• 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

You keep saying it will happen, but it never does.

Scotland produce roughly the same amount of renewable energy as their total consumption and also that Germany already get around half their electricity from renewable energy.



While already are around 80 percent of cars sold in Norway are all electric cars there most of that increase have come during the last years.

 
Scotland produce roughly the same amount of renewable energy as their total consumption and also that Germany already get around half their electricity from renewable energy.



While already are around 80 percent of cars sold in Norway are all electric cars there most of that increase have come during the last years.

I know you keep wanting to ignore the fact that saying someone generates X% of their electricity from renewables,
is not the same as saying that renewables cover the same total percentage of all their electricity use.
The real problem with wind and Solar is that they usually do not fill up the entire demand duty cycle,
so they leave large gaps where the electricity must come from ether storage or some other source.
We do not have enough storage to fill the gaps alone!
So Coal and Natural gas plants are mostly used to fill in that demand.
The title of this long thread, is, "

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

but without massive energy storage, that cannot really happen, unless you change the definition of renewable
to include Nuclear, or some other sources.
 
Scotland produce roughly the same amount of renewable energy as their total consumption and also that Germany already get around half their electricity from renewable energy.



While already are around 80 percent of cars sold in Norway are all electric cars there most of that increase have come during the last years.

LOL biased blogs are built on lies. Your propaganda is BS.
 
I know you keep wanting to ignore the fact that saying someone generates X% of their electricity from renewables,
is not the same as saying that renewables cover the same total percentage of all their electricity use.
The real problem with wind and Solar is that they usually do not fill up the entire demand duty cycle,
so they leave large gaps where the electricity must come from ether storage or some other source.
We do not have enough storage to fill the gaps alone!
So Coal and Natural gas plants are mostly used to fill in that demand.
The title of this long thread, is, "

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

but without massive energy storage, that cannot really happen, unless you change the definition of renewable
to include Nuclear, or some other sources.

Countries and regions have a lot more ambitious goals than hundred percent renewable energy and will export massive amount of electricity and hydrogen to other countries and regions.



There are also for example hydropower, biofuel power and concentrated solar power with thermal storage that can produce electricity on demand. There are also advancements in tide, wave and geothermal power that can produce more planned and steady supply of electricity.


There also consumers of electricity can help to balance the supply and demand of electricity. For example hydrogen production can increase and the hydrogen can be stored when the supply of electricity is high and stored hydrogen can be used when supply is low. There electric vehicles can also be used for energy storage. There households can also save a lot of money by adapting electricity consumption to electricity prices and supply.


 
https://www.technologyreview.com/20...can-be-used-like-a-giant-underground-battery/

This geothermal startup showed its wells can be used like a giant underground battery ...​

There’s much to love about geothermal energy: it offers a virtually limitless, always-on source of emissions-free heat and electricity. If the US could capture just 2% of the thermal energy available two to six miles beneath its surface, it could produce more than 2,000 times the nation’s total annual energy consumption.

But because of geological constraints, high capital costs and other challenges, we barely use it at all: today it accounts for 0.4% of US electricity generation.
... utilities and other potential customers told the company that they needed to line up clean sources that could ramp generation up and down, to comply with increasingly strict climate regulations and balance out the rising share of variable wind and solar output on the grid.

“If we can come up with a way to solve this,” Norbeck says he and Latimer realized, “we might really have a way to change the world.” ...
Creating fractures in rocks with low permeability means that the water in the system can’t easily leak out into other areas. Consequently, if you close off the well system and keep pumping in water, you can build up mechanical pressure within the system, as the fractured rock sections push against the earth.

“The fractures are able to dilate and change shape, almost like balloons,” Norbeck says.

