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

[Bergslagstroll]

It is a property rights issue, related to coal only is as much as the government places the
property rights of it's citizens below that of the coal company.
It would not matter if it was a walmart, car plant , ect.

The difference is that is much bigger intrusion from coal mines, that you don’t destroy 14 villages to build a Walmart or a car plant.

This is just one of many example of fossil fuel not being a free market solution. For example, that the flow of cheap oil from the Middle East is dependent on western taxpayers paying for costly wars and military bases in brutal dictatorships.

Fossil fuel companies neither pay the cost of their pollution.

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew070215a

You can also look at cars that also are dependent on the government. For example, that roads are mostly paid by taxpayers and there is also no mechanism to regulate demand. So, building more roads often leads to more traffic instead of significantly less congestion.

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/

While at the same time private business owner are forced to provide parking spaces for cars. That cities have mandatory parking minimums, setting precise standards for parking spaces for each building.

https://www.vox.com/videos/2017/7/19/15993936/high-cost-of-free-parking

 

[Bergslagstroll]

It doesn't look like demand is falling.

If you look at the graph in my link you can see that global coal consumption first flattened out and then started to decline in 2015 and 2016.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...and-falls-2016-second-year-in-row-fossil-fuel

Hopefully this trend continues because coal is a very harmful industry.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/world/asia/china-coal-health-smog-pollution.html

Death and Disease from Power Plants - Clean Air Task Force (CATF)

 

[Port & Starboard]

If you look at the graph in my link you can see that global coal consumption first flattened out and then started to decline in 2015 and 2016.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...and-falls-2016-second-year-in-row-fossil-fuel

Hopefully this trend continues because coal is a very harmful industry.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/world/asia/china-coal-health-smog-pollution.html

Death and Disease from Power Plants - Clean Air Task Force (CATF)

I think that most any fairly educated person already understands the ramifications of coal, oil, NG, etc. etc.

Most reasonable people also understand that we need to use what we have for the time being until renewables become the mainstream without breaking the bank.

We are still in the infancy of renewable technology in my opinion and it will only get better in the future.

 

[Jack Hays]

If you look at the graph in my link you can see that global coal consumption first flattened out and then started to decline in 2015 and 2016.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...and-falls-2016-second-year-in-row-fossil-fuel

Hopefully this trend continues because coal is a very harmful industry.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/world/asia/china-coal-health-smog-pollution.html

Death and Disease from Power Plants - Clean Air Task Force (CATF)

The International Energy Agency disagrees.

Chapter 4. Coal
Overview
In the IEO2016 Reference case, coal remains the second-largest energy source worldwide—behind petroleum and other liquids—until 2030. From 2030 through 2040, it is the third-largest energy source, behind both liquid fuels and natural gas. World coal consumption increases from 2012 to 2040 at an average rate of 0.6%/year, from 153 quadrillion Btu in 2012 to 169 quadrillion Btu in 2020 and to 180 quadrillion Btu in 2040.
[…]
U.S. EIA
​

 

[longview]

The difference is that is much bigger intrusion from coal mines, that you don’t destroy 14 villages to build a Walmart or a car plant.

This is just one of many example of fossil fuel not being a free market solution. For example, that the flow of cheap oil from the Middle East is dependent on western taxpayers paying for costly wars and military bases in brutal dictatorships.

Fossil fuel companies neither pay the cost of their pollution.

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew070215a

You can also look at cars that also are dependent on the government. For example, that roads are mostly paid by taxpayers and there is also no mechanism to regulate demand. So, building more roads often leads to more traffic instead of significantly less congestion.

