Renewable energy
- Thread starter 73Marshall
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
These are very important problems to solve in the future. This video cuts off half way but I went on to the original one on the tube to finish the watching of it...Thank you for sharing it and what the man said I believe is very true...I am not optimistic in regard to this but technology is progressing with each generation and these younger people will have to sort this out in the future because it is going to be their world..Our whole way of life and culture is changing right before our eyes and I really just do not have the strength or quick mind to deal with it...But I understand it and what he said in my heart I know is true...old mrs clancey
Michael Shellenberger is well spoken and mostly correct. He does seem to neglect grid scale storage as an alternative/solution to the intermittency of renewables. Nor is there mention of an interactive grid where loads such as EV's could be varied to match production much in the same way produce is matched to the load today.
I do agree with him on Nuclear, IMO nuclear is the cornerstone that makes a carbon free electrical grid possible. That being said natural gas is still a significant achievement over coal, a combined cycle natural gas plant operating at 60% efficiency produces less than half the CO2 emissions of a thermal coal plant at 30-40% efficiency.
Solar and wind still have their place, I don't intend on pulling the panels from my roof, and I believe roof top solar can still be done at a competitive price and used to offset some or all of the electrical consumption from residential and commercial consumers. I know at least this is becoming the case here, other places the breakeven point has already been reached.
Habitat destruction is no joke, and the consequences need to be taken seriously, but in all existing industries (oil and gas, logging, agriculture) some damage or loss to the existing environment is generally considered acceptable. I don't like solar thermal plants (the bird killing ones he mentions) as solar PV has so enough other advantages with less complexity to make it the go to choice, but is there an acceptable area the planet can afford to loose from the desert in order to prevent climate catastrophe? Is it fair to turn the other way to logging practices that see a section of forest clear cut every 80 years, or see mountains permanently lost to coal mining, while at the same time criticizing solar for the exact same thing?
I do agree with him on Nuclear, IMO nuclear is the cornerstone that makes a carbon free electrical grid possible. That being said natural gas is still a significant achievement over coal, a combined cycle natural gas plant operating at 60% efficiency produces less than half the CO2 emissions of a thermal coal plant at 30-40% efficiency.
Solar and wind still have their place, I don't intend on pulling the panels from my roof, and I believe roof top solar can still be done at a competitive price and used to offset some or all of the electrical consumption from residential and commercial consumers. I know at least this is becoming the case here, other places the breakeven point has already been reached.
Habitat destruction is no joke, and the consequences need to be taken seriously, but in all existing industries (oil and gas, logging, agriculture) some damage or loss to the existing environment is generally considered acceptable. I don't like solar thermal plants (the bird killing ones he mentions) as solar PV has so enough other advantages with less complexity to make it the go to choice, but is there an acceptable area the planet can afford to loose from the desert in order to prevent climate catastrophe? Is it fair to turn the other way to logging practices that see a section of forest clear cut every 80 years, or see mountains permanently lost to coal mining, while at the same time criticizing solar for the exact same thing?
First they said said Wind power didn't work. Then they said it was too expensive. Then they said there isn't enough of it.
Next they said Solar was a joke. Then they said it was too expensive. Then they said it was too intermittent.
All of these thing we now know to be wrong.
Where are we now? The current price of grid storage for day-level intermittency is somewhat higher than the current price of electricity. This is not a problem today bc the amount of wind+solar is low enough in most places ramping gas plants evens it out. So we can keep building wind and solar. Cost projections on the price of grid storage suggest it will be affordable around when wind and solar get to the point that we need it. Building EVs drives DOWN the cost of batteries and thus grid storage, so the two are synergistic. Smart money knows this and is throwing massive amounts of private capital at this. No problem here.
Seasonal storage IS a big problem. The solar resource in New England is pretty good on an annual basis, but almost negligible in Jan/Feb due to cloud cover, just when annual energy demand is highest. Batteries are not ever going to be cheap enough for seasonal storage. Current IDEAS are overbuilding solar capacity (ok if cheap enough), fielding different tech regionally (hello offshore wind New England), and HVDC interconnects between regions (New England buys solar power from the SE US, costs depend on right of way development) and/or bulk storage of energy in H2 or NH4. We won't need to worry about this for a few more years. Watch this space, but I won't pretend that a cheap solution exists.
