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

[Jack Hays]

Perhaps you'll stop your idiotic AGW denial and listen to Harvard University then:

https://www.harvard.edu/tackling-climate-change

"Climate change poses an immediate and long-term threat to people and our planet."

I don't need to accept their ideology to credit their scientific work.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

You are correct!
https://www.sunfire.de/en/company/p...he-production-of-blue-crude-planned-in-norway
Fossil oil is not going to disappear from the market overnight, but having a viable replacement
will go a long way towards a sustainable future.

That refinery will open in 2020 and only produce 8,000 tons per year.

This can be compared to renewables, there Scotland already got 68 percent of their electricity from renewable energy in 2017. While Denmark got 43 percent of their electricity from wind power the same year.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...scotland-climate-change-oil-gas-a8283166.html

https://www.thelocal.dk/20180111/denmark-set-wind-power-record-in-2017-ministry

You also have Norway there already half of new cars are electrics or hybrids.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ar-sales-now-electric-or-hybrid-idUSKBN1ES0WC

You also already today have many positive example of batteries used for regulating supply of electricity.

https://electrek.co/2018/01/23/tesla-giant-battery-australia-1-million/

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-b...t-subsidy-free-solar-power-farm-idUKKCN1C10L5

So even if Blue Crude can be part of the transition towards renewable energy its still is in a very early stage compared to other technologies.

The fossil fuel companies have known about the devastating effects of climate change for many decades and also are amongst the most profitable in world. So it’s telling that the big fossil fuel companies isn’t the once who have developed the technology or the once who are opening the the first commercial blue crude plant in 2020.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.W63jaHszaUk

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Renewable energy could become a bipartisan in US just like it already have become in other countries. That already are wind or solar power the cheapest electricity option in most Republican congressional districts.


"Republicans from Texas to Iowa regularly extoll the virtues of renewables like wind and solar power, and for good reason. Rural Republican districts are often the locations with the best solar and wind resources, and when those resources are harnessed they bring good jobs to places where new sources of employment are often otherwise scarce. In fact, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ #1 and #2 fastest growing jobs in the U.S. are solar panel installers and wind turbine technicians. These jobs are good, solid middle class jobs with annual salaries pushing close to six-figures. Beyond construction, the plants (particularly wind farms, with their many moving parts) offer good jobs in the long term."


https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshua...n-leaders-love-renewable-energy/#19e1ae563da7

 

[Surface Detail]

I don't need to accept their ideology to credit their scientific work.

I get it. If you agree with it, it's scientific work; if you don't, it's ideology. Propaganda 101.

 

[Jack Hays]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Germany fails to meet EU climate targets, will get billed billions[/h][FONT=&quot]From Focus Magazin (h/t to GWPF) The failure to meet European Union climate targets will cost Germany billions. According to a report, the German deficit means the government will have to buy CO2 certificates from Eastern Europe for two billion euros. While Germany is missing its climate target by just under three percent, countries such as Bulgaria, Croatia,…
[/FONT]

 

[Jack Hays]

[FONT=&quot]Climate News[/FONT]
[h=1]Canada — And The World — Abandon Green Energy Agenda[/h][FONT=&quot]Wind and solar have become the fossils of the energy industry; oil, gas and coal remain the fuels of the future By Larry Solomon Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s repeal of the Green Energy Act and balks by premiers of other Canadian provinces at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s climate agenda aren’t rearguard moves by Donald Trump…
[/FONT]

 

[Into the Night]

The fossil fuel companies

There are no fossil fuel companies. Fossils don't burn.

have known about the devastating effects of climate change

Define 'climate change'. This is a meaningless buzzword.

for many decades and also are amongst the most profitable in world.

You can't make a profit by selling fossils as fuel. Fossils don't burn.

So it’s telling that the big fossil fuel companies isn’t the once who have developed the technology or the once who are opening the the first commercial blue crude plant in 2020.

What does a 'crude' fossil look like?

Oh...you linked to an OIL company. Oil is not a fossil. Neither does it come from fossils.

 

[Into the Night]

Renewable energy could become a bipartisan in US just like it already have become in other countries. That already are wind or solar power the cheapest electricity option in most Republican congressional districts.


"Republicans from Texas to Iowa regularly extoll the virtues of renewables like wind and solar power, and for good reason. Rural Republican districts are often the locations with the best solar and wind resources, and when those resources are harnessed they bring good jobs to places where new sources of employment are often otherwise scarce. In fact, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ #1 and #2 fastest growing jobs in the U.S. are solar panel installers and wind turbine technicians. These jobs are good, solid middle class jobs with annual salaries pushing close to six-figures. Beyond construction, the plants (particularly wind farms, with their many moving parts) offer good jobs in the long term."


https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshua...n-leaders-love-renewable-energy/#19e1ae563da7

Both solar and wind energy are piddle power. They are among the most expensive ways to produce electrical power. The cost per watt produced is higher than any other form of electrical power generation by far. It is typically around ten times the cost of other fuels. It's improving though. It used to be 12 times. They seem to have hit a plateau in costs.