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/

While at the same time private business owner are forced to provide parking spaces for cars. That cities have mandatory parking minimums, setting precise standards for parking spaces for each building.

https://www.vox.com/videos/2017/7/19/15993936/high-cost-of-free-parking

To me the legal details between 1 and 10,000 acres is not important, what is important is that the government sees fit to place the property rights
of a private corporation above the rights of citizens.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=1]Climate Hypocrite President Macron Sucking Coal Power from Britain[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall According to The Guardian, a temporary shortage of nuclear power in France forced France to buy substantial amounts of “dirty” coal power from Britain – right at the time French President Macron was taunting President Trump, and pushing for climate trade tariffs against countries which do not share the EU’s…
Continue reading →

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I think that most any fairly educated person already understands the ramifications of coal, oil, NG, etc. etc.

Most reasonable people also understand that we need to use what we have for the time being until renewables become the mainstream without breaking the bank.

We are still in the infancy of renewable technology in my opinion and it will only get better in the future.

Renewables accounted for almost two-thirds of net new power capacity around the world in 2016. That at the same time you have seen a drastic drop in price.

https://www.iea.org/publications/renewables2017/

You can also look at my country Sweden that after the 1973 oil crisis and the 1979 energy crisis decided to replace oil powered burners with district heating for heating buildings. Thereby both drastic reducing Sweden’s CO2 emission and particle pollutions as well as our dependency on oil from the Middle East.

District heating

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The International Energy Agency disagrees.

Chapter 4. Coal
Overview
In the IEO2016 Reference case, coal remains the second-largest energy source worldwide—behind petroleum and other liquids—until 2030. From 2030 through 2040, it is the third-largest energy source, behind both liquid fuels and natural gas. World coal consumption increases from 2012 to 2040 at an average rate of 0.6%/year, from 153 quadrillion Btu in 2012 to 169 quadrillion Btu in 2020 and to 180 quadrillion Btu in 2040.
[…]
U.S. EIA
​

That graph is only projections after 2012 and the projection was wrong for 2015 and 2016, because the graph didn’t show the decline you have had during those years. So, do you have a more up to date projection?

Global coal consumption fell by 53 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe), or 1.7%, the second successive annual decline. The largest declines in coal consumption were seen in the US (-33 mtoe, an 8.8% fall) and China (-26 mtoe, -1.6%). Coal consumption in the UK more than halved (down 52.5%, or 12 mtoe) to its lowest level in our records.

Coal’s share of global primary energy consumption fell to 28.1%, the lowest share since 2004.

World coal production fell by 6.2%, or 231 mtoe, the largest decline on record. China’s production fell by 7.9% or 140 mtoe, also a record decline. US production fell by 19% or 85 mtoe.

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

That the shift towards renewables energy have been faster than expected. Take for example India that will invest a lot more and a lot faster in renewables than expected.

The Indian government has forecast that it will exceed the renewable energy targets set in Paris last year by nearly half and three years ahead of schedule.

A draft 10-year energy blueprint published this week predicts that 57% of India’s total electricity capacity will come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2027. The Paris climate accord target was 40% by 2030.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/21/india-renewable-energy-paris-climate-summit-target

You also have UK that will phase coal out of all electricity generation by 2025 and Canada that will close it last coal power plant by 2030. UK had also a sharp decline in power generation from coal from 22 percent in 2015 to 9 percent in 2016.

UK vows to close all coal power plants by 2025 | The Independent

 

[Port & Starboard]

Renewables accounted for almost two-thirds of net new power capacity around the world in 2016. That at the same time you have seen a drastic drop in price.

https://www.iea.org/publications/renewables2017/

You can also look at my country Sweden that after the 1973 oil crisis and the 1979 energy crisis decided to replace oil powered burners with district heating for heating buildings. Thereby both drastic reducing Sweden’s CO2 emission and particle pollutions as well as our dependency on oil from the Middle East.

District heating

What it will all come down to is each country looking at what other countries are doing and learn from them.

 

[Helix]

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

sounds good to me. we can pay for our part of it by withdrawing from war and spending that money on building solar and wind farms.

 

[Jack Hays]

That graph is only projections after 2012 and the projection was wrong for 2015 and 2016, because the graph didn’t show the decline you have had during those years. So, do you have a more up to date projection?

