Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Off-Topic > The Lounge
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-02-2018, 04:33 PM   #1951 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 10,464
Thanks: 16,088
Thanked 5,559 Times in 3,323 Posts
will happen

Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4 View Post
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.

__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 06-02-2018, 04:42 PM   #1952 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 10,464
Thanks: 16,088
Thanked 5,559 Times in 3,323 Posts
not enough

Quote:
Originally Posted by sendler View Post
It is a false hope that we could ever replace all energy with solar and wind. There is not enough raw materials to possibly build out this much hardware.
.
One more time (one by one it seems). Just for the USA:
.
130,000 square miles of area, 1.000.000 2.5MW class wind turbines, and 50,000 SolarStar class grid scale 500MW solar farms, and 70,000,000 rooftop solar systems, and a 4% increase in hydro with the new capacity capable to pump store. And an unrealistic quantity of this as split Hydrogen with a new fleet of long haul transport. And still very little percent of storage. Please review "Roadmap to Nowhere" to see the explanation of the facts and figures. They actually did the math.
.
.

.
.
The Myth of Powering the Nation With Renewable Energy
.
It's going to happen whether we like it or not.And it won't even be driven by policy.It doesn't even have to be for environmental reasons.
There's money in it and that's all it takes as an incentive in this world.Adam Smith's invisible hand.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
NeilBlanchard (06-04-2018)
Old 06-02-2018, 04:47 PM   #1953 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
sendler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Syracuse, NY USA
Posts: 2,935

Honda CBR250R FI Single - '11 Honda CBR250R
90 day: 105.14 mpg (US)

2001 Honda Insight stick - '01 Honda Insight manual
90 day: 60.68 mpg (US)

2009 Honda Fit auto - '09 Honda Fit Auto
90 day: 38.51 mpg (US)

PCX153 - '13 Honda PCX150
90 day: 104.48 mpg (US)

2015 Yamaha R3 - '15 Yamaha R3
90 day: 80.94 mpg (US)

Ninja650 - '19 Kawasaki Ninja 650
90 day: 72.57 mpg (US)
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,311 Times in 965 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead View Post
But I'm told I'm wrong,with no information to put forwards with which to substantiate the claim.
Ethanol is a big loser in cars and biodiesel is a likewise big loser for big agriculture. The problem is ER/EI of 2:1. Half your future crop is consumed in trying to make the other half into fuel to do it all over again. And tying up the land that used to grow food. Right now we are extracting oil at 20:1 and the world economy is barely hanging by the thread of a debt to GDP ratio of 4:1. If we have to start farming with fuel at 2:1 the food output will drop and the price will skyrocket. Or even sooner than the doomsday biodiesel scenario when we platue traditional oil and have to start relying on fracked oil and deep water oil at 8:1 or tar sands at 3:1.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sendler For This Useful Post:
aerohead (06-06-2018)
Old 06-02-2018, 04:53 PM   #1954 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 10,464
Thanks: 16,088
Thanked 5,559 Times in 3,323 Posts
1.5-t

Quote:
Originally Posted by sendler View Post
In what way do you find it to be untrue? The totals were taken from the SolutionsProject.org which all renewable advocates constantly quote as the go to guide to replacing all energy in the USA with wind, water, and solar. The Roadmap To Nowhere simply added up the hardware that is required in order to generate the required energy, and gave every benefit of the doubt every where they could regarding optimistic efficiency gains of electric vs ICE, capacity factor, land use, and price.
.
1.5TeraWatts of continuous average power must be replaced just for the USA which already inludes the efficiency advantages of electric over ICE. With capacity factors as stated (25% for solar and 33% for wind?) The hardware requirements are as previously stated.
.
And this doesn't even get into the hardware that needs to be built on the consume end of the transition, which is likewise impossible to build that many batteries. Just for the USA. Now envision the whole world making the same transition. Along with underdeveloped countries raising their standard of living so that they no longer have to cook using sticks or poop outside in the yard.
.
It doesn't add up.
.
The future will be much smaller and simpler.
.
The sooner we accept this and quit relying on a false hope of rebuildables replacing 17 TW, the sooner we can make plans on how to get there as humanely as possible.
That 1.5-Terrawatts is not set in cement.I posted elsewhere at this thread that with energy efficiency we can cut your number by 43%.By getting off fossil fuel we can cut that number down another 41%, due to the inherent entropy of internal combustion.
Now we're into Gigawatt territory.
Renewable energy is already in the gigawatt realm.
Just keep adding to it each year and at some point you supplant the existing infrastructure.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
NeilBlanchard (06-04-2018)
Old 06-02-2018, 05:03 PM   #1955 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
sendler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Syracuse, NY USA
Posts: 2,935

