Renewable Energy

[Bob Wallace]

The cheapest cost of transportation and the lowest GHG emitting form of goods transportation (bar none) is long distant ocean shipping.

Enough with the hyperbole, please.

Offload manufactured goods in LA or NYC and you still have to haul them to St. Louis. 

BTW, the shipping distance from Shanghai to Seattle is 20,544 nautical miles.  That's about 38,047 km.  And the lowest carbon shipping is done via electrified rail using renewable energy.  Ocean shipping GHG is a problem we have yet to solve.


Why don't you check your facts before getting all pissy.

[sidd]

i think the 2007 number for oceanic fuel consumption was 24 grams per (20 ft) TEU container per kilometer or 44 gram per mile. Beats everything including barge.

Then it depends what you're shipping. Port of LA to St. Louis overland sounds like time sensitive cargo, otherwise you would do Panama Canal into the Gulf ports and barge up to St Louis (at least for least fossil carbon release.) Train might work, coal shipments are off these days, so they got the capacity. That's definitely better than road on carbon emissions.

But fastest is road thru loadbroker auctions and opportunistic haulers who bid on rate and delivery time. The best drivers i got give me 7mile per gallon and the worst 5 mpg per 2xTEU (40 foot container)  At 2.85 kg/gallon, thats 200 gram fuel per TEU per mile ... granted bunker fuel burnt in container ships is denser and very bad in particulate terms ... but still much worse than ocean shipping.

sidd

[Bob Wallace]

I did not look closely at the source.  The 20k nautical map route was via the Panama Canal and through the Red Sea.  Not across the Pacific.

My bad.

We don't yet have electrified rail in the US like one finds in Europe and Russia.  But we will soon have battery powered trucks.  It will be cheaper to manufacturer closer to markets and haul less distance.

We have no low carbon solution for transoceanic shipping.  Tesla has a 500 mile range battery powered trucking solution.  Other countries have electrified rail.  If the goal is to combat global warming the current best solution is to manufacture as close to market as possible and move by land with renewable electricity.

[sidd]

grrr... i used the densiy of gasoline instead of the density of diesel so its really 3.2 kg/gallon and the number of grams of fuel per TEU/mile goes up to 240 or so  for truck transport.

In reality, for time sensitive loads, you get a two person, typically husband and wife team and they gun it all the way and get horrible mileage, but by god, they get it there on time.

sidd

[numerobis]

Topic check?

[Shared Humanity]

If the goal is to combat global warming the current best solution is to manufacture as close to market as possible and move by land with renewable electricity.

Yes.

Now imagine the gut wrenching change that this simple solution implies. The current worldwide system of capitalism with supply chains spanning the globe needs to disappear.

[Bob Wallace]

If the goal is to combat global warming the current best solution is to manufacture as close to market as possible and move by land with renewable electricity.

Yes.

Now imagine the gut wrenching change that this simple solution implies. The current worldwide system of capitalism with supply chains spanning the globe needs to disappear.

Some multi-continent supply chains may be needed.  Raw/processed materials will be shipped if there are no on-continent supplies.  I guess I don't see anything gut wrenching about the change. 

It will be (if it happens) a gradual change.  We already see bulky items like cars being manufactured closer to markets.  The products that cost the most to ship are the likely first to return.

Down the road, if we haven't found a way to ship across oceans without emitting carbon, we may see a price put on carbon in order to drive the last fossil fuel use to extinction.  At that point the cheaper to ship stuff might onshore.

And there might be some items so small but specialized that we might fly them using biofuel/synfuel.

Capitalism will continue since capitalism is baked in human behavior.

[TerryM]

Capitalism will continue since capitalism is baked in human behavior.

Bob
Can you expand on this? I truly don't understand what it is that you are saying,
Terry

[Bob Wallace]

Organisms do not expend energy unless there is a return on that energy.

IOW, we don't do something for nothing.  That's biology.  Survival biology.  If we waste energy we risk not surviving long enough to reproduce.

Capitalism is nothing but a description of how we strive to get more than what we expend to get that "more".  If we don't get "more" then we perish because life, itself, requires a certain amount of energy expenditure.

IMO, the problem some people have with capitalism is that they confuse inadequately regulated capitalism for capitalism.  But that's a topic for that thread where people love to shout and wag their fingers....

[zizek]

Hahaha

[oren]

Off-Topic alert, before this becomes a monkey zoo.

