100% Renewable energy by 2050 doesn't help the environment, it just shifts the problems and pollution (fast food, gas prices)

[guidoLaMoto]

Originally Posted by jertheber

I'm going to guess that our future well being lies....

Good post, but many things to consider:

--the "all alternative energy" thing is basically a variation on the "perpetual motion machine"-- sounds good but it can't be accomplished and still maintain our current level of energy usage. The more alternative energy hardware we use, the more energy it will take to produce it. As you correctly point out, the only reason it looks doable now is because we use fossil fuels to produce the hardware. We won't even get into the problem of "back up.

--Re: consumerism-- as I said earlier, the rate limiting factor in population growth/maintenance is jobs. If we reduce our level of consumerism, we reduce our level of manufacturing, ergo, we reduce the number of jobs and the amount of money in circulation and thus the economy takes a hit and the viscous cycle of economic depression occurs....We've painted ourselves into a corner. We're swimming as fast as we can against the current and can't stop now or we'll get swept away.

I'm smart enough to see the problem, but not smart enough to come up with the solution, unless, of course, we're all willing to return to a lifestyle like Little House on the Prairie.

[jertheber]

Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto

Good post, but many things to consider:

--the "all alternative energy" thing is basically a variation on the "perpetual motion machine"-- sounds good but it can't be accomplished and still maintain our current level of energy usage. The more alternative energy hardware we use, the more energy it will take to produce it. As you correctly point out, the only reason it looks doable now is because we use fossil fuels to produce the hardware. We won't even get into the problem of "back up.

--Re: consumerism-- as I said earlier, the rate limiting factor in population growth/maintenance is jobs. If we reduce our level of consumerism, we reduce our level of manufacturing, ergo, we reduce the number of jobs and the amount of money in circulation and thus the economy takes a hit and the viscous cycle of economic depression occurs....We've painted ourselves into a corner. We're swimming as fast as we can against the current and can't stop now or we'll get swept away.

I'm smart enough to see the problem, but not smart enough to come up with the solution, unless, of course, we're all willing to return to a lifestyle like Little House on the Prairie.

That one aspect of mass consumerism, the inconvenient fact of an entire economy running on mass consumption--is very troubling indeed. I'll guess that the other path includes the need to scale the population numbers to match the resources we have left, another head scratching challenge that doesn't offer much hope.

[leastprime]

Originally Posted by leastprime

Have faith.
I am absolutely amazed how USA has transition from incandescent to CFL to LED; from low efficient ICE to a doubling-tripling of transportation fuel efficiency. And those gains has been against tremendous opposition. Long live progress

My fuel cell plays are doing nicely these last few weeks. We can save another 10% in energy by transitioning to microgrids.

FYI, Out of FuelCells July 25, 27, 28.
Re entered, July 31. small amount.

[guidoLaMoto]

Originally Posted by leastprime

FYI, Out of FuelCells July 25, 27, 28.
Re entered, July 31. small amount.

Fuel cells are another boondoggle: you must put more energy into the production of H than you get out of it as you use it in the fuel cell. "Efficiency" is not the word to be used here, but "counter-productive." We won't even consider the engineering & safety issues involved with H ("Oh, the Humanity!")

ICEs have now reached a fuel efficiency level as high as 25%. If fossil fuel is used to produce the juice for an EV, add in all the inefficiencies of production, transmission, charging and storage, and the EV may be as low as 15% efficient.

Our problems will come when fossil fuel reserves are depleted-- Modern agriculture has been described as the process of turning petroleum into food. If we can't continue to produce food at current levels, the carrying capacity will plummet. It'll be Soylent Green time....Can we use alternate power in farm equipment? Sure, but it's hard to imagine it being anywhere near as convenient/efficient as petroleum power.

In the 1830s, whoever thought they'd be able to control the explosion of kerosene in an iron can in order to propel a buggy?....Maybe we'll eventually get miniature, personal nuclear reactors for our buggies. I think I'll go out and speculate in Stanley Steamer futures. Maybe I'll get lucky.