And Ivanpah (discussed here extensively) was an experiment. And widely seen as a failed one at this point. What that has to do with rooftop or utility (PV) solar is not at all clear. Its manipulative.
Habitat destruction? Yup, its a BIG problem. But mostly due to agriculture, and by extension animal protein production and overfishing. The solution is obvious... eat less animal protein overall, or less intense animal protein like poultry and eggs. I personally have swapped out ground beef in several family recipes for Impossible, and no one can tell the difference. And the kids know this already.
This dude is a book writer, not an engineer. He loves him some nukes. I have no concerns about nuke safety or disposal, btw. While nukes are obv not intermittent (thus his choice of bugaboo), they have their own issues. Number one is cost. Which is currently higher than wind/solar+grid storage at 2021 costs. Normally, costs can only be brought down substantially by learning curve effects, and for nukes it is hard to argue that that has not already partially happened, or that we could get much benefit without building a vast amount more. Conversely, some argue that NEW TECH will make them cost effective. I haven't seen a lot of investor line up to fund the existing proposals, though. Huh. Number two is scaling, the current fuel cycle is super inefficient and will burn through known uranium stores in decades if scaled. So, maybe a 'bridge fuel' until better renewables mature? People talk about breeders or thorium, but the experiments with those have NOT gone well, and have looked complex/costly.
On the positive side... nuke baseload could have a role for seasonal supply in otherwise hard to serve regions. The true cost if passed to the consumer would be onerous, so it would probably be borne by the regional govt in some way as an economic development goal (exactly like legacy nukes and large hydro). IOW, the govt will step in with money bags to fill gaps in a future zero-carbon system.
But follow the money. So far it has been, and is betting on wind+solar+batteries.
Next they said Solar was a joke. Then they said it was too expensive. Then they said it was too intermittent.
All of these thing we now know to be wrong.
Where are we now? The current price of grid storage for day-level intermittency is somewhat higher than the current price of electricity. This is not a problem today bc the amount of wind+solar is low enough in most places ramping gas plants evens it out. So we can keep building wind and solar. Cost projections on the price of grid storage suggest it will be affordable around when wind and solar get to the point that we need it. Building EVs drives DOWN the cost of batteries and thus grid storage, so the two are synergistic. Smart money knows this and is throwing massive amounts of private capital at this. No problem here.
Seasonal storage IS a big problem. The solar resource in New England is pretty good on an annual basis, but almost negligible in Jan/Feb due to cloud cover, just when annual energy demand is highest. Batteries are not ever going to be cheap enough for seasonal storage. Current IDEAS are overbuilding solar capacity (ok if cheap enough), fielding different tech regionally (hello offshore wind New England), and HVDC interconnects between regions (New England buys solar power from the SE US, costs depend on right of way development) and/or bulk storage of energy in H2 or NH4. We won't need to worry about this for a few more years. Watch this space, but I won't pretend that a cheap solution exists.
And Ivanpah (discussed here extensively) was an experiment. And widely seen as a failed one at this point. What that has to do with rooftop or utility (PV) solar is not at all clear. Its manipulative.
Habitat destruction? Yup, its a BIG problem. But mostly due to agriculture, and by extension animal protein production and overfishing. The solution is obvious... eat less animal protein overall, or less intense animal protein like poultry and eggs. I personally have swapped out ground beef in several family recipes for Impossible, and no one can tell the difference. And the kids know this already.
This dude is a book writer, not an engineer. He loves him some nukes. I have no concerns about nuke safety or disposal, btw. While nukes are obv not intermittent (thus his choice of bugaboo), they have their own issues. Number one is cost. Which is currently higher than wind/solar+grid storage at 2021 costs. Normally, costs can only be brought down substantially by learning curve effects, and for nukes it is hard to argue that that has not already partially happened, or that we could get much benefit without building a vast amount more. Conversely, some argue that NEW TECH will make them cost effective. I haven't seen a lot of investor line up to fund the existing proposals, though. Huh. Number two is scaling, the current fuel cycle is super inefficient and will burn through known uranium stores in decades if scaled. So, maybe a 'bridge fuel' until better renewables mature? People talk about breeders or thorium, but the experiments with those have NOT gone well, and have looked complex/costly.
