant.'

New electricity farms are not renewable. They are rebuildable. Offshore wind turbines have a 30% failure rate in 7 years. Onshore is 18 years to 30% failure. Grid scale solar PV predicates a 25 year replacement of the panels. They may last a bit longer. But the invertors will need two replacements in that time.

Originally Posted by aerohead

I can't imagine anyone arguing the fabulous energy density of liquid fuels,but as to climate change,the argument is,that we can't afford to burn it;and we need to transition away from internal combustion as fast as we can.
If you want to set aside fossil fuels for mining and agribusiness it's fine by me.
For the exception of aircraft,most other mobility issues can be handled without it.

Oil is 30% of total energy and personal transportation is only 30% of oil. Electricity is only 20-30% of total enegy depending on what type of industry your area features. So a complete transition of all personal transportation and all electricity will bring most of the efficiency increases we are trying for but still leave 60% or more of the total energy consumption we need that cannot be easily converted to electric. Do not fool yourself. We do not have it made to just put up some wind turbines and solar panels. There will be a big 2-3X deficit in critical energy intensive undertakings that we rely on such as mining and refining steel and concrete and big agg growing enough food. Our lifestyles will have to undergo the Great Simplification as our one time pulse of fossil fuels leave us.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Pleas try to aquaint yourself with the scale of our oil consumption.
.
A hundred...million...barrels... a day
.
Stored electricity is very difuse. Diesel fuel is very dense energy. 1 gallon can do the work of 10 kWh of electricity in an industrial machine at 35%, weighs 7 pounds, and costs $4.
.
Fossil fuel borders on magic.
.
Farm machines use 570 Liters of diesel per day = 5,700 kWh per day. Even if you cut that by2.5 for the extra efficiency of electric motors with round trip losses you get 2,300 kWh per day for a large size farm machine. 12 Tesla grid scale 200kWh powerpacks per day to hot swap in and out. for just one tractor. We are going to need to start making some mighty long extension cords to get all of this energy around. Food pricing will skyrocket in lock step with oil price in 20-30 years.
.

.
.
2.5 miles across and .75 miles deep. Mining copper at .2% ore grade. The earth movers carry 250 tons/ trip. 1 truck at 10 mph versus 3,400 donkeys at 2 mph. Anyone should be able to understand that once diesel fuel begins to leave us, we won't be able to ever again undertake big projects like this.
.
.

.
.
Human civilization will be much smaller and simpler again. After the age of fossil fuel.
.
.

The farm equipment is idle most of the year.
When light trucks,automobiles,tractor-trailers,trains,and ships aren't using diesel,there should be plenty for farm equipment and extractive industry.
Food prices will rise incrementally just as they have.Without 261-million fossil cars on the road there will be plenty of liquid hydrocarbons for them.And when wer'e off fossil fuel,farmers won't face price volatility as we see just with the recent Memorial Day weekend fuel price run-up.
Human 'civilization' is an oxymoron.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Just remember all cost gets passed down to the end user/consumer.
So when fuel or whatever sort of mobile power the farming machinery uses becomes unaffordable what do we think will happen to the food prices?

People are gonna eat.And they're gonna pay the going rate.Changes will be slow and incremental,rising as the value of currency is diluted over time.Just like always.
Watermelon was 2-cents/pound when I was little.The world hasn't fallen apart.