That pressure can then be put to use. In a series of modeling experiments, Fervo found that once the valve was opened again, those balloons effectively deflated, the flow of water increased, and electricity generation surged. If they “charged it” for days, by adding water but not letting it out, it could then generate electricity for days. ...
The core challenge in creating a carbon-free power sector is that the amount of electricity generated from wind and solar farms fluctuates dramatically through the day and year.
This will create increasingly significant challenges as renewables come to dominate electricity grids. Studies find that total system costs begin to rise sharply as renewables exceed about 80% of generation—unless there are major sources of carbon-free electricity that can work on demand, cheaper forms of long-duration energy storage, or other technical solutions.
That’s because there can be extended periods of the year when solar, wind, and other fluctuating sources don’t provide enough energy to keep things running through the night or day. Regional grids relying almost entirely on those resources would often have to add massive banks of expensive and relatively short-lived batteries as well as more renewables plants to charge them, just to keep the lights on through those stretches.
A geothermal power plant that can dial electricity up and down, and fill in for waning renewables for hours to days, promises to address those challenges, providing a highly valuable resource for grids that are growing increasingly green. ...
Today there’s only about four gigawatts of geothermal energy in the US. But for future scenarios, the model added between 25 and 74 gigawatts of flexible geothermal capacity to its carbon-free grids, compared to only up to 28 gigawatts when geothermal plants couldn't operate in that way. The added capability of those facilities also drove down total grid system costs by as much as 10%. ...
who knew fracking technologies might advance carbon-free energy in our childrens' lifetime
 
https://www.technologyreview.com/20...can-be-used-like-a-giant-underground-battery/







who knew fracking technologies might advance carbon-free energy in our childrens' lifetime

It is positive to see that it's advancement in many different solutions to balance the grid.



While at the same time renewable energy and other green technologies can create a lot of jobs and opportunities in both deprived regions and fossil fuel jobs dependent areas.


 
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-2050

Direct link to the study: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf
Could have been done by year 2000 ............. why the wait? What's the purpose? The oil industry will be gouging America on gasoline prices. I say start boycotting gasoline now. Choose the healthier options such as walking, bicycling, electric powered public transportation. The largest number of commuters can do this today. STOP BUYING GASOLINE TODAY. BRING ON THE CLEAN AIR!!!!!
 
Could have been done by year 2000 ............. why the wait? What's the purpose? The oil industry will be gouging America on gasoline prices. I say start boycotting gasoline now. Choose the healthier options such as walking, bicycling, electric powered public transportation. The largest number of commuters can do this today. STOP BUYING GASOLINE TODAY. BRING ON THE CLEAN AIR!!!!!

Yes it's absurd that the transition away from fossil fuel have been delayed for so many decades. That there is the overwhelming evidence for the need for action on climate change and also the massive costs and risks of being dependent on ruthless dictators for fossil fuels. While also the toxic air pollution from fossil fuels.



There are also many positive examples in investments in bicycles, public transport and electric cars.



 
The EU has set a goal that 42.5 percent of overall energy consumption will be from renewables by 2030.


While Australia has passed a new climate law that requires a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 43 percent in 2030 compared with 2005 emissions.

 
https://www.technologyreview.com/20...can-be-used-like-a-giant-underground-battery/

who knew fracking technologies might advance carbon-free energy in our childrens' lifetime
Alaska has been looking into generating geothermal power for about the last 15 years. One company has already drilled a geothermal well next Mount Spurr, which last erupted in 1992. They are also looking at using the Augustine volcano.

Augustine volcano.jpg


I also wouldn't write-off geothermal as being "carbon free," since active volcanoes have a tendency to release carbon in many different forms along with other greenhouse gases, such as nitrous oxide.

There are numerous prospective volcanoes that can be used for geothermal power, and many are near population centers. Which is both a good and a bad thing.

They are also building a 5 MW tidal generator near Nikiski and looking to build a second one near Port MacKenzie, across Knik Arm from Anchorage. Anchorage has the highest tides in the US at 33 feet, and the fifth highest tide in the world.

The tidal generators are still in their pilot stage, and I have some doubts about their effectiveness. One other thing that distinguishes Anchorage's waters from other areas is the glacial silt in its waters. The Cook Inlet is covered in more than 900 feet of glacial silt, and it continues to pour into the inlet from the Susitna and Matanuska Rivers which are glacial fed. Filtering out all that silt, while still allowing the tide to flow through the generator to generate power will be a tricky business. I wish them luck, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
Alaska has been looking into generating geothermal power for about the last 15 years. One company has already drilled a geothermal well next Mount Spurr, which last erupted in 1992. They are also looking at using the Augustine volcano.

