Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Renewable Energy  (Read 569629 times)

jacksmith4tx

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
    • Photon mine
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3100 on: September 11, 2018, 08:02:42 PM »
My solar panels might outlive me (hope not!) but when I do retrofit the array I expect it to be about 25% as large as it is now and 1/2 the cost due to increased efficiency. Maybe something like this will become available.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180910093533.htm
Quote
Solar power: Golden sandwich could make the world more sustainable

Scientists have developed a photoelectrode that can harvest 85 percent of visible light in a 30 nanometers-thin semiconductor layer between gold layers, converting light energy 11 times more efficiently than previous methods.

In the pursuit of realizing a sustainable society, there is an ever-increasing demand to develop revolutionary solar cells or artificial photosynthesis systems that utilize visible light energy from the sun while using as few materials as possible.

The research team, led by Professor Hiroaki Misawa of the Research Institute for Electronic Science at Hokkaido University, has been aiming to develop a photoelectrode that can harvest visible light across a wide spectral range by using gold nanoparticles loaded on a semiconductor.

I would hope Gold is just a stepping stone to something far more common and less environmentally harmful than heavy metal mining.
Science is a thought process, technology will change reality.

NeilT

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 753
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3101 on: September 12, 2018, 12:39:31 AM »
Maybe I could ask you and the group reading a question. Do you know or have to hand the actual (verifiable) numbers of stationary batteries Installed by Tesla batteries in the first half of 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018?

Not so easy as =https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/tesla-solar-and-storage-delays-and-deliveries#gs.1fah_b4Greentech Media shows.

Quote
Tesla doesn't make it easy to divine the exact numbers of Powerwalls sold, which leaves it for GTM to read some tea leaves.

No kidding reading that article.

Although it does give pointers.  For the US they are tied to government subsidies.  So it should be possible to track via the government sites.

However, looking at the numbers, Tesla could have achieved that gaol simply by shifting 20,000 powerwalls in the first half of 2018.

Very high % changes are easy when numbers are very low.  Tell me they are making a 450% increase when they are shipping 100,000 per year and I'll say they have gone somewhere.

Reality.  They are late to market, unprepared to produce volume, constrained by a battery factory which is still ramping up and still working on product (solar shingles).

This is normal in a start up and that is what Powerwall is.  If, however, it continues for another 5 years, then Tesla is going to be out of the powerwall and solar roof business.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4061
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 439
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3102 on: September 12, 2018, 12:51:26 AM »
My solar panels might outlive me (hope not!) but when I do retrofit the array I expect it to be about 25% as large as it is now and 1/2 the cost due to increased efficiency. Maybe something like this will become available.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180910093533.htm
Quote
Solar power: Golden sandwich could make the world more sustainable

Scientists have developed a photoelectrode that can harvest 85 percent of visible light in a 30 nanometers-thin semiconductor layer between gold layers, converting light energy 11 times more efficiently than previous methods.



What matters to someone installing a solar panel facility is how much of the radiation hitting it is going to be converted to electricity. Current panels do up to around 20%. 11 times 20% = 220%. So this 11 x thing cannot refer directly to energy harvested by a solar panel. I wonder what it does refer to and the difference it would make to the current percent conversion rate. Or are we talking cost reduction? (The article refers to gold and titanium - so not likely?)
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

jacksmith4tx

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
    • Photon mine
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3103 on: September 12, 2018, 03:48:57 AM »
What matters to someone installing a solar panel facility is how much of the radiation hitting it is going to be converted to electricity. Current panels do up to around 20%. 11 times 20% = 220%. So this 11 x thing cannot refer directly to energy harvested by a solar panel. I wonder what it does refer to and the difference it would make to the current percent conversion rate. Or are we talking cost reduction? (The article refers to gold and titanium - so not likely?)
Yeah those are some bodacious claims. I always thought there was a theoretical limit somewhere around 33% but that only applied to a single junction silicone cell (Shockley–Queisser limit). Since this new cell doesn't use silicone we can't compare apples to apples.
I can only guess they were referring to cells constructed in a similar manner. In the article they are quoted as saying "The light energy conversion efficiency is 11 times higher than those without light-trapping functions.". Cells that thin would be pretty delicate and there was no mention of how the layers were connected to the conducting substrate. All that aside, if there is really a breakthrough here I would expect to see it deployed in space first where size and weight are at a premium.
Science is a thought process, technology will change reality.

etienne

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
    • About energy
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3104 on: September 13, 2018, 08:15:04 AM »
Quote
I think it is noteworthy that the first "big battery" installed now in South Australia that the Govt has ordered/approved the building two new Gas Fired "peaker" power plants to meet their electicity demand requirements.

Yeah, Tesla is production constrained as is the battery market. Peaker plant substitution is a gradual process. As the grid is stabilized by batteries at increasing granular levels the need for peaker plants will make less sense all the time and in more markets. Small moves, Ellie. Small moves.
Well, we have the issue that batteries only store electricity, there is no production. So if you are under the required amount of kWh for a longer time, it won't help.

Below, you have a graph of a house with PV pannels and batteries. In the upper part is the consumption (red from the grid, orange from the battery, green from the PV). In the lower part, the production (green : direct consumption, orange : loading the battery). A bigger battery won't help.

etienne

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
    • About energy
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3105 on: September 13, 2018, 04:57:51 PM »
I forgot to say that the graph is for a winter day, and that the house is heated with heat pump, which explains the importance of the base load.

Heating with wood would be an easy way to make it renewable without having too much electricity used.