 

[longview]

That refinery will open in 2020 and only produce 8,000 tons per year.

This can be compared to renewables, there Scotland already got 68 percent of their electricity from renewable energy in 2017. While Denmark got 43 percent of their electricity from wind power the same year.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...scotland-climate-change-oil-gas-a8283166.html

https://www.thelocal.dk/20180111/denmark-set-wind-power-record-in-2017-ministry

You also have Norway there already half of new cars are electrics or hybrids.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ar-sales-now-electric-or-hybrid-idUSKBN1ES0WC

You also already today have many positive example of batteries used for regulating supply of electricity.

https://electrek.co/2018/01/23/tesla-giant-battery-australia-1-million/

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-b...t-subsidy-free-solar-power-farm-idUKKCN1C10L5

So even if Blue Crude can be part of the transition towards renewable energy its still is in a very early stage compared to other technologies.

The fossil fuel companies have known about the devastating effects of climate change for many decades and also are amongst the most profitable in world. So it’s telling that the big fossil fuel companies isn’t the once who have developed the technology or the once who are opening the the first commercial blue crude plant in 2020.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.W63jaHszaUk

You consistently fail to see that the poor duty cycle supplies by wind and solar, are not compatible with our on demand requirements without some massive energy storage.
What I am describing is a way to store nearly unlimited amounts of surplus energy in a form compatible with todays demands.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Who's crystal ball says we will have adequate storage means by then?

Ballasting of solar and wind power has been discussed before. Some schemes are far more grand than batteries, such as using the power to pump water into higher elevation, then extracting hydroelectric energy later.
That kind of scheme, like hydroelectric power itself, is not conducive to all types of terrain.

In the end, it all comes down to piddle power. The cost per watt is already ten times higher than fuels such as coal, oil, natural gas, or even nuclear. Adding the cost of building and maintaining a ballasting system only adds to the cost per watt produced.

 

[Into the Night]

Lots of things could happen if they were wanted "badly enough" but as demand for fossil fuels falls so does their cost because their supply exists. IMHO, short of a huge tax (effective ban?) on these current fossil fuels it is extremely unlikely to happen.

Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. While such a tax on fuels like oil and natural gas would impose price controls, all that does is cause shortages. There simply would not be enough power to go around. Price controls always cause shortages. They never work.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Battery powered tools are still using coal, oil, and natural gas to power them. A battery is a storage device. It is not a source of power in and of itself.

 

[Into the Night]

renewables are the future anything else is just heads in the sand.

The market will decide that. Price discovery rules. You can't kill the market. It's immortal. You are just speculating.

 

[Into the Night]

Not to mention that most countries get their wealth from fossil fuels. I think those countries that are rich with fossil fuels will oppose this because it can harm their economy.

No country I know either uses nor sells fossils as fuel. Fossils don't burn.

If a country has a wealth of oil, why not use it? Why not sell it? Do you really think you can kill the market? Do you really think that price controls actually work?

 

[Surface Detail]

Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. While such a tax on fuels like oil and natural gas would impose price controls, all that does is cause shortages. There simply would not be enough power to go around. Price controls always cause shortages. They never work.

Taxes are not price controls, and they can work very well. In Europe, for example, high taxes on petrol (US: gasoline) mean that people tend to drive for shorter distances in more economical vehicles, and public transport becomes a more viable option. There are no petrol shortages.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

There are no fossil fuel companies. Fossils don't burn.

Define 'climate change'. This is a meaningless buzzword.

You can't make a profit by selling fossils as fuel. Fossils don't burn.

What does a 'crude' fossil look like?

Oh...you linked to an OIL company. Oil is not a fossil. Neither does it come from fossils.

The economic case for fossil fuel is crumbling.

“Coal has been getting the squeeze for years now, but the plunging cost of renewable energy is already starting to give natural gas a run for its money. The implications for the incumbent fossil fuel industry are dire.

“Coal and gas are facing a mounting threat to their position in the world’s electricity generation mix, as a result of the spectacular reductions in cost not just for wind and solar technologies, but also for batteries,” according to a report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).”

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money...ose-fossil-fuels-challenging-price/485210002/


That even in USA with their very pro coal Trump administration the coal companies have a pessimistic view of the future of coal.

“I will tell you it is not a matter of if we are going to retire our coal fleet in this nation, it’s just a matter of when,” Ben Fowke, Xcel Energy Inc.’s chief executive officer, said June 6 at a utility trade group conference. The company announced later that day that it would retire two coal-fired units in Colorado and add thousands of megawatts of capacity from renewable power and natural gas.