[Bob Wallace]

With the lowest levelized costs approaching $10 per megawatt-hour and thousands of megawatts being procured for under $20 per megawatt-hour, PPAs for new wind farms cost less than just the fuel required to run existing coal or natural gas plants.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/renewables-integration-in-the-midwest-is-a-whole-other-animal#gs.qHLRHRo

This is how we quit fossil fuels.  We simply quit using them because they become too expensive compared to near-zero carbon options.

[Bob Wallace]

Anyone know how to make columns line up using "Insert Table"?  If so, I'll pull down the following mess and repost.  I'll also post total MW installed and ranking based on total MW but unless columns line up things are hard to follow.

OK, from the 2018 BP database (2017 data) this is a per capita ranking of amount (watts) of wind installed by the leading countries.  No big surprise that Denmark is on top but there are some countries I didn't expect that show up high in the ranks.

Watts per Capita Denmark   944 Ireland   719 Sweden   688 Germany   680 Spain   499 Portugal   489 Uruguay   435 Finland   366 Canada   336 Austria   324 United Kingdom   300 US   270 Netherlands   251 Belgium   249 Greece   228 Norway   219 France   209 Australia   187 Poland   169 Italy   163 Romania   154 New Zealand   147 China   116 Bulgaria   94 Turkey   81 Chile   79 Costa Rica   77 Brazil   59 South Africa   37 Hungary   34 Mexico   33 Taiwan   29 Japan   27 Morocco   26 India   25 South Korea   24 Tunisia   21 Thailand   9 Egypt   8 Argentina   5 Philippines   4 Pakistan   4 Ethiopia   3 Iran   2

There are more countries with some wind capacity but BP tends to not list the small numbers countries and combines them into "Other Europe", "Other Asia", etc. bins.

Population data from Wiki.

[Bob Wallace]

Here's the same capacity per capita numbers and ranking for solar using BP's 2017  data (2018 database) and Wiki 2017 population data.  I'll repost if I can figure out how to keep columns straight.

With small tables I can do a screen grab off a spreadsheet and turn it into a png but this table is too long to capture.

Again, a few countries surprised me with their placement.

Watts per Capita Germany   516 Japan   384 Belgium   332 Italy   332 Australia   294 Greece   233 Switzerland   224 Czech Republic   194 United Kingdom   193 Netherlands   170 Denmark   159 US   157 Bulgaria   145 Austria   143 Israel   132 France   123 Spain   121 Chile   117 South Korea   110 Slovakia   98 China   93 Canada   79 Taiwan   73 Romania   70 Portugal   56 Honduras   49 Turkey   42 Thailand   39 Jordan   37 Hungary   31 Sweden   31 South Africa   30 Ukraine   26 India   14 Malaysia   12 Algeria   10 Finland   9 Norway   8 Philippines   8 Brazil   5 Mexico   4 Pakistan   4

[oren]

Bob, I assume the second post is about solar?
Nice to see Israel appear somewhere positive for a change... it's hard when a country is focused on crazy stuff.

[Bob Wallace]

Yes, solar.  Thanks and fixed.

Denmark ahead of the US was a surprise to me.   Japan and Belgium up close to the top.

[oren]

Regarding Japan - I was just reading yet another history of the 2nd World War, where a lot of their problems were that the country was not self-sufficient in a lot of stuff that had to be imported, and first and foremost oil. So American attacks on Japanese commercial shipping in the final stages virtually guaranteed Japan would lose the war, regardless of the A-bomb, marine invasion or anything else. And I keep wondering why the Japanese - with all their crazy infrastructure (huge seawalls, bridges to nowhere etc.) and their crazy money-printing for economic stimulus - don't fill up the islands with solar and wind installations as fast as they physically can, so at least to achieve energy independence if not for all other reasons.

[Bob Wallace]

My interactions with a couple of westerners living in Japan leads me to believe that (like in England) there is an objection to seeing wind turbines.  It looks like Japan is going forward with offshore wind.  They've contracted with a French firm to install their first floating wind farm off the east coast where the strongest winds are found.

IIRC prior to WWII the US was restricting Japan's access to oil in retaliation for Japan's aggressive behavior in Asia.  Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was apparently about decreasing the US's ability to interfere with Japan's oil acquisition.

I don't think we have to worry about wars over sunshine and breezes....

[Sigmetnow]

Anyone know how to make columns line up using "Insert Table"?  If so, I'll pull down the following mess and repost.  I'll also post total MW installed and ranking based on total MW but unless columns line up things are hard to follow.
...

