02-04-2019, 03:04 PM
|
#4811 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,908
Thanks: 3,475
Thanked 2,952 Times in 1,845 Posts
|
More debunking of junk science:
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to NeilBlanchard For This Useful Post:
|
|
 Today
|
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
|
|
02-04-2019, 03:12 PM
|
#4812 (permalink)
|
|
Human Environmentalist
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 12,819
Thanks: 4,327
Thanked 4,480 Times in 3,445 Posts
|
Something being technically feasible is way different than it being economically feasible. I didn't see anything in there to explain how storage would work.
If going renewable is better in every way, then we'd already be doing it. The website is ignorant at best, and deceptive at worst.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to redpoint5 For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
02-04-2019, 03:20 PM
|
#4813 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoWalker
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
Posts: 3,999
Thanks: 1,714
Thanked 2,247 Times in 1,455 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Dumb website based on nothing.
|
The website itself is pretty meh, but the link at the bottom points to an index page that points to lots of relevant papers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Might as well just say we can wish for nuclear fusion. Even that's more likely than what they propose by 2050, which is an arbitrary date, with arbitrary amounts of various "renewable" solutions.
I propose 10,000% solar electricity! What are we waiting for!!!
|
Renewables alone won't cut it in the foreseeable future, barring breakthrough developments. So yes. 10% solar is a nice target.
__________________
2011 Honda Insight + HID, LEDs, tiny PV panel, extra brake pad return springs, neutral wheel alignment, 44/42 PSI (air), PHEV light (inop), tightened wheel nut.
  lifetime FE over 0.2 Gigameter or 0.13 Megamile.
For confirmation go to people just like you.
For education go to people unlike yourself.
Last edited by RedDevil; 02-04-2019 at 03:26 PM..
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to RedDevil For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
02-04-2019, 07:27 PM
|
#4814 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 28,719
Thanks: 8,151
Thanked 8,933 Times in 7,375 Posts
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Health improvements alone from dropping coal is a huge cost savings.
|
Not to mention fewer coal miners being accused of unconsious bias and racism. 
The downside is fewer coal miner songs. My favorite is probably Beat On The Mountain.
....but the mountain don't say a thing.
__________________
.
.Without freedom of speech we wouldn't know who all the idiots are. -- anonymous poster
____________________
.
.Three conspiracy theorists walk into a bar --You can't say that is a coincidence.
|
|
|
|
|
02-04-2019, 08:05 PM
|
#4815 (permalink)
|
|
Corporate imperialist
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 11,268
Thanks: 273
Thanked 3,569 Times in 2,833 Posts
|
I have no doubt getting rid of coal plants will make people healthier.
Just replace coal with nuclear.
I read a lot of books and science journals and we were supposed to have fission power by the year 2000 or 2020 at the latest.
Well it's 2019 and commercial fission power still looks like it's 20 or 30 years away.
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
|
|
|
|
|
02-04-2019, 10:21 PM
|
#4816 (permalink)
|
|
Human Environmentalist
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 12,819
Thanks: 4,327
Thanked 4,480 Times in 3,445 Posts
|
Commercial fission power looks like it did in the 50s, which is part of the problem. Fusion power; can't imagine that happening anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
|
02-04-2019, 11:41 PM
|
#4817 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 28,719
Thanks: 8,151
Thanked 8,933 Times in 7,375 Posts
|
Quote:
I read a lot of books and science journals and we were supposed to have fission power by the year 2000 or 2020 at the latest.
Well it's 2019 and commercial fission power still looks like it's 20 or 30 years away.
|
I think there is a little confission.
__________________
.
.Without freedom of speech we wouldn't know who all the idiots are. -- anonymous poster
____________________
.
.Three conspiracy theorists walk into a bar --You can't say that is a coincidence.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to freebeard For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
02-05-2019, 01:56 PM
|
#4818 (permalink)
|
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,908
Thanks: 3,475
Thanked 2,952 Times in 1,845 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4
I have no doubt getting rid of coal plants will make people healthier.
Just replace coal with nuclear.
|
Nuclear costs even more than coal. Who's going to pay for it?
Wind based on land in the least expensive way to generate electricity, and it is growing faster and faster.
Storage is cheap - even if you use lithium. It pays for itself in a short period of time. Even with conventional sources, we need storage. |
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to NeilBlanchard For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
02-05-2019, 02:30 PM
|
#4819 (permalink)
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Brazil
Posts: 1,476
Thanks: 14
Thanked 363 Times in 327 Posts
|
I hope batteries drop in price and grow in energy density. But at present time lithium it's expensive, very expensive...
Maybe in countries with prime weather predictions, they could manage industry activity to work more or more intnese in days of strong winds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Nuclear costs even more than coal. Who's going to pay for it?
Wind based on land in the least expensive way to generate electricity, and it is growing faster and faster.
Storage is cheap - even if you use lithium. It pays for itself in a short period of time. Even with conventional sources, we need storage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to All Darc For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
02-05-2019, 02:59 PM
|
#4820 (permalink)
|
|
Human Environmentalist
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 12,819
Thanks: 4,327
Thanked 4,480 Times in 3,445 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Nuclear costs even more than coal. Who's going to pay for it?
Wind based on land in the least expensive way to generate electricity, and it is growing faster and faster.
Storage is cheap - even if you use lithium. It pays for itself in a short period of time. Even with conventional sources, we need storage.
|
Nuclear doesn't have to cost more, and it didn't in the past. We didn't get less capable at engineering/constructing such power plants, we got more NIMBY.
Wind may be the least expensive way to generate random electricity, but we don't need random electricity, we need precise and varying amounts.
Storage is not cheap, otherwise it would have already been implemented.
|
|
|
|
|