On a full year, there is more electricity produced by the PV than electricity consumed, but storage is the issue, and since batteries are too expensive, I really see wood (logs, pellets...) as an energy storage solution for heating.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2018, 06:10:30 PM by etienne »

jacksmith4tx

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
    • Photon mine
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3106 on: September 13, 2018, 06:28:29 PM »
Solar Broke Records All Over Europe This Summer
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solar-broke-records-all-over-europe-this-summer
Quote
In the U.K., solar broke the record for weekly output between June 21 and June 28, producing 533 gigawatt-hours of energy. The spike in output led solar to take over from gas as the number-one energy source in the country, said the European PV industry body SolarPower Europe.

In July, solar also reached a new high in Germany, with a record 6.17 terawatt-hours of production, SolarPower Europe said. Further north, Denmark registered 361 hours of sunshine in May. This led to an increase of 33 percent in solar electricity production, smashing previous records.

And in the Netherlands, a sunny July saw 75 percent more solar power generation than in the same month last year.
...
In France and Germany, coal and nuclear power plants had to be powered down as they could no longer use the huge volumes of water needed to cool their power stations, resulting in intermittent supply.


To be fair, peak electricity demand in Europe is in the winter when solar output drops to it's seasonal low.

Also note that thermal power plants face two problems in a warmer world. One is the lack of water during drought conditions and the other is the temperature differential AKA Carnot/Rankine Cycle efficiency limits. Both of these problems could be solved by building closed loop cooling systems but that will raise the costs.
Science is a thought process, technology will change reality.

NeilT

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 753
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3107 on: September 13, 2018, 06:41:13 PM »
Heating with wood would be an easy way to make it renewable without having too much electricity used.

I heat with wood.  There is little "easy" about it, but I can't get enough electricity into the house, let alone cheaply enough, to heat the house fully.  Pellets are better for that and I will be moving to pellets in the next 12 months, however they use a lot more CO2 to produce and distribute.

Lurk is dead right on the downsides of Solar today, I investigated that to an end a decade ago and would have had to oversupply by 400% to make it work.  €5,000 +++ for a system which could only heat water was never going to fly. It was solar PV or nothing. After the EU tariffs on Chinese solar, that turned into nothing..
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

jacksmith4tx

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
    • Photon mine
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3108 on: September 13, 2018, 07:09:50 PM »
Heating with wood would be an easy way to make it renewable without having too much electricity used.

I heat with wood.  There is little "easy" about it, but I can't get enough electricity into the house, let alone cheaply enough, to heat the house fully.  Pellets are better for that and I will be moving to pellets in the next 12 months, however they use a lot more CO2 to produce and distribute.

Lurk is dead right on the downsides of Solar today, I investigated that to an end a decade ago and would have had to oversupply by 400% to make it work.  €5,000 +++ for a system which could only heat water was never going to fly. It was solar PV or nothing. After the EU tariffs on Chinese solar, that turned into nothing..
I installed a forced air fireplace insert that puts out 40,000 BTU but it is a pain in the ass to feed and clean it. Compared to my old electric central heating unit it costs about 1/10th as much to operate since I have access to free wood. Most of the time I use zoned heating - I only heat the rooms I'm using with space heaters and I close off the rest of the rooms.
Science is a thought process, technology will change reality.

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1597
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3109 on: September 14, 2018, 05:56:40 AM »
Well, we have the issue that batteries only store electricity, there is no production. So if you are under the required amount of kWh for a longer time, it won't help.

True, but thankfully most power produced today is wasted. Even when solar is low, batteries can capture wasted energy and release them during peak times.

Quote
Below, you have a graph of a house with PV pannels and batteries. In the upper part is the consumption (red from the grid, orange from the battery, green from the PV). In the lower part, the production (green : direct consumption, orange : loading the battery). A bigger battery won't help.

Well yes this is December somewhere quite far up north... In what latitude was this measurement taken?, Do you know? Because where I live December gets much more power than that.

Surely the further north you go solar power becomes more troublesome in winter. But a large percentage of the world lives near the tropics.

Also the solution for that home is simple. Overbuild. If the true cost of Carbon was priced in fossil fuels, overbuilding solar/ batteries would be extremely profitable. As it is today overbuilding is expensive. But the solution is there if we decide to implement it.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

GoSouthYoungins

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 623
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3110 on: September 14, 2018, 06:13:57 AM »
Also the solution for that home is simple. Overbuild. If the true cost of Carbon was priced in fossil fuels, overbuilding solar/ batteries would be extremely profitable. As it is today overbuilding is expensive. But the solution is there if we decide to implement it.

Do you realize that a carbon tax would make overbuilding MORE expensive? It may be economical over time, but it would definitely cost more up front than without a carbon tax. I'm all for proper carbon accounting, but it's not a fairy tale that somehow lowers the cost of anything.
big time oops

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1597
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3111 on: September 14, 2018, 07:31:29 AM »

"Small moves, Ellie. Small moves"? It's far too late for small moves.


So what big move do you suggest?
 
I think that decreasing the price of batteries through mass production and targeting the most expensive and unstable energy markets first sounds like a great idea to make batteries even cheaper, allowing batteries to penetrate cheaper markets.

For some reason you don't like that idea. Fine. Then what is the plan? What is the solution to transition civilization to carbon negative state.?

Quote
(can't even read what people say eg GSY did NOT say what you have repeatedly and falsely claimed he said about 2 acres, because I checked)


I asked him, like I ask you, what is your solution?

This is what I got from his avoidant non-answers to the same question followed by my opinion.


Quote
People used to grow their own food, and build their own shelters. With access to boundless information and a few crucial durable goods, this could be made drastically easier.

To me he is suggesting that 7 billion people stop what they are doing and become farmers. Not that there is anything wrong with becoming farmers, but everyone has a different role in society. If we all become farmers science ceases, education ceases, medicine ceases, eventually energy and infrastructure ceases. Humanity disappears. If we knowingly do that it is genocide.

Quote
Less than a billion people could survive if we had to grow our own food and build our own shelters? Why?

