• 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


Here is a direct links and quotes from Shell's and BP's own webpages.

"We strongly support the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit the rise in the average global temperature well below 2° Celsius. The Paris Agreement also said the world should pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5° Celsius.

For society to achieve a 1.5° Celsius future, the world is likely to need to stop adding to the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – a state known as net-zero emissions – by around 2060.

That is why Shell has set itself an ambition to become, by 2050 or sooner, a net-zero emissions energy business."



"The world is not on a sustainable path and needs a rapid transition to lower carbon energy in order to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement."


There Shell for example offer solar panels with battery storage for customers.

"We’re proud to have partnered with sonnen, a world leading manufacturer of battery storage and member of the Shell family. This partnership offers customers with solar panels a complete battery storage solution that helps to reduce their electricity bills."

 
That study and other studies that deny the urgent need for action have so little credibility that even federal agencies under the control of climate deniers like Trump and James Inhofe have to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

"Below are some of the impacts that are currently visible throughout the U.S. and will continue to affect these regions, according to the Third3 and Fourth4 National Climate Assessment Reports, released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program:

Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours and sea level rise pose growing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.

Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.

Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region’s economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.

Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.

Southwest. Increased heat, drought and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns."



"Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. According to Oil Change International, Inhofe has received over $2 million in political contributions from the fossil fuel industry. He once compared the Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo, and brought a snowball onto the Senate floor to ‘disprove’ global warming. Sen. Inhofe, author of the 2012 book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, once claimed on the Senate floor that “man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”"


That at the same time the Paris Accord could pay it self just from the health benefits of reducing air pollution alone.

You can't counter research with arm waving.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239520
 
Here is a direct links and quotes from Shell's and BP's own webpages.

"We strongly support the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit the rise in the average global temperature well below 2° Celsius. The Paris Agreement also said the world should pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5° Celsius.

For society to achieve a 1.5° Celsius future, the world is likely to need to stop adding to the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – a state known as net-zero emissions – by around 2060.

That is why Shell has set itself an ambition to become, by 2050 or sooner, a net-zero emissions energy business."



"The world is not on a sustainable path and needs a rapid transition to lower carbon energy in order to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement."


There Shell for example offer solar panels with battery storage for customers.

"We’re proud to have partnered with sonnen, a world leading manufacturer of battery storage and member of the Shell family. This partnership offers customers with solar panels a complete battery storage solution that helps to reduce their electricity bills."

Yes. Both companies have fine PR departments.
 

The West Intends Energy Suicide: Will It Succeed?
Suicide is viewed as a crime in many countries. In a court of law, it is a serious charge and the evidence needs to be conclusive for such an accusation to stand (e.g., did you actually see him attempt to jump off the bridge?). But when societies (or at least their leaders) attempt it, one can say that it safely falls under the rubric of the sovereign right to misrule oneself.
Continue reading →
 
German Wind Energy Woes Intensify, “A Farce”… Construction Licenses Plummet 70 Percent In 3 Years
By P Gosselin on 11. October 2020

Share this...
Share on FacebookTweet about this on Twitter
Wind energy investment plummeted in the third quarter of this year in Germany, reports the online IWR here.
“The nine-month figures now available make it clearer that this trend will continue in 2020,” writes the IWR.
Issued construction licenses drop 70 percent in 3 years
Installation of wind energy in Germany peaked in 2017 (see bar chart here), but has since fallen sharply after the German federal government enacted new rules and regulations against their construction.
According to Clean Energy Wire here,
An analysis by energy industry lobby group BDEW found that the falling number of permits issued for onshore wind turbines was the main factor behind the decline, with issued licenses dropping by 70 percent over three years. About 11 GW, roughly 2,000 turbines, were stuck in bureaucratic procedures as of mid-2019.”
In the third quarter of 2020, only 85 turbines with a total capacity of 293 MW were installed. Germany has approximately 30,000 turbines operating.

In the first nine months of 2020, only a total of 306 new wind turbines (1,104 MW) were added.
The IWR forecasts 1200 MW of new onshore wind energy capacity to be added for the full year 2020. In 2019 the figure was slightly lower at 1,078 MW. The slight increase, the IWR reports “is not sufficient to compensate for the decline in offshore wind energy.”
“Overall, it is thereforeexpected that the total increase in new wind power capacity in the current year will again be significantly weaker than in the already weak previous year 2019.”
Green energy expansion “being totaled”, a “farce”
Green energy lobbyist Volker Quaschning at Twitter sees Germany’s green energy expansion as being “totaled” and the country’s promises of climate protection as “a farce”. . . .
 