On the positive side... nuke baseload could have a role for seasonal supply in otherwise hard to serve regions. The true cost if passed to the consumer would be onerous, so it would probably be borne by the regional govt in some way as an economic development goal (exactly like legacy nukes and large hydro). IOW, the govt will step in with money bags to fill gaps in a future zero-carbon system.
But follow the money. So far it has been, and is betting on wind+solar+batteries.
Last edited:
Schellenberger is a cool dude, as mentioned he's just an old PR/marketing guy turned author so his books are usually full of both correct and incorrect information to sell his chosen narrative. Usually he sticks his neck out too far on climate, but on nuclear he's usually not too bad. The main problem absolutely is affordability of the projects. Virtually everyone knows strategically we are going to need nuclear in the mix if we want societies to continue, the main thing is how to sell it and not go broke buying and building it. Right now smaller unitized reactors are being worked on for quicker manufacturing, deployment and permitting is on the table, sort of like Ford did with the Model T. The other thing I've heard as an idea to help offset the costs is using the energy for carbon capture, which is now a necessity for continued survival long term anyway. The idea is to make carbon capture an intermittent demand to soak up nuke power when the sun or wind kicks into overdrive so they don't have to ramp the turbines down. Problem is no one figured out how to make that profitable yet. The third solution is of course the plethora of grid storage hopes, pumped hydro, EV's are already grid storage once batteries get just a little bit better so they can flip the switch on vehicle 2 grid which most believe is one of Tesla's long-term power plays as a revenue stream for them (and their customers/owners).
stoveliker
Minister of Fire
I agree about the nuclear. Better have some space (a cubic mile) off limits for a long time than polluting the whole atmosphere a little.
I read the EU is proposing to invest 500 billion euros in new nuclear plants (to try to reach their self imposed CO2 targets).
I read the EU is proposing to invest 500 billion euros in new nuclear plants (to try to reach their self imposed CO2 targets).
The German party in power are very upset about this approach since they shut down their nuclear program.
semipro
Minister of Fire
Let's not forget fusion.
Maybe I'm overly optimistic but it seems we've seen some significant progress with it lately.
Maybe I'm overly optimistic but it seems we've seen some significant progress with it lately.
I want to see how offshore wind in the northeast works out, unlike on shore wind, offshore has a much higher capacity factor. There is no standard fix, every region will have a different answer and country scale high voltage DC transmission lines are probably going to be in the picture to move power between regions.
stoveliker
Minister of Fire
Well, the Germans do a lot of things right, recently. This (nuclear) is not one of them - in my opinion.
stoveliker
Minister of Fire
Yes. But it remains a gamble. In my view we should not gamble (anymore). If it works out, we'll be ahead. If not we should still do everything needed to save the only planet with bourbon (I don't care about chocolate)...
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
I don't think humans can convert farmland to energy as efficiently as cattle or other large ruminants. The farmland required to feed humans would eclipse what is currently used for animal fodder. Humans can't eat clover and orchard grass, cows can and there's plenty of fields already in existence. South African farmers have figured out rotational grazing in a way that doesn't destroy habitats and yields high quality beef.
There is a strong point to be made for poultry over red meat, especially with turkeys that can put on a lot of mass very quickly. Unfortunately "factory farmed" poultry lines taste terrible, are less healthy, and the birds themselves can't live beyond 12 weeks old under normal circumstances (for meat chickens at least, not sure on the timeline for meat turkeys). Heritage poultry breeds get around the ethical problems, but they are much less efficient at converting grain into meat than the "meat birds".
Maybe the future of food is lab cultured meat that doesn't come from actual animals. I just wonder how the efficiency is going to work out since those muscle/meat tissues are "fed" with carbohydrates derived from farmed plant matter.
It seems like traditional Russian reindeer farmers/herders have figured this efficiency thing out, but not everyone could eat from the Russian herds.
Ultimately it seems that our current system of factory monoculture farms just isn't actually working out. Smaller diversified farms that create functional ecosystems are the future. Just like it used to be with every town and city having farms on the outskirts feeding that town. This is what I see in the future.