Watts per Capita
209   France     209
187   Australia  187
169   Poland     169
163   Italy      163
154   Romania    154

There is probably a better way, but if you select the text and use a mono-spaced font like Courrier, you can make things line up [Edit:  by adding or deleting spaces].  It’s easier if you put the numbers first.  My edit of your data above doesn’t use the Table function.

Edit:  If you have them nicely aligned somewhere else, you could try posting the numbers as a screen shot image, or even multiple images.

[Bob Wallace]

Testing

Thanks, Sig.

I copied the info from a Google spreadsheet to a Google document.  I switched to Courier New.  The I lined up the columns by adding spaces. 

Then I copied here and here's what I get.

                  Watts        Capacity      Global
           per Capita      Megawatts       Rank
Denmark            944          5,412        14
Ireland            719          3,425        19
Sweden            688          6,820        11
Germany            680         55,876          3
Spain                 499         23,120          5
Portugal            489          5,049          15
Uruguay            435          1,504         27
Finland            366          2,023         26
Canada             336         12,313          8
Austria            324          2,830         23
United Kingdom       300         19,836          6
US                  270         87,544          2

It's better, but it's not lined up like I had it on the text document.

Seems like there should be a better way. 

It's a long list so a single screen grab won't work.  Posting multiple images is a pain.  Multiple screenshots.  Take them into a photo editor to trim away the 'other stuff'.  Save them.  Open up a hosting site and upload.  Get the link and paste.

Seems like there should be an easy way to go from a spreadsheet table to a neatly ordered table in a comment.

It's a problem that I have here and also in Disqus comments. 

Any other ideas?

[Sigmetnow]

Testing

Thanks, Sig.

I copied the info from a Google spreadsheet to a Google document.  I switched to Courier New.  The I lined up the columns by adding spaces. 

Then I copied here and here's what I get.

           Watts        Capacity      Global
                   per Capita      Megawatts       Rank
Denmark            944          5,412        14
Ireland            719          3,425        19
Sweden            688          6,820        11
Germany            680         55,876          3
Spain                 499         23,120          5
Portugal            489          5,049          15
Uruguay            435          1,504         27
Finland            366          2,023         26
Canada             336         12,313          8
Austria            324          2,830         23
United Kingdom       300         19,836          6
US                  270         87,544          2

It's better, but it's not lined up like I had it on the text document.

Seems like there should be a better way.  ...

I used “Quote”, then copied your data, and pasted it below the message, and changed it to Courier font using the “Font Face” drop-down above the Message Box.  It displays like this in Preview — but not in the Message Box!

              Watts        Capacity      Global
           per Capita      Megawatts       Rank
Denmark            944          5,412        14
Ireland            719          3,425        19
Sweden            688          6,820        11
Germany            680         55,876          3
Spain                 499         23,120          5
Portugal            489          5,049          15
Uruguay            435          1,504         27
Finland            366          2,023         26
Canada             336         12,313          8
Austria            324          2,830         23
United Kingdom       300         19,836          6
US                  270         87,544          2

Futzing with the spaces between just the first and second columns, and using Preview to guide my results, gives me what you see below.
It’s a bit tricky because the Message box does not display Courier, so things don’t line up there.  Also I think there are some extra embedded Tab characters, but I can’t see them.  Getting close!

                 Watts        Capacity      Global
               per Capita      Megawatts     Rank
Denmark            944          5,412        14
Ireland            719          3,425        19
Sweden             688          6,820        11
Germany            680         55,876          3
Spain              499         23,120          5
Portugal           489          5,049          15
Uruguay            435          1,504         27
Finland            366          2,023         26
Canada             336         12,313          8
Austria            324          2,830         23
United Kingdom     300         19,836          6
US                 270         87,544          2

[Bob Wallace]

Yes, embedded tabs are causing a lot of the problems.

They can be eliminated by deleting spaces between columns and then adding spaces back in.  But that's a pain.

I posted an inquiry on the Google Docs forum to see if there's an easy way.

I looked into the Insert Table instructions for this (SMF) software and using their app is a real pain.  Each piece of data has to be added separately.

Seems like it wouldn't hard to set up a 'one stroke' solution.  I can turn a Google Sheet table into a comma separated file (CSV) with a click or two.  That should be all the information the comment software should need to create a nice, neat table.