Energy
Washington State blows away wind fantasies
The Northwest has spoken loudly as the Benton Public Utility District (BPUD) has documented their actual battleground experiences with intermittent electricity from wind farms that should be a wake-up call to our policy makers. Their message is “no more wind”.
 
Protesters be Damned…German Bill Aims To Elevate Unstable Green Energies To Status Of “National Security”!
By P Gosselin on 13. October 2020

Share this...
Share on FacebookTweet about this on Twitter
By Jouwatch
(Translated/edited by P. Gosselin)
Since everyone is preoccupied with Corona, hardly anyone notices what is being decided to continue destroying Germany:
The German government now wants to make the use of renewable energies a question of national security. “The use of renewable energies for electricity generation is in the public interest and serves public security,” says the draft of the new German Renewable Energy Sources Act, on which the newspaper “Welt am Sonntag” reported. . . .
 
Protesters be Damned…German Bill Aims To Elevate Unstable Green Energies To Status Of “National Security”!
By P Gosselin on 13. October 2020

Share this...
Share on FacebookTweet about this on Twitter
By Jouwatch
(Translated/edited by P. Gosselin)
Since everyone is preoccupied with Corona, hardly anyone notices what is being decided to continue destroying Germany:
The German government now wants to make the use of renewable energies a question of national security. “The use of renewable energies for electricity generation is in the public interest and serves public security,” says the draft of the new German Renewable Energy Sources Act, on which the newspaper “Welt am Sonntag” reported. . . .
I think part of the problem of wind and solar electricity, is that the product is valued greater than it's worth.
If we look at electricity like any other commodity, poor supply quality, and inconsistent availability,
would make it less expensive than 100% on demand electricity.
Instead the current regulations, make electricity from wind and solar greater in cost than it more reliable competitor,
and in some cases greater than the normal retail value.
If the electricity from wind and solar were valued correctly, their strong negatives would be priced into their value.
 
China has said they're going to be carbon neutral by 2060

China is the largest emitter of CO2 by far. Just Chinese concrete production alone, if it were one business, would bet the biggest contributor to green house gasses in the world. Just their concrete.
 
China has said they're going to be carbon neutral by 2060

China is the largest emitter of CO2 by far. Just Chinese concrete production alone, if it were one business, would bet the biggest contributor to green house gasses in the world. Just their concrete.
I suspect most of the worlds transport will be carbon neutral long before 2060.
Concrete's CO2 emissions will also be down quite a bit.
For power generation, it depends on if the world goes nuclear, or we have a breakthrough on fusion power.
 
German Wind Energy Woes Intensify, “A Farce”… Construction Licenses Plummet 70 Percent In 3 Years
By P Gosselin on 11. October 2020

Share this...
Share on FacebookTweet about this on Twitter
Wind energy investment plummeted in the third quarter of this year in Germany, reports the online IWR here.
“The nine-month figures now available make it clearer that this trend will continue in 2020,” writes the IWR.
Issued construction licenses drop 70 percent in 3 years
Installation of wind energy in Germany peaked in 2017 (see bar chart here), but has since fallen sharply after the German federal government enacted new rules and regulations against their construction.
According to Clean Energy Wire here,

In the third quarter of 2020, only 85 turbines with a total capacity of 293 MW were installed. Germany has approximately 30,000 turbines operating.

In the first nine months of 2020, only a total of 306 new wind turbines (1,104 MW) were added.
The IWR forecasts 1200 MW of new onshore wind energy capacity to be added for the full year 2020. In 2019 the figure was slightly lower at 1,078 MW. The slight increase, the IWR reports “is not sufficient to compensate for the decline in offshore wind energy.”
“Overall, it is thereforeexpected that the total increase in new wind power capacity in the current year will again be significantly weaker than in the already weak previous year 2019.”
Green energy expansion “being totaled”, a “farce”
Green energy lobbyist Volker Quaschning at Twitter sees Germany’s green energy expansion as being “totaled” and the country’s promises of climate protection as “a farce”. . . .

Germany got 55 percent of electricity from renewables the first half of this year.


While UK plans massive investment in wind power that will create tens of thousands of jobs.


While red states like Texas also sees the great benefits of renewable electricity.


Their big investors also sees the great need and opportunities in reducing C02 emissions.