37 billion land acres on earth. Half is considered habitable by traditional methods, (I think much more is actually habitable with human management). But lets say just under half, so 18 billion acres. You think a family of 4 needs 72 acres to survive? Estimates by people who actually grow their own food come out to 2 acres. 36 times less. Are the other 70 acres for solar panels and your garage full of teslas (the apparent foundation of life)?

Now he is suggesting that the earth be split in portions as small as 2 acres and force people to move there. The 70 acres bit is nonsense, because if we are all farmers there is no production of anything other than food.

Quote
Fair point about the distribution of land ownership. A new homestead act is also necessary.


He wants to force people to move by using the law. How do you choose who goes farming and who keeps providing society with school and hospital? Do we separate families?

Quote
It's not like fossil fuels would be outlawed, they would just be expensive. You could make tools, they would just be more expensive. And it would be outrageously expensive to make a car, or to power it, regardless of power source.

IMPORTANT:  In his solution, fossil fuels remain king but very expensive.

He wants to stop transportation without a replacement. Think about that for a second. How can we have computers if transportation is reduced by 95%? How can the farmers have basic farming tools if transportation is reduced by 95%? Transportation as we know it must be replaced. It has to be ordered and it has to be fast.

Quote
Not everyone would have to farm...it would just be much more common. Food would just be much more local. Food that can be stably stored and transported probably would be still

I want to know details. How do you make most people stop their lives and move to farms?  How many years this takes? How do you handle the transition in cities? How do you protect them from drought or floods? How do we irrigate the land? What happens when local crops fail and there is no transportation?

Quote
Trains are incredibly efficient. Air travel would reduce 1000 fold.

How do you make cars incredibly expensive but trains remain? Who makes the trains? And the train parts? And how do you power the trains? With solar panels and batteries? But he says they can't be made because fossil fuels are too expensive?

Quote
You think the year 1850 is nonsense, a fake time?

In 1850 there were only 1.2 billion people in the world. Most of them lived in cities like we do today.
 
Quote
Wouldn't we be much much better at farming and simple living with access to information and some more complex durable tools and materials.

That would be paradise, so long as we had irrigation and tools and seed and trade for produce and indoor plumbing and electric power. Also protection from the elements, hospitals if needed, medicine and schools. Roads would be nice, even if only walking was allowed. But that is a fantasy when considering 7 billion people.

Quote
Modern technology doesn't just stop, it gets redirected toward leveraging historically normal human occupations.

huh? How do you redirect technology if there is no transportation, and no energy other than heavily taxed fossil fuels? There is no innovation, technology or manufacturing.

Quote
And energy consumption drops to less than 10% current levels, probably more like 1%. We are currently incredibly wasteful.

 1% of today's energy? Really? 1% of today's energy?




Nah. He was clear, that he wants most people to move to some kind of farming situation and cease all modern activity. That means a small parcel of land. 2 acres is the number he gave.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1597
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3112 on: September 14, 2018, 07:45:33 AM »
Quote
Do you realize that a carbon tax would make overbuilding MORE expensive?

1. It doesn't matter if it is more expensive as long as the rate of return is higher than fossil fuels.
2. It will be less expensive for factories that take at least part of their power from the sun and wind.
3. Factories fully powered by the sun and wind that use batteries to smooth out low energy times will be immune to the tax, except for transportation and mining. Electric Semi Trucks can alleviate the transportation problem.

Quote
I'm all for proper carbon accounting, but it's not a fairy tale that somehow lowers the cost of anything

Are you? So you understand that if a factory gets a percentage of it's power from the sun or wind carbon emissions are reduced?
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

etienne

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
    • About energy
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3113 on: September 14, 2018, 08:20:45 AM »
Well, we have the issue that batteries only store electricity, there is no production. So if you are under the required amount of kWh for a longer time, it won't help.

True, but thankfully most power produced today is wasted. Even when solar is low, batteries can capture wasted energy and release them during peak times.

Quote
Below, you have a graph of a house with PV pannels and batteries. In the upper part is the consumption (red from the grid, orange from the battery, green from the PV). In the lower part, the production (green : direct consumption, orange : loading the battery). A bigger battery won't help.

Well yes this is December somewhere quite far up north... In what latitude was this measurement taken?, Do you know? Because where I live December gets much more power than that.

Surely the further north you go solar power becomes more troublesome in winter. But a large percentage of the world lives near the tropics.

Also the solution for that home is simple. Overbuild. If the true cost of Carbon was priced in fossil fuels, overbuilding solar/ batteries would be extremely profitable. As it is today overbuilding is expensive. But the solution is there if we decide to implement it.
The house is in Luxembourg, that's about
Latitude : 49°36′42″ North
Longitude : 6°07′47″ East
Altitude : 316 m
If you are close to the equator, you have the problem during the summer/fall because of the AC when it's raining or cloudy.
The house has already overbuild PV (22kWp), it has been done so that each usable spot has been covered with PV panels. The yearly production is higher than the yearly consumption.

The false problem is geothermal heat pump heating, but it's very efficient and the house is really a great achievement, just that it uses most of the electricity during the winter when there is little sun. During the winter when there is sun, the house is also directly heated through the windows.

Well the real problem is the concept of self-sufficiency, to achieve it you need different sources of renewable energy, and you can't have them all on one house. So the real solution is to have shared renewable electricity production with a grid to transport it.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4061
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 439
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3114 on: September 14, 2018, 12:01:10 PM »

I stay away from these threads because most of it Tesla PR hype, Musk arguments and far too many pronouncements of mystical  faith and hope all is going to be well by "believers" ....

For someone who stays away from these threads there are a lot of posts from you, and very long ones too.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

NeilT

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 753
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3115 on: September 14, 2018, 01:08:26 PM »


I installed a forced air fireplace insert that puts out 40,000 BTU but it is a pain in the ass to feed and clean it. Compared to my old electric central heating unit it costs about 1/10th as much to operate since I have access to free wood. Most of the time I use zoned heating - I only heat the rooms I'm using with space heaters and I close off the rest of the rooms.