Honda CBR250R FI Single - '11 Honda CBR250R
90 day: 105.14 mpg (US)

2001 Honda Insight stick - '01 Honda Insight manual
90 day: 60.68 mpg (US)

2009 Honda Fit auto - '09 Honda Fit Auto
90 day: 38.51 mpg (US)

PCX153 - '13 Honda PCX150
90 day: 104.48 mpg (US)

2015 Yamaha R3 - '15 Yamaha R3
90 day: 80.94 mpg (US)

Ninja650 - '19 Kawasaki Ninja 650
90 day: 72.57 mpg (US)
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,311 Times in 965 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead View Post
That 1.5-Terrawatts is not set in cement.I posted elsewhere at this thread that with energy efficiency we can cut your number by 43%.By getting off fossil fuel we can cut that number down another 41%, due to the inherent entropy of internal combustion.
Now we're into Gigawatt territory.
Renewable energy is already in the gigawatt realm.
Just keep adding to it each year and at some point you supplant the existing infrastructure.
Nope. Many efficiency improvements have already ocurred. faulty compounding math right off the bat. And again, the majority of energy use are not possibly replaced with electric conversion. Personal transportaion is the next easy one. But it is only 10% of total energy as I stated above. So cutting this consumption to 1/3 with electric conversion saves us 6%.
And.
Can we possibly build 60 kWh batteries for 1 billion electric cars?
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sendler For This Useful Post:
aerohead (06-06-2018)
Old 06-02-2018, 05:09 PM   #1956 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 10,464
Thanks: 16,088
Thanked 5,559 Times in 3,323 Posts
Roadmap to Nowhere

Quote:
Originally Posted by sendler View Post
In what way do you find it to be untrue? The totals were taken from the SolutionsProject.org which all renewable advocates constantly quote as the go to guide to replacing all energy in the USA with wind, water, and solar. The Roadmap To Nowhere simply added up the hardware that is required in order to generate the required energy, and gave every benefit of the doubt every where they could regarding optimistic efficiency gains of electric vs ICE, capacity factor, land use, and price.
.
1.5TeraWatts of continuous average power must be replaced just for the USA which already inludes the efficiency advantages of electric over ICE. With capacity factors as stated (25% for solar and 33% for wind?) The hardware requirements are as previously stated.
.
And this doesn't even get into the hardware that needs to be built on the consume end of the transition, which is likewise impossible to build that many batteries. Just for the USA. Now envision the whole world making the same transition. Along with underdeveloped countries raising their standard of living so that they no longer have to cook using sticks or poop outside in the yard.
.
It doesn't add up.
.
The future will be much smaller and simpler.
.
The sooner we accept this and quit relying on a false hope of rebuildables replacing 17 TW, the sooner we can make plans on how to get there as humanely as possible.
Could you please transcribe specific data from this work so we can skip reading the whole thing.I've just spent the last 3-weeks on Lomberg's book.
Without my own computer,I'm looking at having to print the whole thing,which I'd rather not venture if I can't get a taste of it beforehand.
Impossible is not a word that translates to historical precedent in the United States.
Ph.D. in Economics, Bjorn Lomberg doesn't have a problem with 100% renewables.He expects it to happen! He uses all the real statistics.
I'm a renewable advocate and I've never heard of SolutionsProject.org,nor Roadmap to Nowhere.Perhaps the media hasn't stumbled onto them so far.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2018, 05:13 PM   #1957 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 10,464
Thanks: 16,088
Thanked 5,559 Times in 3,323 Posts
time

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
That's not likely. While the market isn't perfect, it's usually more correct than any individual or group's opinion of what is best for the economy. It is more likely that if there was even equal profit to be made in renewables as fossil fuels, that industry would be larger.