 
I think part of the problem of wind and solar electricity, is that the product is valued greater than it's worth.
If we look at electricity like any other commodity, poor supply quality, and inconsistent availability,
would make it less expensive than 100% on demand electricity.
Instead the current regulations, make electricity from wind and solar greater in cost than it more reliable competitor,
and in some cases greater than the normal retail value.
If the electricity from wind and solar were valued correctly, their strong negatives would be priced into their value.


The unpaid social and environmental costs of fossil fuels are trillion of dollars a year.


There you are also seeing an increase in cost of climate emergencies.

 
Germany got 55 percent of electricity from renewables the first half of this year.


While UK plans massive investment in wind power that will create tens of thousands of jobs.


While red states like Texas also sees the great benefits of renewable electricity.


Their big investors also sees the great need and opportunities in reducing C02 emissions.

Catastrophe on the horizon.
 
The unpaid social and environmental costs of fossil fuels are trillion of dollars a year.


There you are also seeing an increase in cost of climate emergencies.

Imaginary costs do not show up on a balance sheet!
I was once talking to a friend who owned a steakhouse, and was surprised that he paid more for cuts of
meat, than I paid at the grocery store. He said the difference was that his supply was guaranteed,
to be available, and this demanded a higher price.
Electricity without a guarantee of availability should have a naturally lower price.
Also the guaranteed electricity could come hydro or nuclear sources, without any CO2 emissions.
 

Solar Power Costs 2-3 Times As Much As Wind, Fossil Fuels and Nuclear
Guest “why?” by David Middleton Why? Because California… OCTOBER 9, 2020Solar photovoltaic generators receive higher electricity prices than other technologies In 2019, the average U.S. wholesale price for electricity generated by solar photovoltaic (PV) technology was significantly higher than average wholesale prices for electricity from other technologies. The weighted average wholesale price for solar PV-generated…
Continue reading →
 
By 2050 most of the world could be 100% powered with renewable energy while at the same lead to a net increase of 24 million new jobs, according to a new 2050 roadmap.https://www.sciencealert.com/most-of-the-world-could-be-100-powered-by-renewables-by-2050Direct link to the study: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf
  • The current energy system is heavily dependent on fossil fuels – they generally supply over 80% of existing energy needs in developed countries, whereas, wind and solar energy sources constitute only one-third of 1% of global energy supply.
  • Numerous environmental groups and countries have recently adopted a vision for 100% renewable energy by 2050.
  • Attaining the vision is not feasible today in technological, economic, or political terms.
.
 
  • The current energy system is heavily dependent on fossil fuels – they generally supply over 80% of existing energy needs in developed countries, whereas, wind and solar energy sources constitute only one-third of 1% of global energy supply.
  • Numerous environmental groups and countries have recently adopted a vision for 100% renewable energy by 2050.
  • Attaining the vision is not feasible today in technological, economic, or political terms.
.
It is technically feasible, but not economically viable...yet, but alarmist do not like the solution.
Man made hydrocarbon fuels, would make a great storage device, to store and accumulate, low density, poor duty cycle
alternate energy. The stored energy as fuels, could be used for transport, or even power generation.
Since the carbon to build the hydrocarbons, is extracted from the air or ocean water, the fuel is carbon neutral.
This solution, which would be sustainable, has two problems, that the alarmist cannot get past.
The first, is that it would make the big oil companies even more money, and the second,
is that this path would remove a political control tool from their tool bag.
It looks like the current state of power to liquid technology, would make this economically viable
when oil get about $90 a barrel.
link power to liquid
The viability point could be lower, if the government would assign a more realistic value to electricity
from wind and solar, that would reflect it's irregular nature.
 
  • The current energy system is heavily dependent on fossil fuels – they generally supply over 80% of existing energy needs in developed countries, whereas, wind and solar energy sources constitute only one-third of 1% of global energy supply.
  • Numerous environmental groups and countries have recently adopted a vision for 100% renewable energy by 2050.
  • Attaining the vision is not feasible today in technological, economic, or political terms.
.


EU already get more electricity from renewables than fossil fuels. While Denmark get 64 percent of their electricity from wind- and solar power alone.


While 60 percent of new cars sales in Norway are pure electric.


You also for example are seeing great advancement in hydrogen.



.
 
Imaginary costs do not show up on a balance sheet!
I was once talking to a friend who owned a steakhouse, and was surprised that he paid more for cuts of
meat, than I paid at the grocery store. He said the difference was that his supply was guaranteed,
to be available, and this demanded a higher price.
Electricity without a guarantee of availability should have a naturally lower price.
Also the guaranteed electricity could come hydro or nuclear sources, without any CO2 emissions.