My house is made up of two 1850's era stone built town houses.  The walls are 2-3 feet thick.  Despite full sealed units around the house, extensive insulation and not heating the attic rooms until required, heating without wood is a big issue.  When we bought the first house we removed the paraffin boiler from the hall as the house was, then, a holiday home.  Right now I have a 110,000 BTU wood burning boiler connected to ten radiators, mostly large cast iron.  I have also fitted a 34,000 BTU stove in the dining room which connects to a single cast iron radiator in the living room. When we arrive back from holidays in the winter, it takes 3 days to heat the house and one day with both the stove and the boiler on.

As it is impossible to keep the boiler running all night without coal or coke, we run a 3kw paraffin fan air heater in the downstairs hall to heat the core of the house in the late night to early morning.

We buy our oak for burning from a local who uses managed forests for supply.  The whole thing is about half the price of electricity to run, but the €5000 cost of the boiler took about 3 years to depreciate, even with the cost savings.  That is not the point though, we are warm.

The move to pellet burning is the reality that we need a manageable and controllable central heating which can be left on all night and also run for periods when we are away.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1597
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3116 on: September 14, 2018, 05:03:09 PM »
U.S. utility solar contracts 'exploded' in 2018 despite tariffs: report

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-solar/u-s-utility-solar-contracts-exploded-in-2018-despite-tariffs-report-idUSKCN1LT0EU

Quote
A record 8.5 gigawatts (GW) of utility solar projects were procured in the first six months of this year after President Donald Trump in January announced a 30 percent tariff on panels produced overseas, according to the report by Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables and industry trade group the Solar Energy Industries Association
...
In every segment of the market except residential, system pricing is at its lowest level ever, the report said. Utility projects make up more than half the solar market.
...
In the first half of the year, the U.S. installed 4.7 GW of solar, accounting for nearly a third of new electricity generating capacity additions. In the second quarter, residential installations were roughly flat with last year at 577 MW, while commercial and industrial installations slid 8 percent to 453 MW.


That fall in commercial and home installation I attribute it directly to the stupid tariffs.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

NeilT

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 753
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3117 on: September 14, 2018, 06:02:19 PM »


And without even considering all the expected massive growth in Electricity consumption many think is going to occur between now and 2038 when all of Europe are assumed to be driving electric car and transportation trucks. I am far from confident the EU and the rest of the world are yet up to the ask that lies ahead. Projections from all major energy agencies are still projecting the FF energy use at the very same level it is at today globally. iow no real reduction in GHG emissions between now and this unknown future in 2038. The last 30 years and last 20 years suggests "we're" not really up to the task of being realistic as yet.

The UK is investing in both renewable and Nuclear.  One Nuclear in progress and two still looking for funding due to serious concerns about allowing Chinese companies into our electricity infrastructure.

Currently EDF is doing work on all active UK reactors (15 at seven sites), to extend their working life to 2040-2050.

Each new UK site will deliver more than twice the power of any existing 2 reactor site.  So, essentially, the planned new 3 reactor sites could replace all existing AGR reactors with a life span into the 2080's.

In the medium term the UK is heavily investing in offshore wind.  UK solar receives no government investment today, however deployments continue.

Until 2050 the UK should be fairly well supplied with power, if all the Nuclear goes ahead.  It should even be able ro deal with EV ramp up if charging is done mainly at night.

IF, however, the UK does not complete the investment in Nuclear, then it is going to be in a mess in about 20 years time.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1597
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3118 on: September 14, 2018, 08:52:40 PM »
Utilities have a problem: the public wants 100% renewable energy, and quick

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/9/14/17853884/utilities-renewable-energy-100-percent-public-opinion

Quote
Renewable energy is hot. It has incredible momentum, not only in terms of deployment and costs but in terms of public opinion and cultural cachet. To put it simply: Everyone loves renewable energy. It’s cleaner, it’s high-tech, it’s new jobs, it’s the future.

And so more and more big energy customers are demanding the full meal deal: 100 percent renewable energy.

The Sierra Club notes that so far in the US, more than 80 cities, five counties, and two states have committed to 100 percent renewables. Six cities have already hit the target.

The group RE100 tracks 144 private companies across the globe that have committed to 100 percent renewables, including Google, Ikea, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Coca-Cola, Nike, GM, and, uh, Lego.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

GoSouthYoungins

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 623
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3119 on: September 15, 2018, 12:45:30 AM »
Utilities have a problem: the public wants 100% renewable energy, and quick

genocide, genocide, genocide, GENOCIDE, GENOCIDE, GENOCIDE!!!!!

I'm sure you are aware that this is not currently close to being possible. And thus, you seem to be cheer-leading GENOCIDE. We are all going to die. OMG. Help. GENOCIDE
big time oops

GoSouthYoungins

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 623
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3120 on: September 15, 2018, 07:28:34 AM »
Also the solution for that home is simple. Overbuild. If the true cost of Carbon was priced in fossil fuels, overbuilding solar/ batteries would be extremely profitable. As it is today overbuilding is expensive. But the solution is there if we decide to implement it.

It doesn't matter if it is more expensive…
I think people are starting to get the idea that your chalk-full of disingenuous BS and don’t have anything useful to add. You should probably cease and desist.
big time oops

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 347
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3121 on: September 15, 2018, 11:43:11 AM »
Blatant Lies and Propaganda.

aka Fake News, it is not true. The public in the world, including in the USA, does not want 100% renewable energy, nor quickly.

It's delusional to believe they do and it's dishonest to suggest they do - the information in that hyper crappy Vox news source does not say they do either - which is why this is Fake News.
Are you sure? Here is what the article says:
Quote
The industry’s dilemma is brought home by a recent bit of market research and polling done on behalf of the Edison Electric Institute, a trade group for utilities. It was distributed at a recent meeting of EEI board members and executives and shared with me.