The time will come, but it's not here yet, and not due to lack of will, or conspiracy. Tough problems take time. Their solutions are normally found in many evolutions of various technologies; a process that is time consuming.
We're reminded that time is a luxury we do not possess.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2018, 05:21 PM   #1958 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 10,464
Thanks: 16,088
Thanked 5,559 Times in 3,323 Posts
debt

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
That doesn't seem likely. Entitlements seem to be the biggest expense going forward, especially given a slowing population growth, predicted shrinking economy, and $21,000,000,000,000 national debt.
Lomberg said that debt was good.That a nation had no world standing unless it had debt.Creditworthiness.
Interest rates are low.It's a good time to borrow for infrastructure,investing in the future.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2018, 05:37 PM   #1959 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 10,464
Thanks: 16,088
Thanked 5,559 Times in 3,323 Posts
better

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
Unfunded tax cuts doesn't make sense. It doesn't cost to have someone not pay a tax. The more accurate description would be insufficient tax revenue for given government expenditures.

The truth is that entitlements (government dependency / loss of liberty) far exceed any other spending category. That isn't to say money isn't wasted in other categories, only that it's less significant.



Collectively we have developed a narcissistic entitlement culture where we eat tomorrow's lunch and let our grandchildren pay for it. We have that attitude with resource consumption, pollution emissions, and economics.



Tell that to WWII survivors. Ask any old person what their top 10 most significant challenges were, and I doubt GW appears on their list. Ask an 80 year old how they coped with a sea level that rose 8" in their lifetime, and they will give you a blank stare. This is the same predicted rise for the next 80 years.



We are a significant contributing factor, but it's far from clear if the net negative impacts of GW outweigh the net benefits.

Its nice that we live in such a comfortable world in which the outdoor thermostat is something we can concern ourselves with. Much better problem to contend with than say, how not to starve to death, or how to keep invading hordes from killing us.
From Lomberg: The Cautionary Principle: 'Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage,lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.'
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2018, 07:46 PM   #1960 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
sendler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Syracuse, NY USA
Posts: 2,935

Honda CBR250R FI Single - '11 Honda CBR250R
90 day: 105.14 mpg (US)

2001 Honda Insight stick - '01 Honda Insight manual
90 day: 60.68 mpg (US)

2009 Honda Fit auto - '09 Honda Fit Auto
90 day: 38.51 mpg (US)

PCX153 - '13 Honda PCX150
90 day: 104.48 mpg (US)

2015 Yamaha R3 - '15 Yamaha R3
90 day: 80.94 mpg (US)

Ninja650 - '19 Kawasaki Ninja 650
90 day: 72.57 mpg (US)
Thanks: 326
Thanked 1,311 Times in 965 Posts
Jacobson is suing Clack for saying this:
.
" Jacobson et al. [Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA, Cameron MA, Frew BA (2015) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(49):15060–15065] argue that it is feasible to provide “low-cost solutions to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of WWS [wind, water and solar power] across all energy sectors in the continental United States between 2050 and 2055”, with only electricity and hydrogen as energy carriers. In this paper, we evaluate that study and find significant shortcomings in the analysis. In particular, we point out that this work used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions. Policy makers should treat with caution any visions of a rapid, reliable, and low-cost transition to entire energy systems that relies almost exclusively on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power.
.
"Many previous studies of deep decarbonization of electric power illustrate that much can be done with wind and solar power but that it is extremely difficult to achieve complete decarbonization of the energy system, even when using every current technology and tool available, including energy efficiency and wind, hydroelectric, and solar energy as well as carbon capture and storage, bioenergy, and nuclear energy "
.
Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar | PNAS
.
Here is the Jacobson paper in question which is the blueprint reference that he uses on SolutionProject.org
.
Low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, and solar for all purposes | PNAS
.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Tags
lies, opinion, reality, scam

Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com