Solar power schemes already offer the cheapest form of electricity in history. There you also produce the most solar power during hot sumer days then demand is the highest.


There renewables and batteries are also starting to out compete fossil fuel on delivering power on demand.


That at the same time you can for example have hydropower, biofuels and concentrated solar power with thermal storage that can produce electricity on demand.
 
Last edited:
Solar power schemes already offer the cheapest form of electricity in history. There you also produce the most solar power during hot sumer days then demand is the highest.


There renewables and batteries are also starting to out compete fossil fuel on delivering power on demand.


That at the same time you can for example hydropower, biofuels and concentrated solar power with thermal storage that can produce electricity on demand.
So tell me, does it matter how cheaply the electricity is produced, if the utility that has to buy it,
is being forced to pay the retail price for that electricity?
They cannot sell that electricity for a profit, as they already paid the retail price.
 
It is technically feasible, but not economically viable...yet, but alarmist do not like the solution.
Man made hydrocarbon fuels, would make a great storage device, to store and accumulate, low density, poor duty cycle
alternate energy. The stored energy as fuels, could be used for transport, or even power generation.
Since the carbon to build the hydrocarbons, is extracted from the air or ocean water, the fuel is carbon neutral.
This solution, which would be sustainable, has two problems, that the alarmist cannot get past.
The first, is that it would make the big oil companies even more money, and the second,
is that this path would remove a political control tool from their tool bag.
It looks like the current state of power to liquid technology, would make this economically viable
when oil get about $90 a barrel.
link power to liquid
The viability point could be lower, if the government would assign a more realistic value to electricity
from wind and solar, that would reflect it's irregular nature.

Not even oil companies believe in the solution you propose. That they are closing down refineries and instead investing in renewable energy and other green technologies.



Also you have given no evidence that the lack of support for your propose solution is pollical control. Also it's a illogical argument since your solution means production at refineries , transport of fuels from those plants, and gas stations that sells those fuels. There all those steps offer opportunities for government control. This compared to household producing their own electricity for their electric car.
 
Last edited:
It is very hard to predict what will be possible in 33 years much less what will be used 100%. I know that I rely on battery powered tools much more now than I did 30 years ago but I still use corded tools (circular saw, table saw, compound miter saw and air compressor) on many jobs.
How often do you plug your battery powered tools in. I don't use but a few and they stay plugged in at home and in my car about 90% of the time. I hesitate to think I would have to depend on battery powered cars for all my travels, or that I might have to have emergency surgery in the midst of a long term power outage where in the middle of a storm there is no solar power being created. What is the answer for air travel, for rail travel, for Ocean travel. There are so many "what ifs" on alternative energy and if the renewable energy proponents were serious about creating long term usable power they would be pushing nuclear. The old saying is "follow the money" those pushing alternative energy are looking at $$$ signs, the lobbyist, the scientist, the business men all are making money from the push to alternatives as they drive big cars and fly in private jets.
 
So tell me, does it matter how cheaply the electricity is produced, if the utility that has to buy it,
is being forced to pay the retail price for that electricity?
They cannot sell that electricity for a profit, as they already paid the retail price.

You are talking in net metering for households? First of all that is a minor part of overall electricity and also lead to innovation and economical of scale. There you now see a transiton away to that and instead have for example virtual power plants. With thousand households and small business that produce renewable energy and provide energy storage.

 
How often do you plug your battery powered tools in. I don't use but a few and they stay plugged in at home and in my car about 90% of the time. I hesitate to think I would have to depend on battery powered cars for all my travels, or that I might have to have emergency surgery in the midst of a long term power outage where in the middle of a storm there is no solar power being created. What is the answer for air travel, for rail travel, for Ocean travel. There are so many "what ifs" on alternative energy and if the renewable energy proponents were serious about creating long term usable power they would be pushing nuclear. The old saying is "follow the money" those pushing alternative energy are looking at $$$ signs, the lobbyist, the scientist, the business men all are making money from the push to alternatives as they drive big cars and fly in private jets.

For example Denmark gets 64 percent of their electricity from solar and wind power without any black outs. That there are many ways to regulate supply and demand.


Also the range of electric cars are already ten times the daily commute so electric car batteries can also act as energy storage.

 
Back
Top Bottom