[Sigmetnow]

Ooh.  I copied your data from your displayed message, pasted it into a word processing program (Pages), changed the font to Courier there, and it was easy to line up the columns using spaces.  Then I just copied that data, pasted it into a new ASIF message, selected the data and changed it to Courier using the Font Face drop-down, and it displays fine:



                 Watts        Capacity      Global
              per Capita      Megawatts       Rank
Denmark            944          5,412         14
Ireland            719          3,425         19
Sweden             688          6,820         11
Germany            680         55,876          3
Spain              499         23,120          5
Portugal           489          5,049         15
Uruguay            435          1,504         27
Finland            366          2,023         26
Canada             336         12,313          8
Austria            324          2,830         23
United Kingdom     300         19,836          6
US                 270         87,544          2

Edit: of course, the easier way to do the last step is to choose Courier from the Font Face drop-down,
click between the “[f ont=courier][/f ont]” labels, and paste the data.

[Bob Wallace]

Thanks.  I'll give that a try. 

[ivica]

OT RE: tabs

Problem as I see it is that source (an editor..). and destination ( ASIF editor) do not use the same length (#blanks) for "TAB".

Solution:
a) redefine TAB in your source editor to match ASIF TAB
b) don't use TAB, use BLANK instead

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=disconnect&x=%2Fhtml&q=tab+8+spaces&ia=images

[Bob Wallace]

From the BP database, global electricity is rising.  But fossil fuels are not the big provider.



Renewables (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc.) are doing the heavy lifting.

[Bob Wallace]

OT RE: tabs

Problem as I see it is that source (an editor..). and destination ( ASIF editor) do not use the same length (#blanks) for "TAB".

Solution:
a) redefine TAB in your source editor to match ASIF TAB
b) don't use TAB, use BLANK instead

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=disconnect&x=%2Fhtml&q=tab+8+spaces&ia=images

The source editor (if I correctly understand the term) is a spreadsheet.  I'm not sure where tabs come in.  Perhaps from a 'align left' setting?

[ivica]

There are several ways for tabs to end in the text. Perhaps Copy (cliboard action) does that during process of reformating content from spreadsheet format to text format.
Your spreadsheet might have somewhere options like:
   a) expand TAB to SPACES (ie. BLANKS): YES/NO
   b) TAB length: #integer
Hope it helps.

[Bob Wallace]

There are several ways for tabs to end in the text. Perhaps Copy (cliboard action) does that during process of reformating content from spreadsheet format to text format.
Your spreadsheet might have somewhere options like:
   a) expand TAB to SPACES (ie. BLANKS): YES/NO
   b) TAB length: #integer
Hope it helps.

If I do a 'Paste without formatting' wouldn't that remove tabs?

The answer is 'no' based on what I've done so far.  But maybe I haven't done it the correct way.

[ivica]

 Bob Wallace wrote: "If I do a 'Paste without formatting' wouldn't that remove tabs?"
Depends on what they mean by formatting".

One more idea,
Choosing "Save As: CSV", do you have, by chance, offered option to save the file with "Fixed column width"? That might do, if so.

As example, SCALC spreadsheet has it:
   Save As:   comma separated file (CSV)
   Dialog options
      a) Field & Text delimiter for CSV
      b) Fixed column width         <<< this does it

[Sigmetnow]

There are several ways for tabs to end in the text. Perhaps Copy (cliboard action) does that during process of reformating content from spreadsheet format to text format.
Your spreadsheet might have somewhere options like:
   a) expand TAB to SPACES (ie. BLANKS): YES/NO
   b) TAB length: #integer
Hope it helps.

If I do a 'Paste without formatting' wouldn't that remove tabs?

The answer is 'no' based on what I've done so far.  But maybe I haven't done it the correct way.

My experience has been that “paste without formatting” only affects font face, size, and affect (italics, etc.)

[Bob Wallace]

Bob Wallace wrote: "If I do a 'Paste without formatting' wouldn't that remove tabs?"
Depends on what they mean by formatting".

One more idea,
Choosing "Save As: CSV", do you have, by chance, offered option to save the file with "Fixed column width"? That might do, if so.

As example, SCALC spreadsheet has it:
   Save As:   comma separated file (CSV)
   Dialog options
      a) Field & Text delimiter for CSV
      b) Fixed column width         <<< this does it

I don't see any parameter adjustments in Google Sheets when saving as a CSV file.  There could be something deeper in the software that doesn't appear as part of the regular dropdown.

I've got a 'how to' question posted on the Chrome user forum and have had success in getting problems solved there.