[leastprime]

^ understand.
Fossil fuels don't make me no money in the stock market. Fuel Cells made me money.
ICE can be more efficient. DS Mazda with SKYATIV drive train, meets the mpg efficiency of our Prius 2.
We are always in a state of transition from one technology to another.

[Phil P]

Originally Posted by jertheber

That one aspect of mass consumerism, the inconvenient fact of an entire economy running on mass consumption--is very troubling indeed. I'll guess that the other path includes the need to scale the population numbers to match the resources we have left, another head scratching challenge that doesn't offer much hope.

I don't know that it's necessarily troubling. Is there waste, absolutely, but things are generally high quality and more functional now (look at 2020 sedans vs 1984 ones) than they were in the past. Also there seems to increasingly be a de-coupling between energy used and GDP growth over the last several years, so I think data and analytics are improving productivity beyond just using more energy to create stuff.

[Philip T]

Originally Posted by Bill the Butcher

Interesting. I haven't seen the data. But what about those (and it's more than a few) that are 15, 20, 30+ pounds over weight? Aren't they already consuming more than they need to ride a bike a couple miles?

No one has.

Seen such "data," that is.

Because it is just make-believe.

[guidoLaMoto]

Originally Posted by Philip T

No one has.

Seen such "data," that is.

Because it is just make-believe.

Do the math: a farm tractor uses 10-15 gal/hr. How many passes of the tractor are employed to plow, plant, cultivate, spread pesticides & herbicides and harvest the crop, feed it, say, to cattle, then transport the cattle to the processor, then transport the beef to the store..etc etc.

Or take a short cut and figure the cost of a Burger King and how far you could pedal on those calories, vs the cost of gasoline to drive that far.

There's a reason they call machines "labor saving devices."

[Philip T]

Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto

Do the math: a farm tractor uses 10-15 gal/hr. How many passes of the tractor are employed to plow, plant, cultivate, spread pesticides & herbicides and harvest the crop, feed it, say, to cattle, then transport the cattle to the processor, then transport the beef to the store..etc etc.

Or take a short cut and figure the cost of a Burger King and how far you could pedal on those calories, vs the cost of gasoline to drive that far.

There's a reason they call machines "labor saving devices."

I love your stuff. It is so Joe Biden.

This is amusing. Here are my starting numbers.

Calories per Mile:

https://caloriesburnedhq.com/calorie...s%20per%20mile.
==========================
A 150 lb person cycling a steady pace of 14 mph will burn 48 calories per mile, that same person traveling at 20 mph would burn 56 calories per mile.

A 200 lb person biking at a normal speed of 14mph will burn 64 calories per mile, if they sped up to 20 mph this would increase to 75 calories per mile.
==========================

So the range looks like 48 to 75 calories per mile? We good with that?

So how many calories are in . . . say a potato?

From the google search calculator:

===================
163 calories
Potato Quantity
1 Potato medium (2-1/4" to 3-1/4" dia) (213 g)
===================

Looks like a medium potato will get us about 2 to 3 miles.

Perhaps our units will be: Miles per Potato?

[Philip T]

Back towards the OP. Looked through your stuff, Phil – here is a review. I see some other folks caught some of this, but here is the Big Picture.

Originally Posted by Phil P

Renewable energy has been able to demonstrate that it can be cost effective, reduce fossil fuel usage in our energy consumption, and be resilient on the grid. However, increasingly plans to address climate change call for a 100% renewable electric grid by 2050. Assuming that it will be a linear progression from where we are now to a completely renewable grid is pure folly though and is nothing more than wishful thinking that would be incredibly environmentally destructive if actualized.

Here's the reasoning:

You are seeking correction?
This is not really about a "Great Debate."
More like simple correction of some very incorrect "information."

1. The renewables used to date were placed in the easiest and most productive places. Future renewable placements would not yield the same amount of energy per dollar invested.