The work was done by the market research firm Maslansky & Partners, which analyzed existing utility messaging, interviewed utility execs and environmentalists, ran a national opinion survey, and did a couple of three-hour sit-downs with “media informed customers” in Minneapolis and Phoenix.
The results are striking.
And then


Lurk - if you have a different opinion survey - do post it. Calling things fake news without justification  is a proven tactic, but does not belong in this science-based forum IMHO. The info in the Vox source, crappy or not, does say what you said it does not.

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1597
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3122 on: September 15, 2018, 03:46:10 PM »
I really can't understand how someone can claim to understand the problem of climate change and at the same time be against renewable energy. Sure, I understand that is too late to avoid the worst by reducing emissions alone, but emissions must be reduced to at least stop making the problem worse.

In addition, renewable energy is local energy production. From a global perspective, the more local energy is produced, the more diversified is the world energy mix. From a local perspective, the more diversified an energy mix, the more local resilience. 

Any home with a solar array, batteries and electric vehicles can generate their own power for decades. If there is a BOE or any other climate curve ball, generating your own power for home and transportation is a huge competitive advantage. 

The switch to renewables not only reduce emissions and saves us money, it also makes us more resilient.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 347
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3123 on: September 15, 2018, 04:46:24 PM »
Quote
I really can't understand how someone can claim to understand the problem of climate change and at the same time be against renewable energy. Sure, I understand that is too late to avoid the worst by reducing emissions alone, but emissions must be reduced to at least stop making the problem worse. 
JimD explained it very well on this forum several years back. If humanity is headed towards a guaranteed civilizational collapse (as he believes, and I am quite convinced myself), the most moral thing to do would be to leave enough resources for the survivors to build a (lower) civilization again, rather than continue stripping the Earth of all available natural resources. He called it "managed collapse" now, rather than a forced collapse in a few decades.
So: if renewables are doomed to fail in avoiding the coming collapse, it's better to avoid building them. (He realized that humanity will not choose this managed collapse.) But in any case, that is very clear logic, though I don't support it personally. I do hope I summarized it correctly.
My take - the collapse is only 99% guaranteed, as I don't feel confident enough to understand the whole problem including its various timelines. And the future civilization not necessarily better or smarter or more cognizant of limits than the current one. So I'd rather try and fail than not try at all. You just have to be aware that at the current pace of change the collapse WILL come, barring a miracle.

jacksmith4tx

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
    • Photon mine
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3124 on: September 15, 2018, 05:31:37 PM »
oren,
Long term solution is to genetically modify the human species. I'm thinking of things like CRISPR and Gene-Drive.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/first-genetically-modified-mosquitoes-set-released-africa/
Quote
The experiment is the first step in a three phased programme to develop “gene drive” mosquitoes - a project that has received $70 million of funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

 If we can raise intelligence, lower fertility and turn us all into herbivores we might last another 200-500 years. By then our technology will have altered reality so much we will have a completely different set of problems.  ;D
Science is a thought process, technology will change reality.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13388
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3125 on: September 15, 2018, 05:38:39 PM »
...
You just have to be aware that at the current pace of change the collapse WILL come, barring a miracle.

Basing the future on a status quo [“the current pace of change”], particularly regarding technology — where the one constant is change — does not make sense to me.  Another factor, “coolness” or fads, is also responsible for the S-curve of tech adoption.  Predicting the absence of change is illogical. 
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 347
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3126 on: September 15, 2018, 05:43:49 PM »
With 10 billion humans predicted for 2050, and with the Earth's long-term carrying capacity much lower than that IMHO, technology alone will not be enough. With that, I will stop further discussion on this subject here as this is OT.

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1597
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3127 on: September 15, 2018, 05:50:11 PM »
We are going to need technology, economics, politics, governance at all levels, geoengineering and generous dose of good luck. Not one of them alone can do it.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

GoSouthYoungins

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 623
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3128 on: September 15, 2018, 11:16:21 PM »
We are going to need technology, economics, politics, governance at all levels, geoengineering and generous dose of good luck. Not one of them alone can do it.

as epic as that sounds (congrats), the only real issue is whether or not we account for carbon properly. if industrial civilization does not collapse (serious if), a proper price and a free market are all that is needed.
big time oops

GoSouthYoungins

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 623
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3129 on: September 16, 2018, 06:04:15 AM »
Who's against renewable energy?

I am. You are. Any one who understand basic math or physics is. Haven't you figured this out by now? In order to not be "against renewable energy" you have to believe in fairy tales about how energy is created and dispersed. If you mention anything related to the reality about the difficulties in supplanting our lifestyle with "sustainable alternatives" you are AGAINST renewable energy. hahahaha, what a shitty joke.
big time oops

Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 244
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3130 on: September 16, 2018, 07:01:03 AM »
Who's against renewable energy?

I'm not against it, but it should have been a thing 50 years ago. If we flick off the switch of fossil fuels we have to deal with global dimming, so actually let me put it this way. I wouldn't have been against it 50 years ago, but now yes.
"When the ice goes..... F***

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 347
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3131 on: September 16, 2018, 08:33:32 AM »
Global dimming will come one way or another, if not now then the coming collapse will cause it. So it's not a good reason to avoid renewables, IMHO.

Wherestheice

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 244
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3132 on: September 16, 2018, 09:46:56 AM »
Global dimming will come one way or another, if not now then the coming collapse will cause it. So it's not a good reason to avoid renewables, IMHO.

thats true, but renewables would mean less fossil fuels, which would mean lack of global dimming...Right?
"When the ice goes..... F***

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4061
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 439
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3133 on: September 16, 2018, 12:23:41 PM »
Global dimming will come one way or another, if not now then the coming collapse will cause it. So it's not a good reason to avoid renewables, IMHO.

thats true, but renewables would mean less fossil fuels, which would mean lack of global dimming...Right?
Nope - mitigation is the best case scenario one can realistically expect. Buying time is another word for it,  I suppose.