[Bob Wallace]

Renewables making a move...

Looking at global electricity generation over the last twenty years we can see something happening in the last five.



Renewable energy generation grew faster than fossil fuel.  10,551 TWh to 8,174 TWh. 

Following the 1997 to 2002 fossil fuels and nuclear have grown in decreasing amounts while renewables have steadily increased.

[Sigmetnow]

Push to Burn Wood for Fuel Threatens Climate Goals, Scientists Warn
Scientists say a new EU renewable energy policy on biomass is 'misleading' and will raise emissions. U.S. forests are being turned into wood pellets to feed demand.

But the renewable energy policy includes burning wood for fuel. Over a year ago, the EU's science advisors published a comprehensive report debunking the logic behind treating all wood fuel as beneficial to the climate. Because burning wood gives off more CO2 than coal per unit of electricity produced, the climate math doesn't add up, scientists say.

Large-scale forest harvests have a climate warming effect for at least 20 to 35 years, said University of Helsinki climate and forest scientist Jaana Bäck, who noted that scores of evidence-based studies all say basically the same thing.

"And if we look at the Paris targets, we are in critical times at the moment. We need to reduce emissions now, not in 50 or 100 years," she said.

Of particular concern is the harvesting of mature trees. Converting waste wood or fast-growing agricultural products has less climate impact.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21062018/forest-biomass-renewable-energy-paris-climate-change-emissions-logging-wood-pellets-electricity

U.S.:  “In North Carolina, the wood fuel industry has been logging about 50,000 acres per year (about the size of Washington, D.C.) to meet demand at four wood pellet factories for export to Europe. ”
https://mobile.twitter.com/insideclimate/status/1010493169723568128

[Bob Wallace]

Because burning wood gives off more CO2 than coal per unit of electricity produced, the climate math doesn't add up, scientists say.

There's carbon.  And there's carbon.

The carbon we have to be most concerned about is the carbon that is safely sequestered underground.  We really must stop bringing it to the surface.

CO2 from burned wood is carbon that was already removed from sequestration.  By burning wood we do speed up the 'recycling' process somewhat.  But we avoid using fossil fuels to some extent.

Here's the math that needs to be done:

1) Fossil fuel CO2 when burned + fossil fuel CO2 released by the process of getting fossil fuels from underground and to the plant.

2) Fossil fuel CO2 released by the process of growing 'firewood' and getting the wood from forest to plant.

Simply reporting CO2 emissions is shallow-thinking science.

And the math shouldn't stop there.  Some tree species grow as much underground as above ground.  If you grow a tree, cut the top off, and leave the root structure in place how much carbon have you taken out of the atmosphere and stored underground?

Is there a point at which trees stop underground growth?  Or, at least slow down considered to a newly planted tree.

Is there reason to believe that converting coal plants to biomass would slow the installation of low carbon generators?  Or would wind and solar continued to be installed in increasing amounts due to the economics?

[oren]

It's all fine reasoning, but ask the question in reverse - is there reason to believe that cutting down US trees to convert to wood pellets, shipping them to Europe for burning, is a good thing?

[Bob Wallace]

It's all fine reasoning, but ask the question in reverse - is there reason to believe that cutting down US trees to convert to wood pellets, shipping them to Europe for burning, is a good thing?

To know the answer to that question we'd have to do the complete math.  Do the math and determine whether there is more, less, or about the same amount of carbon extracted from below the surface and put into play.

More = stop using wood pellets.
Less = keep on using them. 

Keep using wood pellets until at least until all carbon generation is stopped and then replace the wood pellets.

(Here's Bob pushing for supporting the lesser of the evils thing again.  Why doesn't he believe in magic?)

[Shared Humanity]

Stop with the "magical thinking" bullshit. I am tired of having people here being labeled.

[Shared Humanity]

It's all fine reasoning, but ask the question in reverse - is there reason to believe that cutting down US trees to convert to wood pellets, shipping them to Europe for burning, is a good thing?

Every tree not cut down is another win for carbon uptake. If clear cutting rain forest is a bad thing, so is cutting down a tree anywhere. That we cannot see the impact in a macroscopic sense does not make it any less real.

[Bob Wallace]

Stop with the "magical thinking" bullshit. I am tired of having people here being labeled.

Give us a better solution. 

If all we have is an evil option and a less evil option should we go with the evil option because the less evil is not perfect?

BTW, I labeled exactly no one. 

