Could it be true????

[begreen]

No nation has 100% renewable power. Fact check please.

Didn't say that, but they are having days and in Portugal this last March where 100% of the nation's power was generated by renewables. Costa Rica has done even better. Denmark has had days where it is exporting wind driven power after 100% of the nation's needs have been met.
https://qz.com/1245048/portugal-gen...e-energy-to-power-the-whole-country-in-march/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...7-record-wind-hydro-solar-water-a8069111.html
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...wind-windfarm-power-exceed-electricity-demand
Actually Cast, I don't think anyone disagrees with your assessment that for the time being a steady state of power be it nuclear or gas is required for the valleys when renewable energy is low. But with time, more solutions are coming forth and will become practical. In the meantime, just dramatically reducing losses and aggressively working on conservation will reduce those dependencies. If you compare where the world was at the turn of the century and now, a lot of progress has been made.

 

[begreen]

What price is the rest of the world paying for electricity? One of the reasons we are are world power is our access to affordable power to make things.

I've rented homes across all of Europe. Few have AC. Few have a even medium sized refrigerator. Electricity is expensive, has massive taxes and you can be sure, stifles manufacturing/economy.

This site is mostly German.
https://1-stromvergleich.com/electricity-prices-europe/

Note Germany has had a 39% increase in 10 years.


Germans pay a 23% renewable surcharge on their bill + all of the other taxes and transmission fees before they even get to pay for the rest of the bill.

Isn't it a little disingenuous to say that a place like Costa Rica is 100% renewables when over 80% of that is hydro followed up by geothermal? Hydro gets fought tooth and nail by environmentalists because it changes the landscape, floods valleys and prevents normal aquatic migration. Now it is something that gets lumped into 'renewables' because wind and solar have (so far) been vastly inferior.
It leads people to believe that wind and solar have made vast strides in overall power generation, when they really are a very small amount of total grid energy supply. Sure seems like the environmentalists are taking credit for 'renewables' when in reality, they fight the best, most cost effective and best renewable out there.

Many of those countires you say are now 100% rewewables, have a GDP lower then one of our rural states. They don't make much.
Denmark: 2017 GDP = $306B
Ireland: 2017 GDP = $334B
Colorado: 2017 GDP = $342B
ect....

Something to chew on.

Germany's economy is flourishing. GDP $3.46 Trillion Their manufacturing is not suffering. Treehugger argument is a strawman. "Renewable energy is energy that is generated from natural processes that are continuously replenished. This includes sunlight, geothermal heat, wind, tides, water, and various forms of biomass. This energy cannot be exhausted and is constantly renewed."
https://extension.psu.edu/what-is-renewable-energy

 

[sportbikerider78]

Germany's economy is flourishing. GDP $3.46 Trillion Their manufacturing is not suffering. Treehugger argument is a strawman. "Renewable energy is energy that is generated from natural processes that are continuously replenished. This includes sunlight, geothermal heat, wind, tides, water, and various forms of biomass. This energy cannot be exhausted and is constantly renewed."
https://extension.psu.edu/what-is-renewable-energy

Really?
Google "environmental opposition to hydro power" and see what comes up.
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...rt_HbAhWMuFMKHWNqDA4QBQgmKAA&biw=1920&bih=947

I think you completely misunderstand correlation and causation.
Just because they are using renewables at a high cost and having a growing GDP does not mean they are having a growing GDP because of high renewable cost.

 

[begreen]

Environmental opposition does not change the definition of renewable.

They are having a growing economy in spite of the cost of transitioning to renewables. Like it or not, we don't have a choice. During the last century the world population grew from 1.65 billion to 6 billion. It's projected to reach 8 billion in just 6 more years. There are too many people now on the planet to sustain past practices. We need a sustainable model for the survival of the planet and the human race.

 

[Ashful]

One thing I’ve always wondered, since you’re discussing Geothermal on very large (national) scales, is the potential geological impact. Folks have their head in the sand when they consider it an infinite heat source without consequence, as much as many once considered hydro, prior to realizing the havoc dams create on the environment.

 

[begreen]

Noted above that geothermal is a regional solution for most areas unless the country is small and sitting on a hot spot. AFAIK the geological impact is tiny, but if drilling technologies like fracking were used then there could be a local impact. The environmental impact is worth noting depending on the conversion and cooling technology used and the sulfur, salt and mineral content of the water.