That trend has been underway for years. Since 2010, nearly 40 percent of the capacity of the nation’s fleet of coal-fired power plants has either been shut down or designated for closure, according to the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a trade-group that represents coal-fired utilities and mining companies such as Peabody Energy Corp., and Murray Energy Corp."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...shutting-despite-trump-s-order-to-rescue-them

While you continue to see a massive global increase of renewables.

"A record amount of renewable power capacity was installed worldwide last year as the cost of wind and solar became even more competitive with fossil fuels, research by renewables policy organisation REN21 showed.

Renewable power generation capacity had its largest annual increase yet in 2017, with an estimated 178 gigawatts (GW) of capacity added, REN21 said in its annual renewables global status report."

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...ergy-installed-in-2017-research-idUKKCN1IZ0YL

 

[Jack Hays]

[FONT=&quot]Energy[/FONT]
[h=1]Germany’s Energiewende program exposed as a catastrophic failure[/h][FONT=&quot]EU climate alarmist champion Germany has its Energiewende program exposed as a catastrophic failure with enormous costs Guest essay by Larry Hamlin An audit of the EU’s leading climate alarmism energy policy program concludes that Germany’s Energiewende is a colossal and hugely expensive debacle. “Germany’s Federal Audit Office has accused the federal government of having…
[/FONT]

 

[Into the Night]

Taxes are not price controls,

When used in this way that is exactly what they are.

and they can work very well.

They don't.

In Europe, for example, high taxes on petrol (US: gasoline) mean that people tend to drive for shorter distances in more economical vehicles,

or not drive at all. Shortage.

and public transport becomes a more viable option.

Not always available. It doesn't go everywhere or at the times you need to go there.

There are no petrol shortages.

There is a transportation shortage. It severely hurts the economy there too.

 

[Into the Night]

The economic case for fossil fuel is crumbling.

There never was one. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.

“Coal has been getting the squeeze for years now, but the plunging cost of renewable energy is already starting to give natural gas a run for its money.

Don't think so. The cost of wind or solar is about ten times the cost of natural gas or coal per watt to produce. Currently, coal produces about 30% of the electricity in the world.

The implications for the incumbent fossil fuel industry are dire.

There is no fossil fuel industry. Fossils don't burn.

“Coal and gas are facing a mounting threat to their position in the world’s electricity generation mix, as a result of the spectacular reductions in cost not just for wind and solar technologies, but also for batteries,” according to a report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).”
...deleted biased Holy Link...

Biased source for this Holy Link and Quote. Discarded.

That even in USA with their very pro coal Trump administration the coal companies have a pessimistic view of the future of coal.

No, they don't Coal is still a popular fuel around the world.There is still a market for it. That market is not diminishing. You are making this up. You might actually try checking with the coal markets.

“I will tell you it is not a matter of if we are going to retire our coal fleet in this nation, it’s just a matter of when,” Ben Fowke, Xcel Energy Inc.’s chief executive officer, said June 6 at a utility trade group conference. The company announced later that day that it would retire two coal-fired units in Colorado and add thousands of megawatts of capacity from renewable power and natural gas.

Xcel Energy is not the world. It is not even most of the United States. They are moving to natural gas, which is cheaper than coal right now. A decent move. Natural gas is a renewable fuel.

That trend has been underway for years.

WRONG. You are making stuff up again.

Since 2010, nearly 40 percent of the capacity of the nation’s fleet of coal-fired power plants has either been shut down or designated for closure, according to the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a trade-group that represents coal-fired utilities and mining companies such as Peabody Energy Corp., and Murray Energy Corp."
...deleted Holy Link...

Old data. this was because of Obama's war on coal, which has been eliminated.

While you continue to see a massive global increase of renewables.

Not really.

"A record amount of renewable power capacity was installed worldwide last year as the cost of wind and solar became even more competitive with fossil fuels, research by renewables policy organisation REN21 showed.

Fossils aren't a fuel. They don't burn. Wind and Solar cost about ten times per watt to produce than coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear sources.

Renewable power generation capacity had its largest annual increase yet in 2017, with an estimated 178 gigawatts (GW) of capacity added, REN21 said in its annual renewables global status report."
...deleted Holy Link...

178Gw is a drop in the bucket compared to other sources in the world. Currently, all of the combined wind and solar plants generate some 550Gw. Most power is generated by coal, oil, natural gas, and hydro. These sources produce about 13Tw. That's 13,000Gw. Currently, the percentage of power contributed by wind and solar has DROPPED in the past couple of years. Source: United Nations, British Petroleum

The reason is easy to see. Wind and solar are very expensive energy sources. They cost about ten times what coal, oil, or natural gas cost per watt. They are about 13 times the cost of hydro per watt.