[magnamentis]

Stop with the "magical thinking" bullshit. I am tired of having people here being labeled.

most people label themselves and pointing to that fact is not only not wrong but necessary in the long run.

this system is ill because too many mute those who point the finger into the wound and naming the labels under which many are sailing is exactly that and you just did exactly try to mute someone who tries to use his brain in a constructive manner. with this you just labeled yourself i just won't give that lable a name now for peace's sake.

let people talk as long as they don't insult others under the belt line or too generalizing.

freedom of speech is not one of the things on this plant which i consider a bad thing.

[magnamentis]

It's all fine reasoning, but ask the question in reverse - is there reason to believe that cutting down US trees to convert to wood pellets, shipping them to Europe for burning, is a good thing?

Every tree not cut down is another win for carbon uptake. If clear cutting rain forest is a bad thing, so is cutting down a tree anywhere. That we cannot see the impact in a macroscopic sense does not make it any less real.

you may be correct or not, someone asked to do the math. if you already know the result then present formulas that point out why it is as you say. i do not disbelieve you outrightly but i at least could imagine that it could be a intermediate step to burn CO2 that was taken from the atmosphere recently than CO2 that was stored millions of years ago

i'm not claiming that i know that but doing AND PRESENTING/PUBLISHING the math is certainly a valid thing to ask for.

[Bob Wallace]

Every tree not cut down is another win for carbon uptake. If clear cutting rain forest is a bad thing, so is cutting down a tree anywhere.

Every tree not cut down is a short term carbon storage solution.  After some period of time that tree will die, rot, and return its carbon to the atmosphere.

But we still need to do the math to see if using wood for fuel increases, reduces, or has roughly no impact on fossil fuel use.

The Amazon rainforest is not being cut for fuel.  But for agriculture.

[be cause]

here in NI the willow grown for pelleting has gone unharvested since the momey followed the 'ship it from the USA and subsidize it' was supported by that genius Cameron  . Govt. abandoned the growers and have permanently destroyed the local industry . £500million is now being given to intensive chicken farming to 'go green' (joke) , while the organic sector gets not one penny . b,c.
 ps .. as it is warm over 1000 windmills are being paid not to produce electricity ... 

[Sigmetnow]

I read it that their point:

Large-scale forest harvests have a climate warming effect for at least 20 to 35 years

was that the most urgent need was to reduce the immediate warming effect of clearing forests — as opposed to considering the long-term warming effect of carbon in the atmosphere, quite apart from the carbon sequestration aspect.

[oren]

I think this wood pellet thing started from - hey we have wood pellets available that no one needs, lets burn them and avoid some coal. A good idea.
And then it became labeled as clean energy, and then it became - hey let's cut down all these slow-growing US forests to make a buck using this loophole.
There are rare cases when no math is needed but plain common sense, especially as the stuff is being shipped around.

[Neven]

(Here's Bob pushing for supporting the lesser of the evils thing again.  Why doesn't he believe in magic?)

Maybe there are other alternatives besides evil and lesser evil? There usually are, even if people say there aren't (TINA).

Clearly, the decision is based on economics, not on environmental concerns. If there are subsidies, you could stop them. You could insulate homes better to reduce heating demand. You could set a maximum amount of trees to be used for pellets (which IMO should only be made from timber leftovers and recycled wood). And so on.

Just as with ethanol and palm oil, the system promotes abuse of solutions to problems, because the mountain of concentrated wealth must at all costs grow exponentially. Take away the incentive.

[Shared Humanity]

Stop with the "magical thinking" bullshit. I am tired of having people here being labeled.

Give us a better solution. 

If all we have is an evil option and a less evil option should we go with the evil option because the less evil is not perfect?

BTW, I labeled exactly no one.

You use "magical thinking" to dismiss other posters on a continuous basis here.

[Shared Humanity]

From the BP database, global electricity is rising.  But fossil fuels are not the big provider.



Renewables (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc.) are doing the heavy lifting.

And yet fossil fuel use to generate electricity is still rising and this is arguably the easiest of the uses for fossil fuels to convert to renewables.

[Shared Humanity]

Renewables making a move...

Looking at global electricity generation over the last twenty years we can see something happening in the last five.



Renewable energy generation grew faster than fossil fuel.  10,551 TWh to 8,174 TWh. 

Following the 1997 to 2002 fossil fuels and nuclear have grown in decreasing amounts while renewables have steadily increased.

True but total energy use is growing faster than renewables so that demand for fossil fuels continues to climb.