I suspect the future usage will be very close to the projection.

 

[Lord of Planar]

sounds good to me. we can pay for our part of it by withdrawing from war and spending that money on building solar and wind farms.

Unless we come up with giga-watt-hour size storage facilities, we will not see 100% renewable.

 

[Helix]

Unless we come up with giga-watt-hour size storage facilities, we will not see 100% renewable.

Ok. Soumds good to me.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Unless we come up with giga-watt-hour size storage facilities, we will not see 100% renewable.

There are many ways for matching electric power supply with demand.

In that study, it was found that matching large differences between high electrical demand and low renewable supply could be realized largely by using a combination of either (1) substantial CSP storage plus batteries with zero change in existing hydropower annual energy output or peak power discharge rate, (2) modest CSP storage with no batteries and zero change in the existing hydropower annual energy output but a substantial increase in hydropower’s peak discharge rate, (3) increases in CSP-storage, batteries, and heat pumps, but no thermal energy storage and no increase in hydropower’s peak discharge rate or annual energy output, or (4) a combination of (1), (2), and (3). Thus, there were multiple solutions for matching peak Joule 1, 108–121, September 6, 2017 115 demand with supply 100% of the time for 5 years without bioenergy, nuclear, power, fossil fuels with carbon capture, or natural gas.

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf (page 9)

You also have this interesting experiment there a house in northern Sweden (as far north as southern Alaska) will get all its power and heat from solar power. That the house will have batteries for short term storage and produce hydrogen to be used during the cold and dark winters.

https://translate.google.se/transla...s-anpassat-for-kallt-klimat-909484&edit-text=

 

[Bergslagstroll]

What it will all come down to is each country looking at what other countries are doing and learn from them.

Yes, also the change is so rapid that what is consider impossible in one country can be reality in another country.

 

[Jack Hays]

I wonder how long before the Chinese steal this.


[h=1]Cool tech: a switchable solar window[/h]Demonstration device dynamically responds to sunlight by transforming from transparent to tinted while converting sunlight into electricity Thermochromic windows capable of converting sunlight into electricity at a high efficiency have been developed by scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Relying on such advanced materials as perovskites and single-walled carbon…
Continue reading →

 

[Lord of Planar]

There are many ways for matching electric power supply with demand.



https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf (page 9)

You also have this interesting experiment there a house in northern Sweden (as far north as southern Alaska) will get all its power and heat from solar power. That the house will have batteries for short term storage and produce hydrogen to be used during the cold and dark winters.

https://translate.google.se/transla...s-anpassat-for-kallt-klimat-909484&edit-text=

The prices start getting astronomically expensive to add storage for the energy. The system built in Fairbanks Alaska years ago cost $350 million. It can produce 27 megawatts of power for 15 minutes, and was built in 2003. How much would giga-watt size storage cost for major cites that can store and maintain normal 24 hr loads?

GVEA's Fairbanks battery bank keeps lights on | | newsminer.com

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=1]Lifelong Democrat declares war on Governor Jerry Brown over nuclear power[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t Willie Soon – Lifelong Democrat, Founder and President of Environmental Progress, and Time Magazine Hero of the Environment Michael Shellenberger will stand as an Independent candidate for Governor in the 2019 California Election. Shellenberger, who supports nuclear power as a legitimate means of reducing CO2 emissions, is horrified at…
Continue reading →

 

[Media_Truth]

[h=1]Lifelong Democrat declares war on Governor Jerry Brown over nuclear power[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t Willie Soon – Lifelong Democrat, Founder and President of Environmental Progress, and Time Magazine Hero of the Environment Michael Shellenberger will stand as an Independent candidate for Governor in the 2019 California Election. Shellenberger, who supports nuclear power as a legitimate means of reducing CO2 emissions, is horrified at…
Continue reading →

Your lack of scientific education is really shining through on this one. Solar doesn't raise costs - it lowers electrical costs for all consumers. Solar is a peak-load producer. It produces at it's peak on a hot summer day, in the afternoon, just as people are cranking up the A/Cs. By contributing to peak load, it prevents the need for construction of new power plants, which is the primary driver of increased electrical costs. In addition, nuclear is the most expensive power source on the planet. You and the High-Schooler Watts better start looking to some more educated sources for your propaganda.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/63038.pdf

Wind and solar energy can provide capacity value by reducing the demand that must be met by conventional
generators during periods of high demand.

