Green new deal equals magical thinking

[SkyDekker 1,465]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Good point, I used a personal example.  I should have used yours.  Just because someone can hold their breath for 22 minutes doesn't mean that with additional training they would be able to hold their breath for 132 minutes ( the gap renewables would have to close to be on par w fossil fuels)

I don't see that gap in renewables. Solar panels under concentrated sunlight have already gotten to 86% efficiency. There really is no reason to believe that with further development this could not become common.

What efficiency do you think fossil fuels have?

[brenthutch 444]

It is clearly laid out earlier in this thread.  And let me get this straight, do you think that with further development we can get more concentrated sunlight?

Edited March 29, 2019 by brenthutch

[yoink 321]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Yes yes, disaster is always just right around the corner yet it never seems to arrive.  Polar bears, the Great Barrier Reef, summer Arctic sea ice, the Maldives, tornadoes, floods, droughts, wildfires, famine, hurricanes, desertification, acne, male sterility, war, cats and dogs living together on and on and on.  Net net the social cost of fossil fuels is negative,(a negative cost is a positive for those who did not go to business school) and the downside is largely imaginary.

On a side note Governor Cuomo cited the climate as a reason why people were fleeing NY for TX and FL.  If climate change was a problem wouldn't folks be moving in the OTHER direction?

I don't get you. you're obviously intelligent but you talk like there's some magical power that will cause non-renewable power sources to go on and on for ever.

 

You DO understand that short of 100% efficiency (unachievable in this particular universe, laws of the universe being what they are) AND 100% uptake by everyone that by their very nature non-renewable resources WILL run out at some point, right? That's not a guess. That's not an estimate. It's absolute cold logic.

If there is a finite amount of something and we're using it faster than it regenerates then it WILL run out. Even if we get to 99.99999% efficiency in its use. There's no getting around that. It may be 10 years. Or 100. Or 1000. Or whatever... but it WILL happen. 

You seem not to want to plan for that because RIGHT NOW, right this second 'hey, I'm allright, Jack'...?

Edited March 29, 2019 by yoink

[tonyhays 86]

5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

It is clearly laid out earlier in this thread.  And let me get this straight, do you think that with further development we can get more concentrated sunlight?

Yes.  

 

https://earthsky.org/earth/space-based-solar-energy-power-getting-closer-to-reality

[brenthutch 444]

8 hours ago, yoink said:

I don't get you. you're obviously intelligent but you talk like there's some magical power that will cause non-renewable power sources to go on and on for ever.

 

You DO understand that short of 100% efficiency (unachievable in this particular universe, laws of the universe being what they are) AND 100% uptake by everyone that by their very nature non-renewable resources WILL run out at some point, right? That's not a guess. That's not an estimate. It's absolute cold logic.

If there is a finite amount of something and we're using it faster than it regenerates then it WILL run out. Even if we get to 99.99999% efficiency in its use. There's no getting around that. It may be 10 years. Or 100. Or 1000. Or whatever... but it WILL happen. 

You seem not to want to plan for that because RIGHT NOW, right this second 'hey, I'm allright, Jack'...?

I take issue with the boondoggles of wind and solar.  Their sporadic output plays havoc with the grid, they have to be backed up with conventional power (mostly fossil fuel), their wide spread adoption results in skyrocketing electric prices, they are a waste of  billions of taxpayer dollars and they are an eyesore.  I'm not some anti-tech Luddite, I love new technology, just look at what advances in the recovery of tight oil and natural gas have brought us.

As for the future, the money wasted on w&s would be more wisely spent on developing better ways to split atoms or better yet, how to fuse them.

Edited March 29, 2019 by brenthutch

[billvon 2,990]

15 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Not really, the green new deal is predicated on the notion that there will be an explosion of innovation and advances in green energy technology.  Physics and math say otherwise.

No, they don't.  Even right now, with zero improvements in PV, we could meet all the needs of energy within the US with solar plus battery - alone.  No need for any "explosions in innovation and advancement."  No physics and math breakthroughs.  Just exactly the same technology we have in panels right now, and in batteries right now.

We wouldn't even need a lot of space.  For solar to meet all our electric needs, we'd need about 22,000 square miles of panels - about 1/6th the area of Arizona.  For solar to meet all our ENERGY needs (not the same) we'd need about 85,000 square miles - about 2/3rds the area of Arizona.  Batteries required would take about 1/10th of that area.  Again, with no  "explosions in innovation and advancement."  No need to break the Shockley-Queisser limit.