There is a strong point to be made for poultry over red meat, especially with turkeys that can put on a lot of mass very quickly. Unfortunately "factory farmed" poultry lines taste terrible, are less healthy, and the birds themselves can't live beyond 12 weeks old under normal circumstances (for meat chickens at least, not sure on the timeline for meat turkeys). Heritage poultry breeds get around the ethical problems, but they are much less efficient at converting grain into meat than the "meat birds".
Maybe the future of food is lab cultured meat that doesn't come from actual animals. I just wonder how the efficiency is going to work out since those muscle/meat tissues are "fed" with carbohydrates derived from farmed plant matter.
It seems like traditional Russian reindeer farmers/herders have figured this efficiency thing out, but not everyone could eat from the Russian herds.
Ultimately it seems that our current system of factory monoculture farms just isn't actually working out. Smaller diversified farms that create functional ecosystems are the future. Just like it used to be with every town and city having farms on the outskirts feeding that town. This is what I see in the future.
stoveliker
Minister of Fire
I'm a little surprised by the ruminant angle above; it is quite well known that the energy losses to produce meat (using warm-blooded animals) are humongous. Wheat gives quite more calories per acre than beef... (i.e. comparing human-intake calories per acre).
Yes, ruminants can convert useless (to us) grass and clover etc into useful (to us) calories. But saying it's more efficient per acre is, I believe, not true, when measured in human-consumable calories per acre?
(And no, I'm certainly not a vegetarian...)
I googled "calories per acre beef", and don't know the background of this website (pushing an agenda or not) - but the table here is consistent in what I've read before. I can't vouch for the accuracy of these numbers (at this time - and I'm unlikely to try to find out; see earlier notion elsewhere about confirmation bias...).
Yes, ruminants can convert useless (to us) grass and clover etc into useful (to us) calories. But saying it's more efficient per acre is, I believe, not true, when measured in human-consumable calories per acre?
(And no, I'm certainly not a vegetarian...)
I googled "calories per acre beef", and don't know the background of this website (pushing an agenda or not) - but the table here is consistent in what I've read before. I can't vouch for the accuracy of these numbers (at this time - and I'm unlikely to try to find out; see earlier notion elsewhere about confirmation bias...).
Calories per acre for various foods
we could feed many more people with the same amount of land if we all became vegetarians, but only if we stuck to potatoes and corn.
www.waldeneffect.org
Looks like we should all be eating potatoes.
That being said there is land that is of little use and is used as pasture land, it happens quite frequently up here, its mixed forest with small trees unsuitable for logging, and the land is too wet to be cleared for modern agriculture, so it is grazed in the summer and fall with cattle.
I wonder how the math works out for cattle grazed on grass or pastureland? Is grass more efficient than corn because the entire plant is edible instead of just the kernals?
We try to buy locally produced "free range" meat and eggs as much as possible. I wouldn't consider myself an animal rights activist, but I find the conditions in the large commercial poultry farms and cattle feedlots deplorable.
It seems weird to measure acres as the constraining variable, since acres aren't normally a strong limit or constraint. Usually I see things like water per calorie or energy use per calorie, although vegan/vegetarian like to sometimes oddly use water/energy per kg since that metric masks the low calorie density of a lot of plant foods relative to inputs. It also depends on what macro-nutrients you want to focus on producing relative to whatever constraint(s) you have. Here is one I found on a quick search for water consumption, no idea on the quality of the chart: https://waterfootprint.org/en/water...int/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/ Water seems like the wall we might hit first with desertification and aquifer depletion in the US at least. Ruminants score all over the map, cattle usually stick out as relatively poor performers, but the whole suborder is uniquely adapted to marginal land uses not often suitable for other agriculture, not to mention the local/small scale resilient applications or closed loop low tech use cases.