View attachment 67443512


I also wouldn't write-off geothermal as being "carbon free," since active volcanoes have a tendency to release carbon in many different forms along with other greenhouse gases, such as nitrous oxide.

There are numerous prospective volcanoes that can be used for geothermal power, and many are near population centers. Which is both a good and a bad thing.

They are also building a 5 MW tidal generator near Nikiski and looking to build a second one near Port MacKenzie, across Knik Arm from Anchorage. Anchorage has the highest tides in the US at 33 feet, and the fifth highest tide in the world.

The tidal generators are still in their pilot stage, and I have some doubts about their effectiveness. One other thing that distinguishes Anchorage's waters from other areas is the glacial silt in its waters. The Cook Inlet is covered in more than 900 feet of glacial silt, and it continues to pour into the inlet from the Susitna and Matanuska Rivers which are glacial fed. Filtering out all that silt, while still allowing the tide to flow through the generator to generate power will be a tricky business. I wish them luck, but I'm not holding my breath.

There can a be a lot of potential for geothermal energy in the US.


While for example the Orkney islands and Japan also have trials with tidal- and wave power.


 
There can a be a lot of potential for geothermal energy in the US.


While for example the Orkney islands and Japan also have trials with tidal- and wave power.


I don't know about geothermal power. Haven't read much on the facts behind it. I do know however that tidal power is noty only expensive, but has an environmental impact that is likely greater than our modern coal technology.
 
I don't know about geothermal power. Haven't read much on the facts behind it. I do know however that tidal power is noty only expensive, but has an environmental impact that is likely greater than our modern coal technology.
Really? Specify this imaginary "environmental impact" of yours, because every other study says exactly the opposite of your bullshit. The sounds and vibrations from tidal generators are almost non-existent, and the three studies conducted demonstrated zero impact on the fish.

"During the years 2015 – 2016 no correlation with the amount of grey seals and normal seals counted (increase / decrease of numbers) in the Eastern Scheldt and the presence of tidal turbines was identified. In April 2019 a fish mortality was executed at the Afsluitdijk during the operations of three (3) T-1 Turbines, in front of the turbine the current velocity was 2.5 m/s. The results of the tests with smolts and silver eel are in accordance with the outcome of the model calculations, as for both species the immediate mortality is 0.00%. No turbine related injuries of fish were observed, although fish clearly interacted with the turbine blades."

You obviously don't have the vaguest clue what you are talking about.
 
Really? Specify this imaginary "environmental impact" of yours, because every other study says exactly the opposite of your bullshit. The sounds and vibrations from tidal generators are almost non-existent, and the three studies conducted demonstrated zero impact on the fish.
Really? is that from studies supporting it?
"During the years 2015 – 2016 no correlation with the amount of grey seals and normal seals counted (increase / decrease of numbers) in the Eastern Scheldt and the presence of tidal turbines was identified.
Seals are smart enough to stay away.
In April 2019 a fish mortality was executed at the Afsluitdijk during the operations of three (3) T-1 Turbines, in front of the turbine the current velocity was 2.5 m/s. The results of the tests with smolts and silver eel are in accordance with the outcome of the model calculations, as for both species the immediate mortality is 0.00%. No turbine related injuries of fish were observed, although fish clearly interacted with the turbine blades."
Small enough fish to not be hurt by the blades.
You obviously don't have the vaguest clue what you are talking about.
I do understand. Have you looked at the capital costs of such projects? If I recall right, the leveled costs are about 10 tines that of wind.

What about the sonic disruptions of marine life like dolphins and whales?

What about the sweeping changes on the floor below changing the ecology for land dwelling sea creatures? Do you think a few studies that only look at small fish and sea lions is adequate? Before anyone proceeds with taking power from the ocean, far more research needs to be done on the environmental impacts.

