• 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 can produce a lot more electricity during summertime while any surplus can be used to produce hydrogen.


Our infrastructure is not set up to handle pure hydrogen, it causes pipes to get brittle, which is not
a desirable thing is pipes carrying high pressure flammable gas.
 
As I said show in my earlier post you are seeing great advancement in range with the aim of 1 000 km range as well as 10 minutes charge. There China already have three minutes battery swaps.

I've often wondered about battery swaps. Ecologically, this is huge. They can start making the rest of the car to last for many decades, instead of 5-10 years. That article mentioned that one EV was swapped 500 times. Incredible!
 
Our infrastructure is not set up to handle pure hydrogen, it causes pipes to get brittle, which is not
a desirable thing is pipes carrying high pressure flammable gas.

Have you not started a shift towards plastic piping? That sooner or later the pipes have to replaced and then plastic seems like a better option that can also be used for hydrogen.


Also as my link show there are a lot of other use for hydrogen in industrial production like for example of steel. While also in other areas like transport.


 
And I will believe a 1000 km range, when it hits the market.
It all comes down to energy density, batteries weigh too much, for the energy they carry.

You can already accomplish a 1000 km, 637.5 miles range during ideal conditions. There you also are seeing a lot of innovation and technology advancements to increase the range.

 
Have you not started a shift towards plastic piping? That sooner or later the pipes have to replaced and then plastic seems like a better option that can also be used for hydrogen.


Also as my link show there are a lot of other use for hydrogen in industrial production like for example of steel. While also in other areas like transport.


I am not sure you understand that, while pure hydrogen can do the job, it will require some fairly substantial changes to our infrastructure.
Simply making hydrocarbon fuels carbon neutral, would achieve the same goal, without changing the infrastructure.
 
You can already accomplish a 1000 km, 637.5 miles range during ideal conditions. There you also are seeing a lot of innovation and technology advancements to increase the range.

If you had read your cited article, you would have seen the conditions.
" As always in these efforts, getting so much out of the battery meant turning the air conditioning off, driving slowly (on average, 29–31 km/h, or 18–19 mph), and prepping well. “The nearly 35-hour test took place at Lausitzring, a racetrack in northeast Germany. Dekra, a European vehicle inspection company that has operated at Lausitzring since 2017, monitored the test process and vehicles, recording 36 driver changes.”
So no AC at 18 -19 mph, I am not sure what mileage my F-150 might get at 18-19 mph,
but I suspect it is much better than under real driving conditions.
 
I am not sure you understand that, while pure hydrogen can do the job, it will require some fairly substantial changes to our infrastructure.
Simply making hydrocarbon fuels carbon neutral, would achieve the same goal, without changing the infrastructure.

I provide link that UK could be ready to replace natural gas with hydrogen by 2030. Do you have any sources for then your proposed solution will be able to replace natural gas in heating houses?
 
If you had read your cited article, you would have seen the conditions.
" As always in these efforts, getting so much out of the battery meant turning the air conditioning off, driving slowly (on average, 29–31 km/h, or 18–19 mph), and prepping well. “The nearly 35-hour test took place at Lausitzring, a racetrack in northeast Germany. Dekra, a European vehicle inspection company that has operated at Lausitzring since 2017, monitored the test process and vehicles, recording 36 driver changes.”
So no AC at 18 -19 mph, I am not sure what mileage my F-150 might get at 18-19 mph,
but I suspect it is much better than under real driving conditions.

As I said under perfect condition. There you continue to see massive improvements in range.


 
I provide link that UK could be ready to replace natural gas with hydrogen by 2030. Do you have any sources for then your proposed solution will be able to replace natural gas in heating houses?
Natural gas (Methane) will likely be the last gas swapped out, because of the economics,
but that does not mean that it will not happen, or that they cannot solve the problems of hydrogen.
We know how long we can store methane for (Millions of years), hydrogen not so much.
 
Natural gas (Methane) will likely be the last gas swapped out, because of the economics,
but that does not mean that it will not happen, or that they cannot solve the problems of hydrogen.
We know how long we can store methane for (Millions of years), hydrogen not so much.
Flammability danger aside, the biggest problem with hydrogen is that it is usually extracted from water with hydrolysis. By the time you expend energy to break that chemical bond, it is very difficult to get a NET positive energy from the hydrogen itself.
 
Flammability danger aside, the biggest problem with hydrogen is that it is usually extracted from water with hydrolysis. By the time you expend energy to break that chemical bond, it is very difficult to get a NET positive energy from the hydrogen itself.
You will NEVER get a net positive from an energy storage methodology, otherwise you would be creating energy.
The reason natural gas will be last is because of how inexpensive natural gas is to find and extract, and transport.
The ease of transport, and the high hydrogen density per molecule, make it ideal for energy transport.
Consider the not in my backyard for Nuclear power, we need Nuclear power, but man do not want a plant near them,
yet power plants have very real line losses in power transmission.
What would happen if a Nuclear Power Plant were located in some remote location, but supplied massive amounts of carbon neutral
methane to the natural gas grid, power plants that burned the gas would be generating net zero electricity.
 
Flammability danger aside, the biggest problem with hydrogen is that it is usually extracted from water with hydrolysis. By the time you expend energy to break that chemical bond, it is very difficult to get a NET positive energy from the hydrogen itself.
Question.

How do you get a "net positive energy?"

Where is this perpetual motion machine?
 
Consider the not in my backyard for Nuclear power, we need Nuclear power, but man do not want a plant near them,
yet power plants have very real line losses in power transmission.
What would happen if a Nuclear Power Plant were located in some remote location, but supplied massive amounts of carbon neutral
methane to the natural gas grid, power plants that burned the gas would be generating net zero electricity.