 

[Jack Hays]

Your lack of scientific education is really shining through on this one. Solar doesn't raise costs - it lowers electrical costs for all consumers. Solar is a peak-load producer. It produces at it's peak on a hot summer day, in the afternoon, just as people are cranking up the A/Cs. By contributing to peak load, it prevents the need for construction of new power plants, which is the primary driver of increased electrical costs. In addition, nuclear is the most expensive power source on the planet. You and the High-Schooler Watts better start looking to some more educated sources for your propaganda.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/63038.pdf

Wind and solar energy can provide capacity value by reducing the demand that must be met by conventional
generators during periods of high demand.

The article is not about solar power.:roll:

 

[Jack Hays]

Energy / wind power
[h=1]Cape Wind offshore power project is dead in the water[/h]John Droz writes: The developer for the large proposed offshore Cape Wind project officially threw in the towel. This story has yet to be picked up by major media outlets, but this excellent news is the direct result of some fifteen (15±) years of hard work, dedication and financial donations by a lot of good people.…

 

[Media_Truth]

The article is not about solar power.:roll:

It absolutely was. Sounds like you don't even know what you post. The article stated that renewables hurt poor people. Last I checked, solar is a renewable.

 

[Jack Hays]

It absolutely was. Sounds like you don't even know what you post. The article stated that renewables hurt poor people. Last I checked, solar is a renewable.

The article is about a man running for governor to save nuclear power in California. There is incidental mention of renewables, citing a conclusion by Google engineers that they don't work.

 

[Media_Truth]

The article is about a man running for governor to save nuclear power in California. There is incidental mention of renewables, citing a conclusion by Google engineers that they don't work.

I looked at the site, but I will not return to it, because it is the High Schooler, Watt's site. Why don't you post the entire text of the article, or the actual source, instead of this uneducated person's interpretation, and I will prove you wrong? I will not look at anything on his website again, as that just gives it more "hits".

 

[longview]

Your lack of scientific education is really shining through on this one. Solar doesn't raise costs - it lowers electrical costs for all consumers. Solar is a peak-load producer. It produces at it's peak on a hot summer day, in the afternoon, just as people are cranking up the A/Cs. By contributing to peak load, it prevents the need for construction of new power plants, which is the primary driver of increased electrical costs. In addition, nuclear is the most expensive power source on the planet. You and the High-Schooler Watts better start looking to some more educated sources for your propaganda.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/63038.pdf

Wind and solar energy can provide capacity value by reducing the demand that must be met by conventional
generators during periods of high demand.

Solar may lower costs if it is implemented correctly, in most places it is not.
But let's go through how solar can increase the electrical cost to consumers.
Utility A has a cost of goods sold for it's retail electricity of say $.05 per Kwh,
It retails the electricity for $.10 per Kwh, and pays for the operation wages, and grid maintenance,
out of the the $.05 per Kwh difference.
The local government says the utility must pay $.10 per Kwh for solar surplus, (I.E. the retail meter runs backwards),
as long as the number of solar households is a small percentage, the added cost can be adsorbed.
If the pre solar normal usage is 10 Mwh, at 10 %, The Utility looses 1 Mwh of load,
and must buy say 250,000 Kwh at $.10 per Kwh.
The extra $12,000 (roughly 50%) is added cost must now be spread over the remaining 90% no solar customers,
increasing their cost.
As the percentage increases, the numbers get worse and worse.
Look no further than South Australia for how this plays out.
https://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/electricity-prices-south-australia-skyrocket/