Now, is that the best way to do it?  Definitely not.  A much better way would be to use nuclear as base load and solar+wind+storage as peaking.  You'd also repower most US dams to increase their peak output and add pumping.  You'd also start methane synthesis (biogas) to supplement natural gas supplies.  Putting up HVDC backbones across the country would let us distribute power more widely - and make us less vulnerable to local disruptions.  Switching to EVs and PHEVs, and electrifying trains and roads, will reduce and eventually eliminate our need for fossil fuels.

Again, we can do all this RIGHT NOW.  No need for any "explosions in innovation and advancement."   That's just an excuse not to do it.

Of course, a cheap perovskite tandem cell would make that all the easier/cheaper to do, so we'll keep working on that.  But not because it's critical - because it will help.

[brenthutch 444]

Bill, just because something is technically feasible doesn't make it economically or politically feasible.

[PhreeZone 20]

One of my favorite renewables that is starting to get a lot more attention is tidal power. Not the stupid wave generators that people are putting on shorelines but instead under water turbines. Tidal energy is extremely predictable with a swing of only 2-5% difference of total energy through out a given day, it works 24 hours a day and does not cause any of the other issues of taking up land space that a lot of solar projects seem to do. Out of all options that are renewable and non-nuclear it is the best option for a base load replacement option. Nuclear is still the single best base replacement but the process to build a new plant is too long and too expensive. The newest versions are moving from mounting turbines on the sea floor to having them floating near the surface attached to barges and ships. They can be placed well outside of normal shipping lanes, have the option to add additional solar options to the barge to power local items and with HVDC lines running from a farm of them to shore can generate extremely large amounts of electricity out of sight since they are over the horizon for most people. Right now a single barge is producing 2MW but plans are underway to build 6 MW ships as a test bed. This puts a ship as generating the same power if not more than a wind turbine with a much more predictable output 24 hours a day.

https://marineenergy.biz/2018/08/21/floating-tidal-turbine-clocks-record-3gwh-in-a-single-year/

 

 

[ryoder 1,590]

Forbes: Plunging Prices Mean Building New Renewable Energy Is Cheaper Than Running Existing Coal

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/12/03/plunging-prices-mean-building-new-renewable-energy-is-cheaper-than-running-existing-coal/#3139734331f3

[brenthutch 444]

5 hours ago, ryoder said:

Forbes: Plunging Prices Mean Building New Renewable Energy Is Cheaper Than Running Existing Coal

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/12/03/plunging-prices-mean-building-new-renewable-energy-is-cheaper-than-running-existing-coal/#3139734331f3

Somewhere between your article and the reality experienced by the bill paying public, something profound happens.  California which generates more than half of its electricity from renewables charges $.18kWh and Louisiana which gets less than 5% of its electricity from renewables pays only $.09kWh.  

 

Edited March 29, 2019 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,465]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Bill, just because something is technically feasible doesn't make it economically or politically feasible.

Except you just said it isn't feasible due to physics.

You are weaseling.

[brenthutch 444]

8 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Except you just said it isn't feasible due to physics.

You are weaseling.

No the continuing drop in price from a dramatic increase in efficiency was not possible due to physics.  Read the article 

 

Edited March 29, 2019 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,465]

11 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No the continuing drop in price from a dramatic increase in efficiency was not possible due to physics.  Read the article 

 

Article says that there can be no more innovation due to physics, which we have already seen is bullshit.

Then it says that for current technology hydrocarbons are cheaper to produce. It compares what a $1 investment would produce in energy. That is an odd way to look ta it, since that also would mean that production costs are being kept steady in the future. IE. no advancement in technology, no advancement in production.

Lastly, it completely ignores the cost of burning fossil fuels. Other than deniers, most people recognize the damage the burning of hydrocarbons does to the environment. Ignoring those costs is intellectually dishonest in a cost comparison.

Your piece is agenda driven, not science driven. The fact the author makes the majority of his income from venture investment in oilfield technology should be a decent indicator.

[billvon 2,990]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Bill, just because something is technically feasible doesn't make it economically or politically feasible.

I agree!  You claimed that because of things like the Shockley-Queisser limit it was technically infeasible. It isn't.

It is certainly economically feasible.  California is already a third of its energy from renewables - and California is still alive economically.  And in the long run, making the transition makes a lot more economic sense than paying for climate change damage.

Politically feasible?  Not right now.  But once Trump is gone, and the next democratic president declares a climate emergency, progress will happen quickly.