Anything we do short of fusion power is going to have an impact. We're seeing this in WA state as solar farms are sometimes taking over cropland. The goal has to be to keep these impacts minimal. For emissions, in comparison to coal power generation it's no contest. Even compared to the cleanest natural gas power generation geothermal is a win.
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy...l-impacts-geothermal-energy.html#.WzJNJxJKhE4

 

[sportbikerider78]

Environmental opposition does not change the definition of renewable.

They are having a growing economy in spite of the cost of transitioning to renewables. Like it or not, we don't have a choice. During the last century the world population grew from 1.65 billion to 6 billion. It's projected to reach 8 billion in just 6 more years. There are too many people now on the planet to sustain past practices. We need a sustainable model for the survival of the planet and the human race.

I understand you believe this. I'm always amazed people believe in global overpopulation.

 

[begreen]

Be amazed. I don't think humanity's current course is sustainable or that the earth will do well with a 33% increase in human population in the next 6 yrs.. Not with the current species extinction rate accelerating like it has been. 2 billion more consumers + climate change migration is going to change the landscape in more ways than many can imagine.

 

[bholler]

I understand you believe this. I'm always amazed people believe in global overpopulation.

I wasnt aware it was something that people doubted. You can debate the timeline sure but we live on a planet with a defined ammout of liveable space. There is no possible way that it can support indefinate population growth.

 

[Ashful]

I wasnt aware it was something that people doubted. You can debate the timeline sure but we live on a planet with a defined ammout of liveable space. There is no possible way that it can support indefinate population growth.

In the future, people will be quartered in height, you can fit twice as many in the same building size.

 

[sportbikerider78]

I wasnt aware it was something that people doubted. You can debate the timeline sure but we live on a planet with a defined ammout of liveable space. There is no possible way that it can support indefinate population growth.

I think once in my life I have talked with someone about overpopulation. They were really on the fence if it was an issue or not..and then we quickly moved to another topic because people are going to reproduce and there is nothing anyone will do about that...nor should they. Of course, you see it in lots of news outlets, but that doesn't mean it is on anyone's mind.

The amount of rural areas, even in a state like NY, are just incredible. Country everywhere. Space everywhere.
The human race is very resourceful. Farming methods are always evolving and people can product a huge amount of food on a very small plot. I read an article this morning about a guy in CA that produces 7000lbs of food each year on 1/10th of an acre without any enclosures or synthetic fertilizer. He sells most of it and eats the rest.

To say that current methods aren't sustainable is sort of confusing to me. What methods 50 years ago to process anything do we currently use now? How about 100 years ago? Everything changes and becomes much more efficient and productive. To worry about how we are going to do things 200+ years from now when (we think) there will be way more people on the earth then now, is a total waste of time. One technology blows comes in and totally changes the game. Just to name one...how many trees do you think email has saved? How about fossil fuel savings with video conferencing?

All of our methods on how we live on this earth will change. We just don't know what they are yet.

In modern times, plague and war have wiped people out. After that, dramatic weather events. I'm sure we haven't seen the last of either.

 

[peakbagger]

Overpopulation isn't as much of an issue in first world countries as the birth rate is low. Its the third world that is exploding. Overconcentration of population is also occurring, rural populations are getting driven to the edges of cities in third world emerging economies to provide cheap labor. The big problem is that dense populations with poor infrastructure breeds epidemics. There have already been a few close calls where common diseases have mutated and hopped from animals to people. Overpopulation issues can suddenly become under population if the right bug pops up. The latest Ebola outbreak got real close to a large city with ready poor medical and infrastructure with river access to other large cities. Once a bad disease gets into a large population they tend to flee and local epidemic can get real big like the last Ebola epidemic. The flu vaccines are getting less and less effective every year. Unfortunately its takes far too long to come up with altered vaccine. There is an effort to come up with universal vaccine but its may take years to hit. Even Tamiflu which was the wonder drug several years ago doesn't work with certain recent strains. They had it out like candy at the nursing home my parents live in.

The world went through a pandemic in 1920 where 3 to 5% of the world population died as a result of mutated flu virus called the Spanish Flu. Aids is far more difficult to transmit and it still took out a lot of the African population.