 

[Surface Detail]

When used in this way that is exactly what they are.

They don't.

or not drive at all. Shortage.

Not always available. It doesn't go everywhere or at the times you need to go there.

There is a transportation shortage. It severely hurts the economy there too.

I live in England, and I can assure you that there is no transportation shortage. It is just a short walk from my house to the bus stop or train station, and if I can't get where I want to go by public transport or need to carry stuff, then I drive there in my practical, economical car. Many amenities, including my local shopping centre and my son's school, are within easy walking or cycling distance, so I don't actually need to use my car that much.

Expensive petrol is one of the reasons why our communities have developed so as not to require long-distance driving, and I don't think it is doing us any great harm. The tax also provides an addition revenue stream for the government, which means more money for public works or lower taxes elsewhere, depending on your flavour of politics.

Edit: I have visited the US a couple of times, and while the cheap gas is superficially a good thing, the practical result seemed to be that one would spend ages sat in a car because everything is so spread out, and public transport seemed to be virtually non-existent. It would appear that you're screwed if you can't afford or are unable to drive a car there. That is a transportation shortage.

 

[Into the Night]

I live in England, and I can assure you that there is no transportation shortage.

There is. You just don't recognize it as such, since you've live with it for so long.

It is just a short walk from my house to the bus stop or train station, and if I can't get where I want to go by public transport or need to carry stuff, then I drive there in my practical, economical car.

Bully for you. Not everyone has your needs.

Many amenities, including my local shopping centre and my son's school, are within easy walking or cycling distance, so I don't actually need to use my car that much.

Again, not everyone has your needs.

Expensive petrol is one of the reasons why our communities have developed so as not to require long-distance driving, and I don't think it is doing us any great harm.

It is. It is costly just to rent a 1 bedroom flat so close to such conveniences. The cost of using your car is enormous. It is costly for goods to flow along your costly transportation system. The ONLY thing you have going for your system is the small size of your nation.

The tax also provides an addition revenue stream for the government, which means more money for public works or lower taxes elsewhere, depending on your flavour of politics.

Socialism can only exist by stealing wealth. No thanks.

Edit: I have visited the US a couple of times, and while the cheap gas is superficially a good thing, the practical result seemed to be that one would spend ages sat in a car because everything is so spread out, and public transport seemed to be virtually non-existent. It would appear that you're screwed if you can't afford or are unable to drive a car there. That is a transportation shortage.

Not at all. No different than one that can't afford to buy train tickets in the UK. The United States is much larger than the UK, and mass transportation such as railways are impractical except along a few select corridors (mostly along the east coast). Our trucks ply the highways here delivering food and other goodies from around the world. The cost of goods flowing along our transportation system is low. We can drive our cars and leave when we want to, go where we want to, and the cost of driving a car here is low. Our economy is much greater than that of the UK too, and improving thanks to Trump and his policies. We produce more and export more than the UK could even dream about. Much of that is only possible BECAUSE of our transportation system.

Further, you won't be able to driver your car at all. You'll have to get an electric car, which has limited range and very long refueling cycles.

 

[Surface Detail]

There is. You just don't recognize it as such, since you've live with it for so long.

Bully for you. Not everyone has your needs.

Again, not everyone has your needs.

It is. It is costly just to rent a 1 bedroom flat so close to such conveniences. The cost of using your car is enormous. It is costly for goods to flow along your costly transportation system. The ONLY thing you have going for your system is the small size of your nation.

Socialism can only exist by stealing wealth. No thanks.

Not at all. No different than one that can't afford to buy train tickets in the UK. The United States is much larger than the UK, and mass transportation such as railways are impractical except along a few select corridors (mostly along the east coast). Our trucks ply the highways here delivering food and other goodies from around the world. The cost of goods flowing along our transportation system is low. We can drive our cars and leave when we want to, go where we want to, and the cost of driving a car here is low. Our economy is much greater than that of the UK too, and improving thanks to Trump and his policies. We produce more and export more than the UK could even dream about. Much of that is only possible BECAUSE of our transportation system.

Further, you won't be able to driver your car at all. You'll have to get an electric car, which has limited range and very long refueling cycles.

Actually, the UK exports more per capita than the US:

List of countries by exports per capita

United Kingdom: #34
United States: #46

 

[Anarchon]

renewables are the future anything else is just heads in the sand.

What if you were to learn that oil is renewable? Would you then say that oil remains the future?

 

[Threegoofs]

Actually, the UK exports more per capita than the US:

List of countries by exports per capita

United Kingdom: #34
United States: #46

Now you’re going to have to explain ‘per capita’ to him.

 

[Into the Night]

Actually, the UK exports more per capita than the US:

List of countries by exports per capita

United Kingdom: #34
United States: #46

WRONG. Exports are not the issue here. GDP is. Redirection fallacy.