• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Most of The World Could Be 100% Powered With Renewables by 2050

I provided many examples of how development countries can develop in much more sustainable ways. While also how developed countries reduce their CO2 emissions and create more efficient and sustainable societies. While at the same time a lot more work need to be done and the transition needs to speed up.
Yet you openly reject the one path that would speed the world to global CO2 reduction and sustainable energy! I wonder why that is?
 
I provided many examples of how development countries can develop in much more sustainable ways. While also how developed countries reduce their CO2 emissions and create more efficient and sustainable societies. While at the same time a lot more work need to be done and the transition needs to speed up.
You generally only post propaganda links, and no quotes that are relevant.
 
And what about batteries or some other storage, for the times of no sunlight and dead wind patterns?

Who's crystal ball says we will have adequate storage means by then?
The study references an earlier 2015 study that describes the storage solution:

This study addresses the greatest concern facing the large-scale integration of wind, water, and solar (WWS) into a power grid: the high cost of avoiding load loss caused by WWS variability and uncertainty. It uses a new grid integration model and finds low-cost, no-load-loss, nonunique solutions to this problem on electrification of all US energy sectors (electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, and industry) while accounting for wind and solar time series data from a 3D global weather model that simulates extreme events and competition among wind turbines for available kinetic energy. Solutions are obtained by prioritizing storage for heat (in soil and water); cold (in ice and water); and electricity (in phase-change materials, pumped hydro, hydropower, and hydrogen), and using demand response. No natural gas, biofuels, nuclear power, or stationary batteries are needed. The resulting 2050–2055 US electricity social cost for a full system is much less than for fossil fuels. These results hold for many conditions, suggesting that low-cost, reliable 100% WWS systems should work many places worldwide.
 
The study references an earlier 2015 study that describes the storage solution:

This study addresses the greatest concern facing the large-scale integration of wind, water, and solar (WWS) into a power grid: the high cost of avoiding load loss caused by WWS variability and uncertainty. It uses a new grid integration model and finds low-cost, no-load-loss, nonunique solutions to this problem on electrification of all US energy sectors (electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, and industry) while accounting for wind and solar time series data from a 3D global weather model that simulates extreme events and competition among wind turbines for available kinetic energy. Solutions are obtained by prioritizing storage for heat (in soil and water); cold (in ice and water); and electricity (in phase-change materials, pumped hydro, hydropower, and hydrogen), and using demand response. No natural gas, biofuels, nuclear power, or stationary batteries are needed. The resulting 2050–2055 US electricity social cost for a full system is much less than for fossil fuels. These results hold for many conditions, suggesting that low-cost, reliable 100% WWS systems should work many places worldwide.
Funny how they do not tell you how much it will cost.

Think about it.
 
And what about batteries or some other storage, for the times of no sunlight and dead wind patterns?

Who's crystal ball says we will have adequate storage means by then?
We certainly won’t if we don’t try. And just so you realize, Musk won’t be taking you with him on his spaceship so you’ll be stuck here with the rest of us on the planet.
 
We certainly won’t if we don’t try. And just so you realize, Musk won’t be taking you with him on his spaceship so you’ll be stuck here with the rest of us on the planet.
We can get there is we must. but do you want your electricity rates to be three times more than they are now?
 
I provided many examples of how development countries can develop in much more sustainable ways. While also how developed countries reduce their CO2 emissions and create more efficient and sustainable societies. While at the same time a lot more work need to be done and the transition needs to speed up.

They have been doing that since the 1980s, but not out of choice but because of high oil prices. The problem is that they want to industrialize, and that requires the opposite of sustainability. In addition, the ones funding them, which includes foreigners, want higher ROIs, which means even more energy and material resources needed. And to do both including wants (e.g., Norwegian lifestyles) plus transition buffer stocks will be needed, which means additional energy and material resources.

To recap, in order to meet basic needs of the world population, we'll need at least one more earth. To meet that plus wants, which includes cute Norwegian lifestyles, three more earths. To to transition to fossil-fuel free, add to that to deal with diminishing returns.

"A lot more work" is an understatement.
 
The study references an earlier 2015 study that describes the storage solution:

This study addresses the greatest concern facing the large-scale integration of wind, water, and solar (WWS) into a power grid: the high cost of avoiding load loss caused by WWS variability and uncertainty. It uses a new grid integration model and finds low-cost, no-load-loss, nonunique solutions to this problem on electrification of all US energy sectors (electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, and industry) while accounting for wind and solar time series data from a 3D global weather model that simulates extreme events and competition among wind turbines for available kinetic energy. Solutions are obtained by prioritizing storage for heat (in soil and water); cold (in ice and water); and electricity (in phase-change materials, pumped hydro, hydropower, and hydrogen), and using demand response. No natural gas, biofuels, nuclear power, or stationary batteries are needed. The resulting 2050–2055 US electricity social cost for a full system is much less than for fossil fuels. These results hold for many conditions, suggesting that low-cost, reliable 100% WWS systems should work many places worldwide.
Sorry, the authors are engaging in hypothetical fantasy with this statement in the abstract.
Solutions are obtained by prioritizing storage for heat (in soil and water); cold (in ice and water); and electricity (in phase-change materials, pumped hydro, hydropower, and hydrogen), and using demand response. No natural gas, biofuels, nuclear power, or stationary batteries are needed.
To cover our ever growing demand, will require every tool in our tool box.
 
