Renewable Energy Is The Future

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I smell a free pass for communist chinese co2.

Pretty sad and so ironic seeing how most of the world's solar panels are made there.

That's correct.Until they attain 'developed' status.(whatever that means)

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

I'm not going to buy hydro power is anywhere near fully tapped when so many rivers are free flowing. Wiki says the IEA report claims there is 75% undeveloped in North America and 82% undeveloped in Asia. So it's already the #1 renewable with less than 25% developed. Africa is basically untouched with 95% undeveloped. These are using current methods, and true using just those methods wouldn't rise to my claim of filling the future world's entire needs, but it could probably cover the current needs.

This is an interesting study on the total potential, but the final conclusion is only maybe 4-5 times "current" capacity is possible.
https://gigaom.com/2011/12/23/how-mu...gy-can-we-get/

Dr.Michael Wysession's, 24-lecture series on energy touched on hydro,and his comment was that,most available hydroelectric sites have already been exploited,leaving no low-hanging fruit.
As mountain glaciers retreat with global warming,we'll be losing streams,rivers,and reservoirs.It's already documented in South America,and elsewhere.Not a good trend with 2-billion more Earthlings in the pipeline.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

The guy I referenced above has some other blogs about how no energy is sustainable at our growth, not even the entire power of the sun. In 2500 years we would need all the energy in the galaxy.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/g...-scale-energy/

His point is the growth has to stop at some point, just on the physics of it. He then ties that to economic growth in another blog but I'm not convinced the two are 100% tied together.

I'm hearing (reading) that we'll plateau at around 9-billion souls.And that's all we need to build out to.By getting off fossil-fuel we can cut primary energy needs by 2/3rds,simply eliminating the entropy of combustion.As efficiency grows,and renewables proliferate,at some point we'll achieve saturation,where demand is met by supply, a static population,and no more need of energy growth,as all activities only become ever more efficient.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

At what level of economic prosperity, and what is considered "sustainable"? There are zero things in the universe that are infinitely sustainable. Any notion of sustaining then must include the standard (per capita wealth, for instance) and the duration (x number of years).



Sure, but then any behavior (including consumerism) at the core isn't a thinking activity. To dismiss reproduction as a special kind of non-thinking activity in comparison to all the others is arbitrary. It's a way to frame the conversation as group A good, group B bad.



Good thing we don't live in history. Instead we live now, in the most peaceful period of time known to humankind. War and the associated plunder were known by all peoples.



The exception doesn't falsify the rule.



... and those facts are based on their subjective opinion of what a cost is. Any decision ever made carries with it infinite opportunity cost. It collapses an infinite universe of possibility down to a concrete reality.



Funny, there's a famous hockey stick chart that implies a relationship between 2 things based on how closely they track each other. I'll likewise provide these charts:





Not saying correlation = causation, but they seem to be very related.



The hope of decoupling wealth from fossil fuel consumption in the future is not the same as reality today. Dreams are not substitutes for reality.



So some people in the world agree on an arbitrary definition of developed/developing, and I should respect that because? The UN is worse than garbage based on their constantly being wrong about most things, especially with regard to calling evil good, and good evil.



Now, is littered with billions of people who have never been better off than any other time in history. Seems to suggest some good decisions had been made.



I'll ask for example nations. I wonder if any of that is facilitated by oil wealth, diminutive size, and relative homogeneity (to help filter out the potential landmine examples)?

My simplified understanding of this whole post is white = bad, all other colors = good, regardless of the impact to the environment.