So,
It is better to have renewable energy than not.
It is better for a bloated capitalist to be driving an EV than a gas-guzzler.

But it is still goodbye, Florida, goodbye, much of East Anglia.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

NeilT

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 753
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3134 on: September 16, 2018, 11:37:46 PM »
But it is still goodbye, Florida, goodbye, much of East Anglia.

Plus several Pacific Islands, half of Bangladesh and millions of others who live only a few inches, or feet, above sea level.

I believe, in terms of AGW mitigation, the term "renewable energy" is a misnomer and also misused.  What we really need is "Carbon Neutral Energy" and that is a totally different discussion.

For instance biomass is carbon neutral.  If we grow a forest the size of the Sahara and burn that forest in power stations, the net result is, pretty much, carbon neutral.  Especially if we log the forest and transport it using the energy from the biomass.

This is where pragmatism and evangelism crash into each other in the harsh reality that this planet is never going to see 10bn people.  Because we'll be killing each other off before we see 9bn people; as the climate overwhelms us and the starving masses try to descend on the more balanced countries of the world.

This is why I state that people who claim they can switch off baseload nuclear power and replace it with wind and solar are fanatics who are embedded in the "environmental" activism of the 20th century and totally divorced from the reality of the 21st century challenges; of climate change and the need to stop it.

Until we stop talking about things which are nothing more than pipe dreams and start talking about practical realities, then this discussion will rage on without end.

We don't need to reduce our energy footprint.  We need to MASSIVELY increase the carbon neutral energy generation and remove other carbon based energy sources.  Once we have a massive surplus of carbon neutral energy, we can start to use that energy to fix the problem we have created.

Trying to stop climate change, by continuing to use fossil fuel in any way, is like trying to win a prize fight with both hands tied behind your back.  Essentially leading with your chin and going down in the first round...

Why will this message never be taken up?

Because the vast majority of those who champion the need to fight climate change are fundamentally divorced from the reality of the masses and how they think and what they believe.  Essentially those who know we need to resolve climate change are unable to communicate effectively with the masses because they don't understand them and have no idea how to communicate with them.

Witness talking about pricing carbon out of the market.  All the masses hear is TAX.  Once they hear TAX you become a politician and they are then, as they see it, fully within their rights to disbelieve any word you say.

Why is it so important?

Because the fight for the end to climate change is the determining fight of our age.  For if we lose it, then the price will be the species.

Many people can't understand my stance about "environmentalists" and how damned dangerous they are in terms of fighting climate change.  Let me try and make it clear.  They spend their lives stopping carbon neutral energy because of the "potential" damage to the Environment.  Yet if we lose the battle against climate change, because we continue to use carbon fuel; the Environment is going to resolve the problem itself.  By removing Humans from planet Earth!

If you look at it with that viewpoint, the irony is too thick to cut with a chainsaw...

So when we talk about "Renewable Energy" let us not fall into the belief that "renewables" are the ONLY way, or even the very best way, forward.  Let us understand the "renewables" are part of the mix of energy needs for the future.

Also let us stop trying to bottle up our energy use into a smaller space where renewables can cope and let's start creating a space where renewables are the quick reacting, variable, cheap and plentiful, source of energy which can be consumed at times of highest generation.

Then we can get the planet off the other 75% of energy they use which is not electricity based.

I know this won't change the discussion but I just had to say it.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13388
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3135 on: September 17, 2018, 03:27:52 AM »
New Jersey approves new home solar initiative. Program eliminates up front costs and creates a net-zero monthly electric bill.

NJ Brings No Cost Solar to Homeowners
https://thesolarinstitute.org/nj-brings-no-cost-solar-homeowners/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

GoSouthYoungins

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 623
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3136 on: September 17, 2018, 05:29:37 AM »
"Renewable" energy is a bit of a misnomer. It's basically taking fossil fuels, and rather than directly using the energy, turning it into a collector that you HOPE to get more energy out of over the course of years. The real benefit of wind and solar is that they can provide decentralized energy. The manufacturing is still centralized, but that can be taken care of up front and then intermittent electricity can be used for decades. Plugging in wind and solar to current grids barely even helps use less fossil fuels. Our centralized systems just are not set up for it. And yes, MAYBE one day, we will have super batteries that will smooth everything out and wind and solar can be integrated well. But that is not happening any time soon. Definitely not "soon enough".

Climate Change is almost certainly not going to be solved in any meaningful way. Global instability is pretty much a guarantee. Having decentralized and thus more resilient systems is very important. I think the conversation about the benefits of renewable energy typically concentrates on the wrong "benefits".
big time oops

etienne

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
    • About energy
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3137 on: September 17, 2018, 07:40:46 AM »
Climate Change is almost certainly not going to be solved in any meaningful way. Global instability is pretty much a guarantee. Having decentralized and thus more resilient systems is very important. I think the conversation about the benefits of renewable energy typically concentrates on the wrong "benefits".
Could we please discuss how to do it, how to improve it, and not discussing if it's going to work ? We are somehow in a brainstroming concept, so each idea, even nonsense, can bring to a better idea that would make sense.
For me, these comments are totally out of topic.Please start a topic "can we save the world ?" if that's what you want to talk about.