I hope we'll get past this by mass producing cheaper and cheaper modular nuclear power plants that are meltdown-proof, that don't need pressure vessels, and fail into a safe state that no one has to worry about. Nuclear is already the safest form of power by the numbers, when people acclimate to how safe it really is by addressing the few issues we still have, hopefully nuclear literally in your backyard would be something we could get to a level of comfort with. Not sure when you compare resistive heating vs sabatier methane generation and then burning the resulting methane, which of the two is the least wasteful of energy, (but I expect the resistive heating is, even better would be ground heat pumps) but all the distribution infrastructure for natural gas would seem wasteful (except where it already exists of course)
 
Last edited:
I hope we'll get past this by mass producing cheaper and cheaper modular nuclear power plants that are meltdown-proof, that don't need pressure vessels, and fail into a safe state that no one has to worry about. Nuclear is already the safest form of power by the numbers, when people acclimate to how safe it really is by addressing the few issues we still have, hopefully nuclear literally in your backyard would be something we could get to a level of comfort with. Not sure when you compare resistive heating vs sabatier methane generation and then burning the resulting methane, which of the two is the least wasteful of energy, (but I expect the resistive heating is, even better would be ground heat pumps) but all the distribution infrastructure for natural gas would seem wasteful (except where it already exists of course)
I think the real benefit for creating man made carbon neutral natural gas, is the energy storage factor,
and how it could separate the electricity supply from instantaneous demand.
This would be especially helpful with irregular sources like wind and solar.
While I know energy storage is always at a loss, using the energy that exceeds demand from wind and solar
to make heating and transport fuels. I am not sure what process the Navy and Sunfire are using,
but Sunfire is claiming an 80% efficiency, in it's power to liquid process.
I agree with you about the small nuclear reactors. I could see something like the NuScale reactor,
providing the heat for old coal power plants, as they all have ether rail or water access.
 
156245841_855763118326502_8908917252665505337_n.jpg
 
And I will believe a 1000 km range, when it hits the market.
It all comes down to energy density, batteries weigh too much, for the energy they carry.

I noticed the very heavy battery pack carried by the Tesla.

tesla-model-s-lithium-ion-battery-pack-in-rolling-chassis-photo-martin-gillet-via-flickr_100481091_h.jpg
 

Greta Thunberg only demands that the warnings from the world's leading scientists should be listen to.


There she have helped to inspire and organize a global movement with millions of participants all across the world.



While Judith Curry and other fringe scientists like her have so little credibility that federal agencies, under the control and scrutiny of Donald Trump and Republican climate denier in Congress, continued to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

"The impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country. More frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events, as well as changes in average climate conditions, are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems that provide essential benefits to communities. Future climate change is expected to further disrupt many areas of life, exacerbating existing challenges to prosperity posed by aging and deteriorating infrastructure, stressed ecosystems, and economic inequality. Impacts within and across regions will not be distributed equally. People who are already vulnerable, including lower-income and other marginalized communities, have lower capacity to prepare for and cope with extreme weather and climate-related events and are expected to experience greater impacts. Prioritizing adaptation actions for the most vulnerable populations would contribute to a more equitable future within and across communities. Global action to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions can substantially reduce climate-related risks and increase opportunities for these populations in the longer term."

 
Germany already get half of their electricity from renewable energy.


While also seeing advancements in areas like hydrogen.


There this contributes to economy of scale and technological development so that even red states like Texas and fossil fuel companies sees the great potential in renewable energy.


1620864635223.png
 
Massive expansion of renewable energy all across the world.

"The Paris-based agency says a “huge” 280 gigawatts (GW) of renewable capacity – primarily wind and solar – was installed globally last year, some 45% higher than the level in 2019, after the largest annual increase in more than 20 years.

This “exceptional” level of annual additions will become the “new normal” in 2021 and 2022, the IEA says, with the potential for further acceleration in the years that follow.

Overall, the IEA says that renewables accounted for 90% of new electricity generating capacity added globally last year and that they will meet the same share in each of the next two years."

 
Massive expansion of renewable energy all across the world.

"The Paris-based agency says a “huge” 280 gigawatts (GW) of renewable capacity – primarily wind and solar – was installed globally last year, some 45% higher than the level in 2019, after the largest annual increase in more than 20 years.

This “exceptional” level of annual additions will become the “new normal” in 2021 and 2022, the IEA says, with the potential for further acceleration in the years that follow.

Overall, the IEA says that renewables accounted for 90% of new electricity generating capacity added globally last year and that they will meet the same share in each of the next two years."

I wonder why when they are talking about growth the use Kilowatts installed, instead of Kilowatt-hours capacity installed.
Most wind, and all Solar does not produce the stated Kilowatt capacity, but some lower percentage.
Projected electricity generation worldwide from 2018 to 2050, by energy source (in trillion kilowatt hours)*
We also have to consider all the other forms of energy we use besides electricity.
Fossil Fuels Still Supply 84 Percent Of World Energy
960x0.jpg
 
I wonder why when they are talking about growth the use Kilowatts installed, instead of Kilowatt-hours capacity installed.
Most wind, and all Solar does not produce the stated Kilowatt capacity, but some lower percentage.
Projected electricity generation worldwide from 2018 to 2050, by energy source (in trillion kilowatt hours)*
We also have to consider all the other forms of energy we use besides electricity.
Fossil Fuels Still Supply 84 Percent Of World Energy
960x0.jpg

EU already gets more electricity from renewables than fossil fuels. There for example Denmark already gets 64 percent of their electricity from wind and solar power.


There you continue to see a massive build out of renewable energy.


There you have seen and continue to see a rapid decline in cost of renewable energy.


There it also are great potential in replacing fossil fuels in other areas.


 
Back
Top Bottom