False. Renewables -- in particular Silicon Solar PV, are now vastly cheaper and easier than it was just 10 years ago. Prices have dropped about 10X in that run (not talking about a 10% drop – more like a 90% off sale). Things are heading below $1 per Watt, fully installed. And in that same 10 years production per unit area has about doubled. So now we get about 10X as much per dollar invested, while using 1/2 the space. The trends are still improving in both dimensions.

New Silicon Solar PV has become so cheap, nothing can compete with it, and it is now the primary new build – as Existing Coal, Nukes, and old Gas are taken off line and scraped.

As far as locations, Grid Tied works well any place the Grid is, and in the US that is near almost all of US. And since Grid Tie is usually at or near what is called “Manmade Impervious Surface” (e.g., roofs, parking lots, etc). . . ZERO land use is required to take US 100% Solar. That is slowly dawning in the Industry, but I am working directly with developers to help create this shift. Here is a backgrounder on MMIS >>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impervious_surface

Worldwide anywhere from 30 degrees North to 30 degrees South is Premium Solar area. (This is the range most people in the World live). And it works fine up to 45 degrees North or South Latitude (where most of the rest of the people in the world live). Relatively few folks live North or South of that. – but HVDC can send Renewable Electricity 1000s of miles to reach most anywhere at this point.

Here is a Worldwide Map of “Solar Insolation” It only takes tiny fractions of “good” areas to power the entire world. https://www.altestore.com/howto/sola...map-world-a43/

2. Wind and solar are erratic in generation where each incremental percent of power generated yields less power available to be used, as it has to travel further on transmission lines or be stored in batteries, both of which yield only a fraction of the power as actually usable.

False on a couple of levels, again.

First -- Solar is not “erratic.” The Science, Math, and Numbers are all well known. The Sun has been coming up every day for some Billions of years. Every Day. At known times and locations. And Man has been tracking that for thousands of years. At this point the Annual Energy the Sun will produce with various PV systems is so well known and modeled, the NREL (National Renewable Energy Lab – part of Department of Energy) has a Free Online Calculator, that can tell accurately, typically within 1%, what any particular Solar design will produce, by location, type, etc. Called PVWatts. Impressive collection of data and math >>> https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/

As far as getting power from here to there, wherever those are -- That “Fraction” as you say, is about 95/100. Meaning 95% gets through, and less than 5% of Electricity is “lost.” But that is still a loss of about $20 Billion (Retail) worth of Electricity. So we are constantly improving things.

Maybe think of the path like a pipeline for money? You would not want it leaking and causing loss? I am a US Grid Level Electrical Engineer. You think maybe we sort of kind maybe know what we are doing or maybe not? We try to keep the losses much lower than even 5%. Why would we throw $100s Billion of Electricity away every year?

Why do you make up such nonsense? Really, you can look up and read this stuff, yourself.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.p...ity%20Profiles.

3. To date renewables have been able to offset coal power generation; as coal is almost dead future renewables would replace natural gas, which would yield much less reductions in CO2 emissions.

Mixed. Projected future is: Hydro holds their own, Wind has some growth. Coal goes away quickly. Nukes fade to near Zero. Silicon Solar PV with some Gas (back-up / emergency) will expand to fill the rest, but the Gas gets little-to-no “run-time.” Additional CO2 issues will have faded to just history before then. That is just the math, but actual expansions and growth rates match this, as well.

4. There is no good way to recycle wind turbines and solar panels completely, so a large portion of them ends up as landfill, toxic landfill material.

False. Silicon Solar PV is 100% Infinity Recyclable. At a profit. There is nothing Toxic in them. Nothing. No portion. Let alone a “large portion.” Aluminum + Glass + Silicon Wafers. What do you think is “Toxic?” Real Question? What do you think is toxic?

5. Renewables and the associated batteries needed to make renewable power functional are made from rare earth minerals or minerals not mined in the US.

False. ZERO Batteries are required for Grid Tied Solar. Which most Solar PV (99% or more) is.

And Silicon Solar PV has ZERO rare earth minerals.