GoSouthYoungins

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 623
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3138 on: September 17, 2018, 08:41:25 AM »
Climate Change is almost certainly not going to be solved in any meaningful way. Global instability is pretty much a guarantee. Having decentralized and thus more resilient systems is very important. I think the conversation about the benefits of renewable energy typically concentrates on the wrong "benefits".
Could we please discuss how to do it, how to improve it, and not discussing if it's going to work ? We are somehow in a brainstroming concept, so each idea, even nonsense, can bring to a better idea that would make sense.
For me, these comments are totally out of topic.Please start a topic "can we save the world ?" if that's what you want to talk about.

the topic is: "renewable energy"

discussing the benefits or lack thereof is on topic. sorry you don't like comments that aren't cheerleading. Please start a topic "renewable energy cheerleading" if thats what you want the talk limited to.
big time oops

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1168
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3139 on: September 17, 2018, 10:33:39 AM »
Re-entering the almighty Internet after another short break, thought I landed in some other thread while reading up thread a bit. :) That's ok with me because I think all of the solutions threads shoud be open för discussions about solutions to climate change. Renewables per se, is not the solution to climate change, but they surely have an important part when mitigating and doing less.

Since nuclear was mentioned above, my country plans to (and hopefully will) shut down the rest of our ageing nuclear plants, are Swedes fanatics then? :) Maybe I am because I've been against nuclear ever since our commercial plants were built. As for other countries mitigating climate change? Nuclear is better than fossil fuels. But that doesn't really matter much since the time frames available (regarding the speed of climate change) for building new nuclear is most likely too short and the real problem is deeper.
Our recent election told me that the Sweden Democrats in my district was the biggest party with ~30% of the voters here. If that trend continues we will keep our ageing nuclear in Sweden while sending immigrants out, also continue to contribute to climate change mitigation abroad (where they really need it). Real Swedes are so green that they don't have to, according to SD...

Reality is; despite ~40% nuclear and ~40% hydro we haven't really mitigated at all since the 90's, much like other european nations. Grants are connected to renewables and EV's in most countries. I've never used any, not for my (cheap second hand) heat pumps (Swedes got well over a million of them...), not for my solar panels, not for the wind turbines I've used. The really poor don't/can't care about grants for EV's or PV's and there are no grants for walking, eating veggie, not flying or consuming less. Which is real mitigation.

Conference coming up tomorrow.
https://www.postgrowth2018.eu/
A short article.
The EU needs a stability and wellbeing pact, not more growth
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/16/the-eu-needs-a-stability-and-wellbeing-pact-not-more-growth
Quote
238 academics call on the European Union and its member states to plan for a post-growth future in which human and ecological wellbeing is prioritised over GDP
Quote
1. Constitute a special commission on post-growth futures in the EU parliament. This commission should actively debate the future of growth, devise policy alternatives for post-growth futures, and reconsider the pursuit of growth as an overarching policy goal.

2. Incorporate alternative indicators into the macroeconomic framework of the EU and its member states. Economic policies should be evaluated in terms of their impact on human wellbeing, resource use, inequality, and the provision of decent work. These indicators should be given higher priority than GDP in decision-making.

3. Turn the stability and growth pact (SGP) into a stability and wellbeing pact. The SGP is a set of rules aimed at limiting government deficits and national debt. It should be revised to ensure member states meet the basic needs of their citizens, while reducing resource use and waste emissions to a sustainable level.

4. Establish a ministry for economic transition in each member state. A new economy that focuses directly on human and ecological wellbeing could offer a much better future than one that is structurally dependent on economic growth.

And no, society hasn't collapsed yet, I noticed that on my Internet leave. ;)
Time is short but the real solution is still available and easy, do less. Never been an environmentalist, but maybe I've become a fanatic after all?
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1597
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3140 on: September 17, 2018, 01:35:20 PM »
Quote
Even under the best conditions, absolute decoupling of GDP from resource use is not possible on a global scale.

Luckily we don't need absolute decoupling, we only need enough decoupling to live within the limits of growth of our world.

Quote
For reference, a sustainable level of resource use is about 50 billion metric tons per year—a boundary we breached back in 2000.

Probably true. One way to improving sustainability is by adding as much renewable energy as possible. At least in the CO2 front, that seems like a clear solution, even if it requires a tremendous effort to implement. Other limits of growth need their own solution.

Quote
These problems throw the entire concept of green growth into doubt and necessitate some radical rethinking.

Yeah, but that's not what you are doing. You are just saying it can't be done because it is too difficult. No radical solutions proposed.

Please give me an example of that radical thinking that will save us.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Sleepy

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1168
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3141 on: September 17, 2018, 04:31:06 PM »
Just trying to make the article Lurk posted above a bit more reader friendly:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/12/why-growth-cant-be-green/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

jacksmith4tx

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
    • Photon mine
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3142 on: September 17, 2018, 05:08:04 PM »
Please give me an example of that radical thinking that will save us.
Ok. This is pretty radical.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2305.msg172996.html#msg172996
Science is a thought process, technology will change reality.

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3225
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 114
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3143 on: September 17, 2018, 06:04:58 PM »
Please give me an example of that radical thinking that will save us.

Every single human being must distinguish their wants from their needs and then collectively act to see that everyone's needs are met. Finally, look closely at our list of wants, consider deeply our internal motivations for considering them needs and jettison most of them.

All of this would require us to get at the true nature of who we are as human beings and then recognize that this is the nature of everyone around us. The solution is rooted in philosophical inquiry.

Doing this would result in the end of global capitalism.

Now, back on topic, a rapid adoption of renewable energy is essential for our survival.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2018, 06:28:48 PM by Shared Humanity »

GoSouthYoungins

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 623
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3144 on: September 17, 2018, 06:10:31 PM »
Please give me an example of that radical thinking that will save us.
Ok. This is pretty radical.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2305.msg172996.html#msg172996

Please give me an example of that radical thinking that will save us.

Every single human being must distinguish their wants from their needs and then collectively act to see that everyone's needs are met. Finally, look closely at our list of needs, consider deeply our internal motivations for considering them needs and jettison most of them.

All of this would require us to get at the true nature of who we are as human beings and then recognize that this is the nature of everyone around us. The solution is rooted in philosophical inquiry.

