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

[Media_Truth]

Really? You think we can put up enough solar panels and windmills to run all the
world's heavy industry and all we need to do it is better energy storage?

Residential? Sure Commerce and Industry? No.

That quote says major economies could run ENTIRELY on wind, water and solar.

I actually agree with you on this one. No, I don't think this could happen by 2050. I think the US can make great strides toward that goal. Industry is a big concern, but I believe that the automobile and trucks are an even bigger obstacle. I think there will be a number of OPEC power plays between now an then, especially as the North Dakota oil fields start drying up. I also envision a few more Republican Oil Wars, as they continue to subsidize that industry. More lies and deception to thwart science and technology.

 

[longview]

Just telling you how it is from first-hand experience. You can sit in your armchair, and be a sideline commentator all you want. Non-profit - right! I can guarantee that the Corporate officers are making out like the bandits that they are. It's nothing but anti-renewable political nonsense.

Fine, keep your head in the sand, but do understand that net metering is what is slowing down solar being wide spread.

 

[longview]

I actually agree with you on this one. No, I don't think this could happen by 2050. I think the US can make great strides toward that goal. Industry is a big concern, but I believe that the automobile and trucks are an even bigger obstacle. I think there will be a number of OPEC power plays between now an then, especially as the North Dakota oil fields start drying up. I also envision a few more Republican Oil Wars, as they continue to subsidize that industry. More lies and deception to thwart science and technology.

We do not buy much oil from OPEC, and oil has an absolute cap on the price.
Oil companies are driven by profit, and a high price of oil will mean, there is greater profit
in refineries making their own feedstock from water, captured CO2, and electricity.

 

[Fenton Lum]

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

And we shall trail the world like we do in healthcare because the substantial people need to wring all the $ out of the people that they possible can, and then get at more. Coal, fossil fuels, MAGA!

 

[longview]

And we shall trail the world like we do in healthcare because the substantial people need to wring all the $ out of the people that they possible can, and then get at more. Coal, fossil fuels, MAGA!

I don't think we will trail the world, but only because there is a lot of profit to be derived
from refineries making their own fuel from scratch.
The US and Germany seem to the the centers for this type of research,
but the groups working on it are basically amateurs compared to the
wealth in intellectual capital employed by the oil companies.

 

[Media_Truth]

Fine, keep your head in the sand, but do understand that net metering is what is slowing down solar being wide spread.

Now you're really barking without a cat. The Federal tax incentives that encouraged so many homeowners to install PV systems were only available to Netmetering customers. Standalone, battery storage PV systems did not (do not) qualify. Netmetering is a great concept, and perhaps it is implemented more fairly in other parts of the country, as opposed to the Conservative area where I live. My Utility company dislikes it, as do many others, and are taking advantage of the Netmetering customers. Your link even pointed this out.

 

[Media_Truth]

We do not buy much oil from OPEC, and oil has an absolute cap on the price.
Oil companies are driven by profit, and a high price of oil will mean, there is greater profit
in refineries making their own feedstock from water, captured CO2, and electricity.

40% is not a drop in the bucket. At the rate we burn oil, our newly found Dakota fields will deplete quickly. Also, fracking will become more difficult, as the easily obtained oil is used up. At one time, we imported 88% of our oil from OPEC. Brace yourself - those times will return.

The lower dependence on imports from the cartel, which pumps a third of the world’s crude, comes amid advances in hydraulic fracturing that has propelled domestic US production to about 9m barrels a day – the highest level since the mid-1980s.

In August, Opec’s share of US crude oil imports dropped to 40 per cent – accounting for 2.9m b/d – the lowest since May 1985, according to Financial Times analysis of US Department of Energy data. At its 1976 peak it stood at about 88 per cent.

https://www.ft.com/content/39a42c92-69af-11e4-8f4f-00144feabdc0

 

[Lord of Planar]

I know people who worked at Los Alamos in the 70's, at that point, Fusion power was just 5 to 10 years away.
It have remained "somewhere in the future" ever since then.
I suspect sustaining a small sun, without the actual mass of a real sun is difficult.

Yes, Fusion fooled me in the past also.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yeah, that sort of thing, fusion, will not actually answer the problem well enough.

The cost of any sort of such system will be vast. Thus the cost of the electricity produced is always going to be expensive.