[brenthutch 444]

55 minutes ago, billvon said:

I agree!  You claimed that because of things like the Shockley-Queisser limit it was technically infeasible. It isn't.

It is certainly economically feasible.  California is already a third of its energy from renewables - and California is still alive economically.  And in the long run, making the transition makes a lot more economic sense than paying for climate change damage.

Politically feasible?  Not right now.  But once Trump is gone, and the next democratic president declares a climate emergency, progress will happen quickly.

The political feasibility was in regard to nuclear power.  The economic feasibility is illustrated in my Louisiana/California compare and contrast.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

The political feasibility was in regard to nuclear power.  The economic feasibility is illustrated in my Louisiana/California compare and contrast.

Do you actually believe that the difference in energy prices between LA & CA is because of the percentage of renewables?

Seriously?

[billvon 2,990]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

The political feasibility was in regard to nuclear power.  The economic feasibility is illustrated in my Louisiana/California compare and contrast.

If it was economically unfeasible it wouldn't have worked in California. It did work; therefore, it's feasible.

Claiming it's "economically unfeasible" because areas that have it are more expensive is like claiming that living near the sea is "economically unfeasible" because those areas are more expensive.

[brenthutch 444]

It's just one example, Germany would be another.  Renewables have just overtaken coal in electrical production.  Result? $.33 kWh.

Edited March 29, 2019 by brenthutch

[brenthutch 444]

8 minutes ago, billvon said:

If it was economically unfeasible it wouldn't have worked in California. It did work; therefore, it's feasible.

Claiming it's "economically unfeasible" because areas that have it are more expensive is like claiming that living near the sea is "economically unfeasible" because those areas are more expensive.

Yes it is exactly like that.  The wealthy can afford to live near the sea and pay exorbitant electricity bills.  It is the poor and middle class that feel the pain of California's virtue signaling.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/412928-middle-class-is-disappearing-in-california-as-wealth-gap-grows

 

[billvon 2,990]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Yes it is exactly like that.  The wealthy can afford to live near the sea and pay exorbitant electricity bills.  It is the poor and middle class that feel the pain of California's virtue signaling.

And the poor can live near the coal power plants where lung cancer death rates are several times higher.  But not your problem, eh?  They're poor.

[brenthutch 444]

Hell Bill, until Penn State switched over to natural gas, I lived in the shadow of a coal fired power plant.  No lung cancer issues here in Happy Valley.

[billvon 2,990]

8 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Hell Bill, until Penn State switched over to natural gas, I lived in the shadow of a coal fired power plant.  No lung cancer issues here in Happy Valley.

Glad you dodged the bullet.  Not everyone is so lucky.

===================================================

Reliance on coal linked with lung cancer incidence

The more a country relies on coal-fired power plants to generate energy, the greater the lung cancer risk is among its citizens, according to a new study from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

The study was published on January 28, 2019 in the journal Environmental Health.

. . .

The researchers examined data from 2000 to 2016 from a total of 13,581 coal-fired plants in 83 countries. Using a metric called “coal capacity per person”—the annual amount of generating capacity from every coal-fired plant in a given country, divided by the total population in that country—the researchers found that, for every 1-kilowatt increase of coal capacity per person, the relative risk of lung cancer increases 59% among men and 85% among women.

Based on their model, the researchers estimated that 1.37 million cases of lung cancer around the world will be linked with coal-fired power plants in 2025.

 

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/reliance-on-coal-linked-with-lung-cancer-incidence/

[brenthutch 444]

To be fair the Penn State coal plant was state-of-the-art.  It had to be it was in the middle of town?

[kallend 2,026]

7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Bill, just because something is technically feasible doesn't make it economically or politically feasible.

I can recall when a transistor was technically feasible but prohibitively expensive just for one.  I paid over $10 for a 2N697 back in 1963.

Now I can buy 100 billion transistors for under $10 at Best Buy.

 

Your argument is ignorant as well as stupid.

Edited March 29, 2019 by kallend

[brenthutch 444]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

I can recall when a transistor was technically feasible but prohibitively expensive just for one.  I paid over $10 for a 2N697 back in 1963.

Now I can buy 100 billion transistors for under $10 at Best Buy.

 

Your argument is ignorant as well as stupid.

Only because of free market forcing.  Take a look at the progress of computing power when it was the exclusive domain of government vs what happened when capitalism got ahold of it.  BTW I have learned my lesson and will not belittle you nor your arguments with petty name calling