Doing this would result in the end of global capitalism.

There is literally no chance of these things happening. Why don't we just pay for carbon sequestration, and charge for carbon emissions?!? It's really not that complicated.
big time oops

etienne

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
    • About energy
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3145 on: September 17, 2018, 06:18:46 PM »
There is literally no chance of these things happening. Why don't we just pay for carbon sequestration, and charge for carbon emissions?!? It's really not that complicated.
I never heard of a well working carbon sequestration project. There isn't even a topic about it in this forum. Carbon capture is not so easy, but to store it somehow for a long time without using too much energy - EROEI or energy return on energy investment is also important...

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1597
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3146 on: September 17, 2018, 06:43:23 PM »
Quote
Every single human being must distinguish their wants from their needs and then collectively act to see that everyone's needs are met. Finally, look closely at our list of needs, consider deeply our internal motivations for considering them needs and jettison most of them.

I 100% agree with this statement, but I would like to see the method to accomplish this feat. How to convince everyone to abandon everything in order to save everything?

I would love to find a method to accomplish what you suggest, but I think it will be extremely difficult. Religions, politics, all sorts of social movements attempt to convince everyone that their method is correct, but the result is always limited.

I think that right now a significant percent of the world population is more than willing to do just what you suggest. But I know there is an even larger percentage of the population that will not abandon their lifestyle for long term global cause, even if it saves them.

What you suggest can easily be done by force, but I would argue that it will cause more death and destruction than an arctic collapse. If the solution is worse than the problem then it is no solution.

What you suggest will inevitably happen if we just wait for climate change to arrive in full force. Everyone that remains will ponder on their existence. That's 100% guaranteed. Also, it will be too late.

Yet another way to do what you suggest is by creating social and technological breakthroughs that objectively improve people's lives and at the same time are sustainable. People will acquire these habits and solutions not because they are green, but because they are good for them. That they are green is just a happy coincidence.

A good example of such a technologies are home gardens and local, small scale produce. Home gardening and local produce are growing fast not because they are fads, but because they objectively make life better for most people. Technology, economics and social advances make small scale gardening profitable, healthy and rewarding.

If technology existed that made home gardening effortless and economical for the homeowners  the  small scale farming would become viral. By technology I mean anything from 100% biological closed systems that give you food virtually forever with minimal work to robots taking care of a highly automated farm.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1597
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 101
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3147 on: September 17, 2018, 06:45:32 PM »
There isn't even a topic about it in this forum..

There is:

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)

 https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1056.0.html
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13388
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3148 on: September 17, 2018, 08:10:56 PM »
Court Upholds Illinois Nuclear Subsidies Law. Here's Why It's a Big Deal for Renewable Energy, Too.
A defeat in federal court likely would have been used to challenge state policies around the country that promote renewable energy, environmental law experts say.
Quote
The ability of states to regulate electricity prices is at the heart of several state renewable energy programs that are considered critical to the nation's ability to cut greenhouse gas emissions to address climate change. A defeat in the Illinois case likely would have been used to challenge those renewable energy policies, such as support of offshore wind farms in the Northeast and a new California law requiring all electricity in the state be zero-carbon by 2045, environmental laws experts said.
...
Illinois lawmakers passed the Future Energy Jobs Act in 2016, largely inspired by financial turmoil at the state's two nuclear plants owned by Exelon.

Under the law, customers of the state's utilities are required to pay a monthly charge that helps support the two nuclear plants. The charge (the equivalent of up to $16.50 per megawatt-hour last year) is based on a calculation of the social cost of emissions. Supporters of the law, which also includes provisions to pay for clean energy programs, say it will lead to a net savings for consumers because of financial benefits from clean energy programs and environmental benefits. ...
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/14092018/nuclear-subsidies-illinois-federal-court-ruling-clean-renewable-energy-programs-ferc
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3225
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 114
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3149 on: September 17, 2018, 08:38:13 PM »
Quote
Every single human being must distinguish their wants from their needs and then collectively act to see that everyone's needs are met. Finally, look closely at our list of needs, consider deeply our internal motivations for considering them needs and jettison most of them.

I 100% agree with this statement, but I would like to see the method to accomplish this feat. How to convince everyone to abandon everything in order to save everything?

I would love to find a method to accomplish what you suggest, but I think it will be extremely difficult. Religions, politics, all sorts of social movements attempt to convince everyone that their method is correct, but the result is always limited.

I think that right now a significant percent of the world population is more than willing to do just what you suggest. But I know there is an even larger percentage of the population that will not abandon their lifestyle for long term global cause, even if it saves them.

What you suggest can easily be done by force, but I would argue that it will cause more death and destruction than an arctic collapse. If the solution is worse than the problem then it is no solution.

What you suggest will inevitably happen if we just wait for climate change to arrive in full force. Everyone that remains will ponder on their existence. That's 100% guaranteed. Also, it will be too late.

Yet another way to do what you suggest is by creating social and technological breakthroughs that objectively improve people's lives and at the same time are sustainable. People will acquire these habits and solutions not because they are green, but because they are good for them. That they are green is just a happy coincidence.

A good example of such a technologies are home gardens and local, small scale produce. Home gardening and local produce are growing fast not because they are fads, but because they objectively make life better for most people. Technology, economics and social advances make small scale gardening profitable, healthy and rewarding.

If technology existed that made home gardening effortless and economical for the homeowners  the  small scale farming would become viral. By technology I mean anything from 100% biological closed systems that give you food virtually forever with minimal work to robots taking care of a highly automated farm.

Cannot disagree with most/many of the statements here but, if we want to address an existential problem that is the result of our current system of organizing humanity, truly radical ideas lie outside of that system.

We dismiss them because of the implications of choosing such an action which would be to transform the system in a manner that frightens us.