 

[sportbikerider78]

200 years ago, we were the 3rd world country having 5-10 kids per couple. Disease took many for lots of reasons...mostly similar to 3rd world countries of today....IF they have a government that lets them make money. If not...life continues in misery. Give them 50 years and things change very rapidly. Look at South Korea. Most of the 40 yr olds can't drive because being able to afford a car is a new phenomenon. Their cities are booming and people are moving in. Kids still poop in the city streets and much of it is still very underdeveloped, but as their new found capitalism takes hold, their infrastructure will improve. In 20 years, it will be counter-culture to poop in the streets. Disease will lessen and people will adopt western habits to go along with 1st world facilities.

 

[CaptSpiff]

Look at South Korea. ..... Kids still poop in the city streets and much of it is still very underdeveloped, but as their new found capitalism takes hold, their infrastructure will improve.

Where in South Korea are you seeing this???

 

[sportbikerider78]

Where in South Korea are you seeing this???

Outskirts of Seoul. Still the city.
Country of 1000 bad smells. lol

 

[bholler]

I think once in my life I have talked with someone about overpopulation. They were really on the fence if it was an issue or not..and then we quickly moved to another topic because people are going to reproduce and there is nothing anyone will do about that...nor should they. Of course, you see it in lots of news outlets, but that doesn't mean it is on anyone's mind.

The amount of rural areas, even in a state like NY, are just incredible. Country everywhere. Space everywhere.
The human race is very resourceful. Farming methods are always evolving and people can product a huge amount of food on a very small plot. I read an article this morning about a guy in CA that produces 7000lbs of food each year on 1/10th of an acre without any enclosures or synthetic fertilizer. He sells most of it and eats the rest.

To say that current methods aren't sustainable is sort of confusing to me. What methods 50 years ago to process anything do we currently use now? How about 100 years ago? Everything changes and becomes much more efficient and productive. To worry about how we are going to do things 200+ years from now when (we think) there will be way more people on the earth then now, is a total waste of time. One technology blows comes in and totally changes the game. Just to name one...how many trees do you think email has saved? How about fossil fuel savings with video conferencing?

All of our methods on how we live on this earth will change. We just don't know what they are yet.

In modern times, plague and war have wiped people out. After that, dramatic weather events. I'm sure we haven't seen the last of either.

So you really think that the finite space of our planet can indefinatly support population growth???

And yes much of our food supply has moved to high yeild factory farms. And that makes our food supply more vulnerable to disease or natual disasters. For example in summers holidays etc during college i worked at a dairy plant. When i started there they bought from many small local farms. The one summer when i came back they had switched to 2 large factory dairy operations. It worked good for a while and was cheaper. But then one of the farms herds got an infection that spread through the heard. They needed to give them all antibiotics which means their milk cant be used. That meant our plant only had access to half the milk it needed. And we couldnt fill the orders for our stores. It also meant we didnt have enough cream for the icecream plant either. Luckily that only lasted 3 weeks but it could be much worse. And that was only on a small scale. So yes we can produce more food on less land but it comes at a cost.

 

[Where2]

I agree. The potential of tidal, and micro hydro would lead to a stable and very decentralized power supply.

The monopoly power companies will not appreciate the addition of a secondary decentralized structure, and neither will the government who skims a percentage of the cost of said electrical energy in the form of taxes.

Do I think decentralized power supply will grow in availability in the future? Sure.
Do I think the monopolies heavily lobbying the government will impose "excise taxes" on property owners who are trying to decentralize the power system? Absolutely!

Our state has gone from incentivizing electric vehicles to penalizing them. Starting last year we have been paying a $150 excise tax for our electric vehicle at license renewal. If this was a gas vehicle then the equivalent gas taxes would be $64. About 17 or 18 states now charge an electric vehicle fee. Of course funding needs to be raised to support roads and bridges and transit, but penalizing electric vehicles is not the best way to solve the problem.

Just look at the EV tax structure quoted above as a great example of how a system will evolve to collect what is missing from the tax collection system.

Am I planning on owning an EV in the future? The 5.6kW of PV in my garage (to be DIY installed), coupled to the 4.4kW presently on my roof is more than my house alone needs, but not more than an EV plus house will easily consume. Having a little less grass to mow in the backyard with the IC engined mower won't hurt either...

 

[sportbikerider78]

So you really think that the finite space of our planet can indefinatly support population growth???

For the next couple hundred years? Yeah...most likely with advances in technology.

But if it couldn't, what would you do about it right now? Any plan would have to be based on actionable facts, which we have none. Life is too short to try and change things you can't change.

 

[bholler]

For the next couple hundred years? Yeah...most likely with advances in technology.