Consider this:

India is estimated to have a potential of about 54 gigawatts (GW) of ocean energy including about 12.4 GW of tidal power. However, even after four decades of starting efforts to harness tidal power, India is yet to make a breakthrough.
Exorbitant costs and environmental risks are some of the main reasons for tidal power projects not being developed in India so far. Tidal power is not actively pursued on a global scale as well because of various barriers.
A parliamentary panel has now asked the Indian government to reassess the potential of tidal power in India, explore the practically exploitable potential, conduct more research in the field and develop a pilot project for tidal power.

 
To add. A long time back, the entire dam systems up the Columbia River retrofit they water turbines as not to harm the fish that go downstream through them. The young fish heading out to sea amazingly survive the trip tough the blades. But they are small. The larger salmon and steelhead returning upstream, use the fish ladders, as they follow such paths in nature, and they are just a bunch of smaller waterfalls. Meanwhile, there is talk about removing the lower four dams on the snake river as they don't have a good path for the salmon. Some talk of other ways of restoring the salmon runs, but there is no easy way. Apparently these snake river dams were built with no fish ladders.
 
Really? is that from studies supporting it?

Seals are smart enough to stay away.

Small enough fish to not be hurt by the blades.

I do understand. Have you looked at the capital costs of such projects? If I recall right, the leveled costs are about 10 tines that of wind.

What about the sonic disruptions of marine life like dolphins and whales?

What about the sweeping changes on the floor below changing the ecology for land dwelling sea creatures? Do you think a few studies that only look at small fish and sea lions is adequate? Before anyone proceeds with taking power from the ocean, far more research needs to be done on the environmental impacts.

Consider this:

India is estimated to have a potential of about 54 gigawatts (GW) of ocean energy including about 12.4 GW of tidal power. However, even after four decades of starting efforts to harness tidal power, India is yet to make a breakthrough.
Exorbitant costs and environmental risks are some of the main reasons for tidal power projects not being developed in India so far. Tidal power is not actively pursued on a global scale as well because of various barriers.
A parliamentary panel has now asked the Indian government to reassess the potential of tidal power in India, explore the practically exploitable potential, conduct more research in the field and develop a pilot project for tidal power.

There are no "sonic disruptions" because the tidal generators make no noise or vibration, as I already pointed out. As expected, you are incapable of citing a single environmental impact caused by tidal generators. You just make shit up.

Tidal power generation is not actively pursued globally because you need a tide. DOH!

India has tides of less than 2.3 feet (< 0.70 m). Whereas Cook Inlet has the highest tide in the US and the fifth highest tide in the world at 33 feet (> 10 m). There is already a tidal generator at Igiugig, at the mouth of the Kvichak River. It has had zero impact on the salmon that swim up that river. Another tidal generator will also be built at Nikisi sometime around 2026.

Tidal generators are also generating power more reliable than either wind or solar. The only time tidal generators are not generating power is during slack tide. At all other times, whether the tide is coming in or going out, they generate power.

Like I said, you are completely clueless on the subject. That was very obvious from your first post.
 
Last edited:
There are no "sonic disruptions" because the tidal generators make no noise or vibration, as I already pointed out. As expected, you are incapable of citing a single environmental impact caused by tidal generators. You just make shit up.

Tidal power generation is not actively pursued globally because you need a tide. DOH!

India has tides of less than 2.3 feet (< 0.70 m). Whereas Cook Inlet has the highest tide in the US and the fifth highest tide in the world at 33 feet (> 10 m). There is already a tidal generator at Igiugig, at the mouth of the Kvichak River. It has had zero impact on the salmon that swim up that river. Another tidal generator will also be built at Nikisi sometime around 2026.

Tidal generators are also generating power more reliable than either wind or solar. The only time tidal generators are not generating power is during slack tide. At all other times, whether the tide is coming in or going out, they generate power.

Like I said, you are completely clueless on the subject. That was very obvious from your first post.
Wow.

Are you smarter than the developers who decided not to use it?
 
Renewable energy is heavily dependent on fossil fuels for mining, manufacturing, and shipping:



The same applies even to mechanized agriculture.