Compare the best science fiction fusion reactor with the cost of drilling a hole into a volcanoe and using geothermal.

I wonder how much Tony Stark's Arc Reactor would cost per MWh?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Now you're really barking without a cat. The Federal tax incentives that encouraged so many homeowners to install PV systems were only available to Netmetering customers. Standalone, battery storage PV systems did not (do not) qualify. Netmetering is a great concept, and perhaps it is implemented more fairly in other parts of the country, as opposed to the Conservative area where I live. My Utility company dislikes it, as do many others, and are taking advantage of the Netmetering customers. Your link even pointed this out.

I think the idea of net metering is impractical for when more users have their own solar systems. I think there will be a time when the combined users have more energy to put in the grid than the grid needs. I think the practical solution would be to have a smart system where such users are required to store their excess electricity with their own battery system. Then the grid could communicate to the user system and draw power as needed for a more reliable grid. Otherwise, I predict chaos in the future.

 

[Media_Truth]

I think the idea of net metering is impractical for when more users have their own solar systems. I think there will be a time when the combined users have more energy to put in the grid than the grid needs. I think the practical solution would be to have a smart system where such users are required to store their excess electricity with their own battery system. Then the grid could communicate to the user system and draw power as needed for a more reliable grid. Otherwise, I predict chaos in the future.

The concept is fine. There are plenty of large-scale power storage schemes. Pumped Water Storage, with an 85% efficiency is the most promising.



Even Mexico now has Netmetering.

Reduce your electricity bill ? Solar contractor in Mexico ? Net metering solar system in Mexico

 

[longview]

Now you're really barking without a cat. The Federal tax incentives that encouraged so many homeowners to install PV systems were only available to Netmetering customers. Standalone, battery storage PV systems did not (do not) qualify. Netmetering is a great concept, and perhaps it is implemented more fairly in other parts of the country, as opposed to the Conservative area where I live. My Utility company dislikes it, as do many others, and are taking advantage of the Netmetering customers. Your link even pointed this out.

While I do not know, I suspect your statement needs refinement, the tax credits were not for netmetering, but grid attachment.
The benefit is that the surplus solar is available to the grid, not that the solar customer receives compensation for the surplus.
There is a price point where both customer and utility get some value, and neither is harmed, but that is likely the wholesale price or below.
(The reason I say below, is that there is added cost to having a low duty cycle producer attached to the grid.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The concept is fine. There are plenty of large-scale power storage schemes. Pumped Water Storage, with an 85% efficiency is the most promising.

View attachment 67226124

Even Mexico now has Netmetering.

Reduce your electricity bill ? Solar contractor in Mexico ? Net metering solar system in Mexico

And what do you do when the reservoir is already full?

--- or... do you believe cuch capacities are limitless?

We have a similar problem in the NW where wind power produces so much power, the dams are discharging less, and filling up. Either the hydro-power must be wasted, or the wind power. It makes the cost of operations far more expensive than anticipated, and they have slowed down wind projects until after upgrading the HVDC to Los Angeles.

 

[longview]

40% is not a drop in the bucket. At the rate we burn oil, our newly found Dakota fields will deplete quickly. Also, fracking will become more difficult, as the easily obtained oil is used up. At one time, we imported 88% of our oil from OPEC. Brace yourself - those times will return.

The lower dependence on imports from the cartel, which pumps a third of the world’s crude, comes amid advances in hydraulic fracturing that has propelled domestic US production to about 9m barrels a day – the highest level since the mid-1980s.

In August, Opec’s share of US crude oil imports dropped to 40 per cent – accounting for 2.9m b/d – the lowest since May 1985, according to Financial Times analysis of US Department of Energy data. At its 1976 peak it stood at about 88 per cent.

https://www.ft.com/content/39a42c92-69af-11e4-8f4f-00144feabdc0

You are right, I was not thinking about the South American OPEC members, I was thinking about the Middle East.

 

[SirGareth]

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.

If we made farm tractors illegal we could have 100 million brand new jobs hand picking cotton and hand thrashing the wheat. This is "green progress"

Is it a job requirement to be completely illiterate in economics to become a greenie?

How many "new jobs" could be created in hauling our freight if we passed a law demanding that wheels be square?

