The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redpoint5]

Why would hydro decrease? If anything, it should remain the same or slightly increase.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Why would hydro decrease? If anything, it should remain the same or slightly increase.

I thought the same thing until I realized that this chart is showing each source as a PERCENTAGE of the TOTAL primary energy for any given year, whatever that total might have been. It doesn't show the absolute value. So the big dip in coal as Britain's supplies started to run out, and after we found oil, is just the portion or share that coal was contributing. The overall total energy use, and coal use, was still sky rocketing. As it is projected to continue to 2100. Making hydro look less. And solar to look stalled. But it is just less percentage of a much larger whole. Even if it's absolute value is still increasing. I couldn't find a better chart that calculated absolute values by year for the entire world. Most are by country and only show out to 2040.
.
.

.
.

[redpoint5]

Yeah, I'd like to see a nice absolute value chart because it's difficult to see what any given fuel source is doing in a particular year since it's height on the graph is affected by the sources below it. Coal is the only easily interpreted fuel on the graph since the height is unaffected by other fuel sources.

So this graph uses projected energy use in 2100 and sets that as 100%, meaning that in 1850 we were using 15% as much energy compared to what is projected in 2100?

[sendler]

No. It is showing 100% of the use, by source, for any given year. In 1850 we were using 15% coal and 85% "traditional renewable". ie. fire wood, water wheels, mechanical wind mills, ect.
.
Charts like these show absolute consumption by source but I can't find any that go out past 2040:
.
.

.
.

.
.

.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Why would hydro decrease? If anything, it should remain the same or slightly increase.

It's already happening in Texas.
The demand for water has gotten to the point where there are hydroelectric dams can't operate in a profitable manor because they have to save water for summer so when something breaks the hydroelectric portion gets decommissioned.
People tend to build towns near rivers and lakes so the government would have to move a whole town or city to build a dam.

There is only 1 or 2 ways to get water when it doesn't rain, there are lots of was to get power.
Texas is not energy poor, but they can become water poor during a good drought.

Why isn't someone telling us we are all going to die if we don't switch everything over to renewables and can't use nuclear power.

[redpoint5]

Flooding is controlled by dams, and water availability is increased by dams. Basically, the power is free because we need dams anyhow. Dam everything!

I am a bit surprised there aren't nuke extremists who paint an equally dire picture as wind/solar fanatics. Nuclear proponents mostly just seem to be reasonable people, and those are the least likely to be loud/self-promoting/alarmist.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

It's already happening in Texas.
The demand for water has gotten to the point where there are hydroelectric dams can't operate in a profitable manor because they have to save water for summer so when something breaks the hydroelectric portion gets decommissioned.
People tend to build towns near rivers and lakes so the government would have to move a whole town or city to build a dam.

There is only 1 or 2 ways to get water when it doesn't rain, there are lots of was to get power.
Texas is not energy poor, but they can become water poor during a good drought.

Why isn't someone telling us we are all going to die if we don't switch everything over to renewables and can't use nuclear power.

James Hansen is saying it.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Flooding is controlled by dams, and water availability is increased by dams. Basically, the power is free because we need dams anyhow. Dam everything!

I am a bit surprised there aren't nuke extremists who paint an equally dire picture as wind/solar fanatics. Nuclear proponents mostly just seem to be reasonable people, and those are the least likely to be loud/self-promoting/alarmist.

Some of them live in their energy-gobbling MacMansions,deep in the suburbs,burning a village-worth of fuel each year, to get their SUV to and from their Sierra Club flesh-market getaways.
I'm part way into 'The Long Emergency',and the author has mentioned in passing,that France had supplied 85% of their electric power needs without ever a mishap.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I'm part way into 'The Long Emergency',and the author has mentioned in passing,that France had supplied 85% of their electric power needs without ever a mishap.

So you are reading The Long Emergency but seem to have been dismissing the Nate Hagens Blindspot lecture and most of what I have been saying. I am hopeful that more people can wake to the coming changes that energy and resource depletion will force on us in the next 20-30 years and work to raise awareness.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I have said before coal is the future.
I better get my futuristic coal furnace ready for this season, and find some coal for it.

I'm just going to interject that,if the climate scientists are correct,coal combustion cannot be part of the energy equation going into the future.
Carbon-capture appears to be quite literally a 'pipe dream.'
Syngas is not economically feasible,nor it's carbon dioxide emissions.
Syn-fuel,ditto.
It's certainly not good news for the coal industry.