As far as batteries, the big use for Batteries is for Existing back-up/emergency power and tend to be:

+ Lead-Acid variants, Series to +300 VDC, in Data-Centers, (tied to LARGE UPS)
+ Lead-Acid variants, Series to +125 VDC, Electrical, Industrial, Generation and Substation Controls.
+ Iron-Nickel, -48 VDC for Telephone and Communication Backup

Again, these are ALL for Emergency, Grid-loss back-up – not general power, nor a general use part of any energy system. Have no direct relationship to Renewable, nor any other particular source of power. No “rare earth minerals” in any of them.

Again, these batteries have little-to-nothing to do with Renewables of any kind, other than that they are also generally Grid Tied for charging.

Mining can be incredibly environmentally destructive if not done properly and many of the countries where these minerals come from have child labor and other labor abuse problems https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...ls-components/

True that all materials are sourced by some sort of mining . . . but since Silicon Solar PV is 100% Infinitely Recyclable (along with the Aluminum and Glass), less and less is used the further things go. And Coal, Uranium, and Fracking will slow to a STOP.

But as far as the materials required for Silicon Solar PV -- NONE of Aluminum, Silicon Dioxide (for Glass), nor Silicon (for the Wafer Cell) comes from Child Labor. These are generally well-established mechanized mines. And there are ZERO Rare Earths, no Cobalt, nor end-use “Toxins.” (hope we have beaten all that nonsense to death?)

Essentially, the push to 100% renewable energy and an electric transportation grid just shifts us from a fossil fuel economy to a 'rare earth' economy.

No, it pretty much brings us out of the Dirt (Coal, Frack, and Nukes) and into the Sky and Sunshine.

What does this mean?

Dunno what it means to you, but here is what I see -- That you have researched exactly NONE of this, and are just talking about a long string of numbered nonsense, which you could have easily looked up and discovered as false before you even began.

It means that instead of dealing with pollution from fossil fuel extraction, we have to deal with pollution from mining and recycling of these minerals, which is not objectively better. Since they are mined and processed in other countries, it's out of sight out of mind for Americans, but the environmental controls will be worse overseas and it opens up a whole new global dependancy chain that will make the politics and wars over oil seem tame.

It is turning out the opposite. Silicon Solar PV is all running so much cheaper and cleaner, that it is now helping “bootstrap” itself – where Silicon Solar PV is helping create the Electricity for creating New Silicon Solar PV. Meanwhile, Silicon Solar PV is still the cleanest New Generation Source, so things keep getting cleaner the more Silicon Solar PV is made and installed. At this point, Trump has put Punitive 30% Import Tariffs against Solar – just trying to slow it down (to little-to-no avail).

So, what's the answer?

Probably need to the form the question first. And my question for you is why all the false information you are creating and spreading? So First, get some more details and legit information on the topic . . . like details that are actually real.

Second, we need to tax and disincentivize energy use; we need to tax fossil fuels and electricity instead of subsidize 'renewables' and the terrible ethanol program.

That has worked out as a Bad Plan where tried. Last year’s “Yellow Vest” protests in France were from this. Poor folks tend to drive older, cheaper, Oil Burner cars – so fuel taxes hit the working poor hardest.

Smarter folks (than US) are instead banning New ICEs. Once you get rid of new Internal Combustion Engines, demand for Oil fades and drops away. Electricity for the replacement EVs can all be produced from Renewable Electricity. Here are some details on the ICE Bans >>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-..._fuel_vehicles

Finally, we need a multi pronged solution to our future energy generation, which must include natural gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar in 2050.

Here is the Look-Ahead – By 2050:
+ Nukes will be long gone other than special applications, and some remaining dinosaurs.
+ Hydro is already pretty much maxed.
+ Big Wind will be in-filled, and off-shore.
+ Gas will have tapered to back-up and emergency use
+ And shared Grid Tie Solar will be wrapping around the world via HVDC.

Details here >>> https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the...bal-power-grid

Future is bright. Just have to get past the present inbred stupidity.