 

[SirGareth]

The concept is fine. There are plenty of large-scale power storage schemes. Pumped Water Storage, with an 85% efficiency is the most promising.

View attachment 67226124

Even Mexico now has Netmetering.

Reduce your electricity bill ? Solar contractor in Mexico ? Net metering solar system in Mexico

We've been doing this for many years, the greenies want to blow up the dams. The snail darters and rat fleas dont like them

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=2]Laser Boron Fusion — What if it works? (Forget “climate change”)[/h]
[h=4]Here’s another “breakthrough” fusion claim. Thing is, one day, one of these will work.[/h]

Something like this: Boron Hydrogen, Fusion, click to read about aneutronic fusion.
​

In the meantime, knowing that the future is nuclear, and the only question is when, we should burn all the coal we have while it is still worth something.
Australia spends $5 billion a year installing inefficient, non-competitive renewables. Instead, we could be spending that money on gene technology and nuclear power research. How much would that change the future for our children? We’re vying to be the top ranking self-sacrificing global sucker that strives for importance by offering to cripple its own economy to appease Climate Gods. Or we could lead the world in nuclear power and medicine. (They’re asking for $20m. Are we a quarry or a leader?)
At least this hopeful idea is an Australian production. Heinrich Hora has been working on this for decades. (See this from 1981). The caveat: As long as “they don’t uncover any major engineering hurdles…” Yeah. But when fusion does work, the entire climate industry, renewables, panic-merchants and co. becomes an ant-hill in history.
[h=4]The Australian: Laser tech advances hailed as way to clean, cheap electricity[/h]The paper said simulations had shown 14mg of hydrogen boron could produce 300kWh of energy, opening the way for “an absolutely clean power reactor producing low-cost energy”.
“Now, in eight to 10 years I would expect to have small-scale reactors made from present-day technologies.” Professor Hora said solar panels and battery *storage were a viable solution for outback regions.
“But for the big centres our *reactors would work to replace present power generation,” he said, adding that about $500,000 was needed for seed capital, a *further $20 million over two years and “if all develops as *expected” a further $100m to complete design of the reactors.
The press release:
[h=1]Laser-boron fusion now ‘leading contender’ for energy[/h][h=2]A laser-driven technique for creating fusion that dispenses with the need for radioactive fuel elements and leaves no toxic radioactive waste is now within reach, say researchers[/h]A laser-driven technique for creating fusion that dispenses with the need for radioactive fuel elements and leaves no toxic radioactive waste is now within reach, say researchers.
Keep reading →

 

[Media_Truth]

And what do you do when the reservoir is already full?

--- or... do you believe cuch capacities are limitless?

We have a similar problem in the NW where wind power produces so much power, the dams are discharging less, and filling up. Either the hydro-power must be wasted, or the wind power. It makes the cost of operations far more expensive than anticipated, and they have slowed down wind projects until after upgrading the HVDC to Los Angeles.

It's only the surplus power that pumps uphill. With a properly designed pumped-water system, this would be very rare. Not that I don't believe you, but perhaps you could provide a link.

 

[Media_Truth]

We've been doing this for many years, the greenies want to blow up the dams. The snail darters and rat fleas dont like them

Yeah, it's been all over the news - Environmentalists blowing up dams.:roll:

 

[Media_Truth]

While I do not know, I suspect your statement needs refinement, the tax credits were not for netmetering, but grid attachment.
The benefit is that the surplus solar is available to the grid, not that the solar customer receives compensation for the surplus.
There is a price point where both customer and utility get some value, and neither is harmed, but that is likely the wholesale price or below.
(The reason I say below, is that there is added cost to having a low duty cycle producer attached to the grid.

Broken record. Very few netmetering installations are oversized, so very few get end-of-the-year credits, which would be the only part of Netmetering that effects the Utility's bottom line. And you still don't seem to fully grasp the extent of solar's contribution to peak load. Also, point-of-consumption electrical generation helps the Utilities achieve even more profits.

https://www.seia.org/initiatives/net-metering
Unfortunately, some utilities perceive net metering policies as lost revenue opportunities. In fact, net metering policies create a smoother demand curve for electricity and allow utilities to better manage their peak electricity loads. By encouraging generation near the point of consumption, net metering also reduces the strain on distribution systems and prevents losses in long-distance electricity transmission and distribution.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It's only the surplus power that pumps uphill. With a properly designed pumped-water system, this would be very rare. Not that I don't believe you, but perhaps you could provide a link.