In addition, renewable energy has low returns and quantity, together with others:


However, there's a lack of energy, which means every energy source will be needed to stay afloat:

 
Renewable energy is heavily dependent on fossil fuels for mining, manufacturing, and shipping:



The same applies even to mechanized agriculture.

In addition, renewable energy has low returns and quantity, together with others:


However, there's a lack of energy, which means every energy source will be needed to stay afloat:


I agree with everything you said, except for the "lack of energy" part. There is plenty of energy, we just lack the desire or willingness to produce it. We always place unnecessary obstacles in our path that either reduce our ability to produce more energy or make the energy more expensive. Like prohibiting the energy from being produced in the first place, or by making it extremely expensive by adding unnecessary additives (like ethanol).

If not for leftists, energy would be both cheap and abundant and not just in the US, but world-wide. The mentally-deranged hatred for humanity that the left has is lowering the standard of living for everyone by making energy unnecessarily expensive.

So it is not a "lack of energy" that is the problem, but rather leftist filth and their sick and twisted hatred of their own species that is the problem.
 
Renewable energy is heavily dependent on fossil fuels for mining, manufacturing, and shipping:



The same applies even to mechanized agriculture.

In addition, renewable energy has low returns and quantity, together with others:


However, there's a lack of energy, which means every energy source will be needed to stay afloat:



A majority of global fossil fuels export are still from ruthless dictators even after Western countries have spent trillions of dollars on intervention in the Middle East. There this leads to periods of spiking oil prices, horrific wars and conflicts while also that those dictators gets a lot of influence in western countries.


While investments into renewables energy can reduce the dependency on ruthless dictators and create a lot of economic opportunities.



 
A majority of global fossil fuels export are still from ruthless dictators even after Western countries have spent trillions of dollars on intervention in the Middle East. There this leads to periods of spiking oil prices, horrific wars and conflicts while also that those dictators gets a lot of influence in western countries.


While investments into renewables energy can reduce the dependency on ruthless dictators and create a lot of economic opportunities.



Do you think China is less ruthless than the countries that sell oil?
 
Do you think China is less ruthless than the countries that sell oil?

Green technologies can be produced domestically and in other democratic countries. There now both the USA and EU are increasing their domestic production and reducing the dependency on China. There this also includes raw materials.



Also you are free to use for example an electric car or solar panels after you bought them. While fossil fuel cars and fossil energy sources requires a constant supply of fuels. There you time after time had periods of spiking oil prices and conflicts since the 1970's oil crisis. That trying to create a reliable supply of fossil fuels through domestic production and foreign intervention have been an extremely costly and dangerous failure.

 
Tell that to China.

We can only go forward if we all go backward.

Back to the Stone Age.

In reality there could be peace and love but there will always be someone wanting more.

Capitalism is why we are great. The planet suffers. It’s a dog-eat-dog world.

How do you suggest we change that? Change human nature? Be at peace.
 
Green technologies can be produced domestically and in other democratic countries. There now both the USA and EU are increasing their domestic production and reducing the dependency on China. There this also includes raw materials.



Also you are free to use for example an electric car or solar panels after you bought them. While fossil fuel cars and fossil energy sources requires a constant supply of fuels. There you time after time had periods of spiking oil prices and conflicts since the 1970's oil crisis. That trying to create a reliable supply of fossil fuels through domestic production and foreign intervention have been an extremely costly and dangerous failure.

In my vision of the future fuel from transport, does not come from oil. Hydrocarbon fuels are simply
an energy storage device that happens to be in demand with a fully developed distribution infrastructure already in place.
 
Tell that to China.

We can only go forward if we all go backward.

Back to the Stone Age.

In reality there could be peace and love but there will always be someone wanting more.

Capitalism is why we are great. The planet suffers. It’s a dog-eat-dog world.

How do you suggest we change that? Change human nature? Be at peace.

We would never have developed as a species if we only were egoistic beings. That instead we also have the potential for cooperation and solidarity.
That it's during the last decades we have seen radical policies with huge tax cuts for the rich, increased inequality, deregulations and privatization. That has not only contributed to that we are running out of time on climate change but increased polarization and discontent that have led to demagogues like Trump.


 
Back
Top Bottom