Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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/
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. What does this mean? 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.
So, what's the answer? First, we need to realize that energy is not free, energy usage WILL create pollution. 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. Finally, we need a multi pronged solution to our future energy generation, which must include natural gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar in 2050.
Planet of the Humans went into some of the issues with green energy.
The only thing you missed Phil is #6.
#6 Gradually, but not too gradually because we need to make actual noticeable reductions, reduce our populations nationally and globally.
I look at it as living a healthy lifestyly.
The different forms of energy, carbon, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar are the different food groups. Try to eat a balanced diet of all of them. Coal would be your trans fats. only okay on the very rare occasion.
But proper population planning would be the equivalent to exercising regularly.
I agree with Bill the Butcher. the real problem with climate change is that there are too many people. Al Gore was right when he said the planet has a fever and the cause is a virus called humans.
We here in the US could park all our cars and reduce our carbon footprints but when billions of people in the developing world are still cooking over open fires and doing what they have to to survive without a thought about the planet and lets not forget about them dumping their trash in the ocean we will continue to have problems.
Of course we could be the world leader in fighting climate change but one big volcanic eruption can send more carbon into the atmosphere than humans ever could.
Of course the problem of climate change is shifted around with one political party going all out on it while the other downplays it. Both are at extremes but we all need to meet in the middle and that starts at home with doing what we can to reduce our own footprint.
Well, too many people isn't really something we can do anything about. The growth of population is slowing significantly, but there's nothing we can do to make an impact one way or the other in the next fifty years.
What we can do is reduce the amount used by each person through efficiency and taxation.
Really though, what people don't realize is that fossil fuels, while having some dirty side effects, are much much better than using trees for heating and cooking as people did before the 20th century. The ability to have large, old growth forests across the world is only possible at our population levels because we no longer chop them down for fuel. It's amazing how many trees a person would need for fuel living in a place like Colorado, especially given how slow those trees grow back.
I agree with Bill the Butcher. the real problem with climate change is that there are too many people. Al Gore was right when he said the planet has a fever and the cause is a virus called humans.
We here in the US could park all our cars and reduce our carbon footprints but when billions of people in the developing world are still cooking over open fires and doing what they have to to survive without a thought about the planet and lets not forget about them dumping their trash in the ocean we will continue to have problems.
Of course we could be the world leader in fighting climate change but one big volcanic eruption can send more carbon into the atmosphere than humans ever could.
Of course the problem of climate change is shifted around with one political party going all out on it while the other downplays it. Both are at extremes but we all need to meet in the middle and that starts at home with doing what we can to reduce our own footprint.
If there were too many people for the planet to sustain...'nature' would take care of that problem on its own!!
One of the main problems in my opinion, is the major determining factor in what type of fuel we use, it MUST be able to be run thru a meter, and be able to support a large industry backing it up! If we keep going with this mentality, its going to be a tough road.
N. Tesla was experimenting with technologies in his time, that would solve majority of our energy needs today!! the only problem is...they would be close to free or very low cost to the end user, so it wont be a money maker.
Location: Was Midvalley Oregon; Now Eastside Seattle area
13,081 posts, read 7,557,182 times
Reputation: 9830
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.
If there were too many people for the planet to sustain...'nature' would take care of that problem on its own!!
One of the main problems in my opinion, is the major determining factor in what type of fuel we use, it MUST be able to be run thru a meter, and be able to support a large industry backing it up! If we keep going with this mentality, its going to be a tough road.
N. Tesla was experimenting with technologies in his time, that would solve majority of our energy needs today!! the only problem is...they would be close to free or very low cost to the end user, so it wont be a money maker.
Ha true, people would stop sustaining then. Concerning meters, to me that makes sense since to keep a grid functional you can't deliver any more or less power than is needed, so you need meters to know when you need to increase or decrease generation; the large network transmission grid requires it I'd think.
Quote:
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.
There are improvements and advancements coming along in areas like battery technology and grid technology and solar panels, BUT, I feel like if we push things along too far too fast with some quota deadline of 100% renewable by 2050 we will be installing renewable power faster than technological advances prove feasible.
Ha true, people would stop sustaining then. Concerning meters, to me that makes sense since to keep a grid functional you can't deliver any more or less power than is needed, so you need meters to know when you need to increase or decrease generation; the large network transmission grid requires it I'd think.
There are improvements and advancements coming along in areas like battery technology and grid technology and solar panels, BUT, I feel like if we push things along too far too fast with some quota deadline of 100% renewable by 2050 we will be installing renewable power faster than technological advances prove feasible.
I recently read about Nikola Teslas 'Waycliffe' towers, they were basically power distribution towers...kind of like 'power WIFI'...you could tap into this power (wireless) for your home, car, etc!
Obviously, there is no way to 'meter' usage of power like this, people could pull it right out of the air, there is no way to charge a per unit of sale, so it would not be a lucrative energy source, it would be more beneficial for everyone kind of thing.
This is only one example too, there are MANY other alternatives, that would be almost free or very low cost to the end user and would not require a HUGE industry to sustain it, but that is also why nearly all of these technologies are kept classified, they are basically a threat to national security...in that they are a major threat to the financial security of the nation (and the world actually).
I agree with Bill the Butcher. the real problem with climate change is that there are too many people. Al Gore was right when he said the planet has a fever and the cause is a virus called humans.
We here in the US could park all our cars and reduce our carbon footprints but when billions of people in the developing world are still cooking over open fires and doing what they have to to survive without a thought about the planet and lets not forget about them dumping their trash in the ocean we will continue to have problems.
Of course we could be the world leader in fighting climate change but one big volcanic eruption can send more carbon into the atmosphere than humans ever could.
Of course the problem of climate change is shifted around with one political party going all out on it while the other downplays it. Both are at extremes but we all need to meet in the middle and that starts at home with doing what we can to reduce our own footprint.
If we stopped driving, that would have a huge impact. With the economy shut down all over the work in the pandemic, there have been huge improvements to the number of emissions. We need to figure out how to make some of the positive aspects of the shut downs continue.
Population growth and the associated economic/extractive/exploitative activities that accompany it are the root of many of our environmental issues. We humans have by far the biggest environmental impact on the planet and only a portion of us are indicating we even have an awareness of the problem.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