But if it couldn't, what would you do about it right now? Any plan would have to be based on actionable facts, which we have none. Life is too short to try and change things you can't change.

Yes we do have facts supporting you jusr choose to ignore them

 

[Cast Iron]

Do we really need to emphasize that wood is the ONLY renewable, sustainable, and carbon-free source of heat for temperate zones ?
Yes, limited to a very few.
Is this hearthnet ?

 

[pdf27]

Fact: wind and solar ALONE can never supply anywhere close to the needs of the civilised world. The concentration of what is an in reality intermittent source of power is non science.

It could, but you have to do so on a very, very big scale. Yes, that's a solar array the size of Portugal and storage would have to be equivalently massive (probably as natural gas in depleted gas fields).

Light transportation can be electrified, the costs are still falling. The result is lower carbon even with current grid electricity. And EVs DO help with intermittency of wind and solar through demand management, and are synergistic with the declining cost of grid storage.

EVs are pushing at an open door with the shift to self-driving cars and on-demand mobility. When you open the app and call a car, the system knows exactly how far you want to go and can send a car with the right stage of charge. Going a long way? It can send one of a small number of cars with either a very big battery or an IC engine - but only a tiny fraction of journeys will need this. For this sort of thing electric cars are hugely attractive to fleet managers - total cost of ownership is radically reduced and reliability increased, plus they don't have to worry about mixed fleets to deal with cities that have tight air pollution restrictions.

I used to feel similarly, V2G is a no-brainer right?

The numbers are a little different. In round figures for 2018, the batteries in my EV cost $200/kWh and are likely good for ~1000 full discharge cycles (or their equivalent). This means that the lifecycle cost of each kWh to the motor is the cost of charging (with a 8% charging cycle loss) plus 20 cents/kWh. So if I was going to do V2G....why would I do that for less than 20 cents/kWh?

We can quibble on the math....2000 cycles at low power and gentle SOC, etc. but in the end, current V2G is just way too expensive.

Interestingly, it turns out if you do V2G right it actually improves battery life slightly - see https://warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/clean_energy_stored/ .

One thing I’ve always wondered, since you’re discussing Geothermal on very large (national) scales, is the potential geological impact. Folks have their head in the sand when they consider it an infinite heat source without consequence, as much as many once considered hydro, prior to realizing the havoc dams create on the environment.

Ummm.... if the earth was purely hot from when it was first formed, the core would have frozen solid millions of years ago. It's heated by radioactive decay in the core, and has long since reached a steady state temperature. Taking geothermal power from it will only have a local effect (the thermal conductivity of rock is pretty poor so you might get local cold-spots where you take heat out), rather than a global one.

 

[bholler]

Do we really need to emphasize that wood is the ONLY renewable, sustainable, and carbon-free source of heat for temperate zones ?
Yes, limited to a very few.
Is this hearthnet ?

No wood is not carbon free. It is closer than almost anything else but not carbon free. This is also not hearthnet. It is hearth.com

 

[Easy Livin’ 3000]

When I was a kid, I always put too many fish in the fish tank, and it would always end the same way. Either they would start to eat one another, or an invisible build-up of some fatal chemical would result in a mass die-off.

The atmosphere is our aquarium glass walls. Hopefully we don't resort to Soylent green, or make the atmosphere so poisonous, like I learned about as a kid with the fish tank. Education and technology are the solutions, our will to do something as a global society is the weak link.

I try not to worry too much about it. I probably wont be around to experience the outcome, or maybe an asteroid will render it all moot anyway.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

Nature was taking care of the out of balance fish tank. Either fish were turned into biomass, and/or bacteria reproduced to consume the ammonia and convert it to nitrite. Then a different bacteria will convert it to nitrate. If you had a deep enough substrate, the nitrate would be handled by anaerobic bacteria.

Nature will always win. Humans can win the small battles, but long term, nature will win.

You needed to give your fish tank time to cycle.

 

[bholler]

Nature was taking care of the out of balance fish tank. Either fish were turned into biomass, and/or bacteria reproduced to consume the ammonia and convert it to nitrite. Then a different bacteria will convert it to nitrate. If you had a deep enough substrate, the nitrate would be handled by anaerobic bacteria.

Nature will always win. Humans can win the small battles, but long term, nature will win.

You needed to give your fish tank time to cycle.

Yes eventually nature will win. Who do you think looses? And nature will find its balance again after we are gone.