The best scenario would be a seamless transition away from fossil-fuels,as is presently underway,maintaining essentially the status quo as far as current standards of living,based upon emerging renewables as they eclipse fossil-fuels,over a 30-year time frame,in accord with scientific recommendations.
'Sustainability' as I understand it's use in today's lexicon would address providing present goods and services without the net,degrading effects,presently identified with respect to 'business as usual'
Gini Coefficient addresses distribution of wealth.That data is available,updated regularly,as the statistics are completed and become available.
Reproductive activity would have to be addressed on a case-specific basis.I can tell you of a man with 14 mentally retarded children,whom when asked why he was attempting to impregnate his wife again responded,'I'm gonna keep goin' until I get me a good one!' Such is the mind of one American.
As far as peaceful,that would be a regional phenomena.
By definition,the exception proves the rule.The exception does falsify the rule.
Externalities are quantifiable 'facts' which only exist for economists courageous enough to include them in the calculus.Only a scoundrel/prostitute would wittingly omit them from the spreadsheet.As is the common practice of 'Chicago School economists.'
We want to be very specific when we use the word 'reality.' It gets in the way for many in business,education,and politics.
I'll caution you with respect to some of the graphs.Some are generated by people of whom I could fine no charitable words with which to describe.They pretend a universal truth,when in fact,are extremely contextual,without the context openly shared,used in a manner to deceive.Replacing 'today's' or 'current' energy isn't even part of the issue.Arguing about 'TODAY' is not germane to the energy discussion.It's the last bastion of the coward.If we get rid of fossil-fuels,we only need 1/3rd of current 'primary' energy.And we're only going to build out for another 2-billion people,so there is an 'end' to energy growth in sight.
Certainly,there;s no question of about what fossil-fuels have done for us,but energy is energy,it's source agnostic.A Btu is a Btu,whether it comes from coal or a solar panel.A kWh is a kWh whether it comes from coal,natural gas, or a sunbeam.Your car,to anthropomorphize,doesn't give a tinker;s damn if it runs on gasoline or wind-derived electricity.No where is the physics of the universe do pistons have a stranglehold on mobility.
'Better off' is a very subjective,non-scientific use of language.I try not to use words like that,they're indefensible.
I don't pay any attention to the UN.I recommend you do the same.
I wouldn't use oil and wealth in the same sentence.There are just too many pitfalls when you put this language under a microscope.The USA may never recover the costs associated with Middle East petroleum.In college,in 1976,the US taxpayers were still paying benefits to family survivors of the US-Mexican War.
Wounded Warrior Project has to go on the air everyday,begging for money to help support veterans injured in our various Mesopotamian campaigns.
As to white people,we're forbidden to discuss here at Ecomodder,what would be necessary to flesh out a proper accounting.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I believe that a majority of man-made reservoirs lack sufficient gravity potential for the hydraulic head,necessary to power a turbine-generator.Utilities installing pumped-hydro storage are currently forced to locate on top of existing hills/mountains,far above the turbine's elevation to get enough pressure differential across the turbine blades.Any fluid mechanics text would have the formulas for available power,given a specific elevation.It requires 32-feet of water column to develop an atmosphere of pressure (14.6 psi).Many hundreds of feet would be required to overcome a utility-scale generator.Edison used Niagara Falls,at 167-feet.The Oroville Dam is 770-feet.

The big Columbia River dams don't have that much height to them, you can have height, or you can have volume. The turbines can be designed to work with either.

The new British Columbia hydro projects use the heights and lower volume and don't pool a reservoir at all. Well maybe a little one or just a diversion dam, then pipe the water down the mountain. Lots of pressure, not as much volume.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

The guy I referenced above has some other blogs about how no energy is sustainable at our growth, not even the entire power of the sun. In 2500 years we would need all the energy in the galaxy.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/g...-scale-energy/

His point is the growth has to stop at some point, just on the physics of it. He then ties that to economic growth in another blog but I'm not convinced the two are 100% tied together.

The US data does not account for the fact that the earliest data points are from a time where the whole 'US' population was a few thousand and covered just a fraction of the land the US has now. Run the same data over Europe, or incorporate native Americans, then the graph wouldn't be as steep.

Then, even if the energy used would grow 100 times each century (it won't; in fact the growth % is tapering down), it would be 10 billion times what we use now by 2500 - nothing we can generate on Earth, but still way less than the Sun's output.
The whole Galaxy? Exaggerations don't go bigger than that.

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

The big Columbia River dams don't have that much height to them, you can have height, or you can have volume.

Grand Coulee Dam looks deceptively short simply because it's so massive. But according to the National Park Service it is 550 feet high and just under a mile wide. I've stopped there before; I would not have guessed those dimensions even after seeing it in person.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

As mountain glaciers retreat with global warming,we'll be losing streams,rivers,and reservoirs.It's already documented in South America,and elsewhere.Not a good trend with 2-billion more Earthlings in the pipeline.

My understanding is that glaciers would not normally contribute to rivers because they are roughly thought of as static, or persisting over many years. It's the annual snow melt that feeds our waterways. My thought is that a more energetic (hotter) world would cycle more water, resulting in more rain/snow cycles. Perhaps rivers could see a net increase in volume globally? After all, a stream is simply the release of sun energy that moved the water to a higher potential energy in the first place.

Originally Posted by Vman455

Grand Coulee Dam looks deceptively short simply because it's so massive. But according to the National Park Service it is 550 feet high and just under a mile wide. I've stopped there before; I would not have guessed those dimensions even after seeing it in person.

That was my impression of the Grand Canyon. After having spent a week in Bryce and Zion, the Grand Canyon was a bit of a let down. Zion frames in the smaller features to give everything perspective, whereas the Grand Canyon was too expansive to be be amazed by it's much larger size. Then again, I didn't hike into the canyon or anything, so that probably makes a big difference.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by Vman455

Grand Coulee Dam looks deceptively short simply because it's so massive. But according to the National Park Service it is 550 feet high and just under a mile wide. I've stopped there before; I would not have guessed those dimensions even after seeing it in person.

That is more the exception than the rule most of the main stem dams are under 200 feet. There are dams on the feeder rivers with less than 30 feet drops. The Columbia river watershed is the example for hydro, but not the norm. Imagine what potential lies in the Missouri although we do have a few dams on that too. Or the oregon and California main rivers.

[NeilBlanchard]

Algae!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwHdl2cD5bk