LOL...

You don't believe that the grid structure and connecting paths can only handle so much power?

OK...

LOL...

A quick search gave me several items. Here are four of them:

Too much of a good thing: Growth in wind power makes life difficult for grid managers | OregonLive.com

BPA, wind developers argue over looming problem of too much power from renewables | OregonLive.com

https://washingtonstatewire.com/too...-this-summer-and-oversupply-cost-2-7-million/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...no-use-in-the-pacific-northwest/#5de9702c2f55

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Really? You think we can put up enough solar panels and windmills to run all the
world's heavy industry and all we need to do it is better energy storage?

Residential? Sure Commerce and Industry? No.

That quote says major economies could run ENTIRELY on wind, water and solar.

Here is an image of the different sources of energy that will be used in combination with reduced need for energy, and in the article, you can read more about the study.



https://www.sciencealert.com/most-of-the-world-could-be-100-powered-by-renewables-by-2050

The study is also a bit conservative and based on today’s technology. That you most likely will see drastic technology development in for example wave energy, tidal turbines and geothermal energy. Therefor those technologies’ can probably be a larger part of the energy mix in 2050 and make the transition even easier.

Also, that the study doesn’t have no biofuel as part of the energy mix, even if not all forms of biofuels are bad. So of course, biofuels can also be part of the energy mix. Like for example residual products from plants such as sawmills and from unused branches and treetops in forestry are used for biofuel in Swedish district heating.

District heating

District heating is also a good example on energy efficiency and energy saving. That it’s a much more efficient form of heating compared to every house having its own boiler also that you can produce both electricity and heat. You can also use excess heat from industries that would else have gone to waste.

If you look at transport you have electric engines that are a lot more efficient than petrol engines. You have many more example for example that in Sweden we are building more passive house that barely needs any heating even during the cold winters.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/sweden-passive-housing-co2-reduction-targets

You also already have seen a huge expansion of renewable energy, for example that renewable energy accounted for almost two-thirds of net new power capacity around the world in 2016.

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

While for example India plan to have nearly 60% of electricity capacity from non-fossil fuels by 2027.

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

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The concept is fine. There are plenty of large-scale power storage schemes. Pumped Water Storage, with an 85% efficiency is the most promising.

View attachment 67226124

Even Mexico now has Netmetering.

Reduce your electricity bill ? Solar contractor in Mexico ? Net metering solar system in Mexico

Yes, there are many ways to match electric power supply with demand to accomplish 100 percent renewables.

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 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

Also in Sweden we will have a new experiment with an off the grid house in Skellefteå, that will get power and heat only from solar power. That the house will have batteries for short term storage and produce hydrogen for long time storage for the dark and cold winters. There Skellefteå is as far north as southern Alaska. That the experiment will really test how far both solar power and storage technology have come.

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

Also it's really good if renewables can replace dirty coal power plants and other forms of fossil fuel plants. For example that the UK will close all coal plants by 2025.

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

 

[Bergslagstroll]

If we made farm tractors illegal we could have 100 million brand new jobs hand picking cotton and hand thrashing the wheat. This is "green progress"

Is it a job requirement to be completely illiterate in economics to become a greenie?

How many "new jobs" could be created in hauling our freight if we passed a law demanding that wheels be square?

According to the International Monetary Fund the net gain of getting rid of energy subsidies would be 1.8 trillion dollars a year. There most of those subsidies are fossil fuel companies not paying the cost of their pollution.

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

You can also look at my country Sweden, that is one of the world’s most sustainable economies.

https://sweden.se/nature/7-examples-of-sustainability-in-sweden/

How Sweden Became the World?s Most Sustainable Country: Top 5 Reasons

While at the same time having a strong and innovative economy, for example that Sweden is the best country for business according to Forbes.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017...ost-other-countries-at-just-about-everything/

 

[Lord of Planar]

There most of those subsidies are fossil fuel companies not paying the cost of their pollution.

Please....

Words have meaning. What you refer to is not a subsidy.

Or don't try to use correct words, and remain ignorant.