I don’t understand the question.
LOP said that getting Wind and Solar to cover out complete electrical demand would require the
electricity rates to go up 3 times higher than they currently are.
You responded "Sure, if that’s what it takes."
I asked what is your goal if you are ok with electrical rates increasing by 3 times?
The costs would be very great, to people on fixed incomes, so what would the benefit be?
 
LOP said that getting Wind and Solar to cover out complete electrical demand would require the
electricity rates to go up 3 times higher than they currently are.
You responded "Sure, if that’s what it takes."
I asked what is your goal if you are ok with electrical rates increasing by 3 times?
The costs would be very great, to people on fixed incomes, so what would the benefit be?
How would I know? I don’t even know how LOP knows it would cost three times more. That sounds like a guess from a guy who consistently downplays the significance of doing anything about the problem.

Now you want me to explain hypothetically how a person justifies a hypothetical or arbitrary scenario? It doesn’t make sense.
 
How would I know? I don’t even know how LOP knows it would cost three times more. That sounds like a guess from a guy who consistently downplays the significance of doing anything about the problem.

Now you want me to explain hypothetically how a person justifies a hypothetical or arbitrary scenario? It doesn’t make sense.
The 3 times is roughly what electrical rates went up in the UK as they implemented more Wind and Solar.
The question is , what benefit do you think would be the results of going 100% renewable energy at this time?
 
The 3 times is roughly what electrical rates went up in the UK as they implemented more Wind and Solar.
The question is , what benefit do you think would be the results of going 100% renewable energy at this time?
2050 is not “at this time.”
 
2050 is not “at this time.”
We need capabilities beyond batteries, they are too expensive with the current technology.
New technology could change this, but a lot of smart people have been working decades to make better batteries,
it is just very difficult with the limitations in material science.
 
The 3 times is roughly what electrical rates went up in the UK as they implemented more Wind and Solar.
The question is , what benefit do you think would be the results of going 100% renewable energy at this time?

Renewable energy didn't tripel the cost of electricity in the UK. Instead there was an energy crisis in the UK and the rest of Europe caused by the rising cost of fossil fuels. There this showed the massive risks and costs of being dependent on fossil fuels and the ruthless dictators that provide those fuels.


There the fuels and energy storage solutions you propose didn't come to the rescue. Instead it was expansion of renewable energy that helped Europe to weather the crisis and the rapid expansion of renewable energy continues.


 
Last edited:
We need capabilities beyond batteries, they are too expensive with the current technology.
New technology could change this, but a lot of smart people have been working decades to make better batteries,
it is just very difficult with the limitations in material science.

The cost of lithium batteries is rapidly declining.


While you have much cheaper forms of batteries suited for energy storage.


There are also ways to balance the supply of electricity and at the same time decarbonize other sectors. During periods of a surplus of cheap renewable energy, heat can be generated, stored in bricks and used in industries then needed. Thereby reduce the need for fossil fuels in industrial processes.


While also that sand battery can store heat for long periods of time. There that heat can be used in district heating and maybe also industrial processes.

 
Renewable energy didn't tripel the cost of electricity in the UK. Instead there was an energy crisis in the UK and the rest of Europe caused by the rising cost of fossil fuels. There this shows the massive risks and costs of being dependent on fossil fuels and the ruthless dictators that provide those fuels.


There the fuels and energy storage solutions you propose didn't come to the rescue. Instead it was expansion of renewable energy that helped Europe to weather the crisis and the rapid expansion of renewable energy continues.


Let test your hypothesis against the actual data.
Average Cost of Electricity per kWh in the UK (2024)
Yep, we can clearly see the Ukraine invasion in 2022, but the rates were already up 60% before that.
and while they have declined some, they are nearly double what they were in 2010.
I thought all the wind power was supposed to reduce the cost of electricity?
1711573845547.png
 
The cost of lithium batteries is rapidly declining.


While you have much cheaper forms of batteries suited for energy storage.


There are also ways to balance the supply of electricity and at the same time decarbonize other sectors. During periods of a surplus of cheap renewable energy, heat can be generated, stored in bricks and used in industries then needed. Thereby reduce the need for fossil fuels in industrial processes.


While also that sand battery can store heat for long periods of time. There that heat can be used in district heating and maybe also industrial processes.

I still do not think you grasp the scale of batteries needed or the limitations on capabilities, like how long will retain a charge.
Your link about prices falling mentioned $139 per kWh, but a Tesla Powerwall2 is $8100 before installation, and is 13.5 kWh, or $600
per kWh. I wonder when the prices people pay will line up with the claimed costs?
 
Back
Top Bottom