We'll probably still be using synthetic fertilizer for better or worse for a long time, and that also means getting energy for that from solar/wind/hydro/nukes. Organic fertilizer too, but that assumes animal agriculture sufficient to act as the intensifier for the nitrogen cycle, or human excreta reuse... Lab grown stuff I have no idea on the energy balance or other scale-up pitfalls if any. Right now we use Haber-Bosch which needs fossil inputs, but we can also use other techniques to use the atmospheric nitrogen along with other catalysts and electric input to synthesize ammonia for the nitrogen cycle. Phosphorus is another constraint we'll be facing, as we mostly mine it, and then through farm runoff put a good amount of the mined phosphorus in the ocean where it is dilute and hard to recover. That's peak phosphorus and is actively debated, proven reserves say several hundred years, but the estimates are not really independently checked or verified so caveat emptor. This list goes on down into "peak everything" territory, which is technically a truism for any non-renewable mineral or resource harvesting where recycling potential is not 100% or where continuous exponential growth is the expected human use case.
Luckily agriculture overall is a minority of our energy pie, even though there are many multiples of calories used to make each food calorie it's still only about 10% of the whole pie, so we could still technically do food production at a ~90% loss of available energy output or sources. It should be noted that in the past energy and ammonia for farming is also used for war making, with the latter often taking historical precedence.
Energy is kinda the gorilla in the room but there sure are a lot of other smaller monkeys running all over the place too.
We'll probably still be using synthetic fertilizer for better or worse for a long time, and that also means getting energy for that from solar/wind/hydro/nukes. Organic fertilizer too, but that assumes animal agriculture sufficient to act as the intensifier for the nitrogen cycle, or human excreta reuse... Lab grown stuff I have no idea on the energy balance or other scale-up pitfalls if any. Right now we use Haber-Bosch which needs fossil inputs, but we can also use other techniques to use the atmospheric nitrogen along with other catalysts and electric input to synthesize ammonia for the nitrogen cycle. Phosphorus is another constraint we'll be facing, as we mostly mine it, and then through farm runoff put a good amount of the mined phosphorus in the ocean where it is dilute and hard to recover. That's peak phosphorus and is actively debated, proven reserves say several hundred years, but the estimates are not really independently checked or verified so caveat emptor. This list goes on down into "peak everything" territory, which is technically a truism for any non-renewable mineral or resource harvesting where recycling potential is not 100% or where continuous exponential growth is the expected human use case.
Luckily agriculture overall is a minority of our energy pie, even though there are many multiples of calories used to make each food calorie it's still only about 10% of the whole pie, so we could still technically do food production at a ~90% loss of available energy output or sources. It should be noted that in the past energy and ammonia for farming is also used for war making, with the latter often taking historical precedence.
Energy is kinda the gorilla in the room but there sure are a lot of other smaller monkeys running all over the place too.
stoveliker
Minister of Fire
Yes, meat is rather water intensive too.
Moreover, land is not an issue in this country, maybe (though some would disagree, I guess). In other locations it is.
Regardless, all these problems (energy, land use etc) have many relevant parameters that would alter the optimal mix for each location..
Moreover, land is not an issue in this country, maybe (though some would disagree, I guess). In other locations it is.
Regardless, all these problems (energy, land use etc) have many relevant parameters that would alter the optimal mix for each location..
I brought up beef production in the context of habitat destruction. The OP video said we don't have enough land for renewable energy production, which is utter BS. Humans have already taken over the majority of the planet's land that is capable of supporting green plants, devoted it to intensive agriculture, and is feeding much/most of the product to food animals, that are being eaten by a (rich) subset of those humans.
There is not enough land to feed the beeves to give everyone currently alive the beef consumption of Americans.
I am trying to say this in a 'non-judgey' way. Neither good nor bad, just what is happening.
IMO the future is NOT 'lab grown' meat (which is hugely inefficient to produce). It is 'plant based' meat. The Impossible brand engineered plant protein that tastes like real meat by adding Heme protein grown in GMO yeast.
So, sure, we could sustainably graze animals on marginal land (in principle), but that is not what is being done, and the amount of beef made that way would be a drop in the bucket of demand. As it is we grow vast amounts of corn and soybeans and send them to feedlots.
If we reduced our beef consumption (with or without plant based meat substitution) the land freed up would be larger than that needed to a 100% renewable energy system. And don't get me started on Ethanol!
There is not enough land to feed the beeves to give everyone currently alive the beef consumption of Americans.
I am trying to say this in a 'non-judgey' way. Neither good nor bad, just what is happening.
IMO the future is NOT 'lab grown' meat (which is hugely inefficient to produce). It is 'plant based' meat. The Impossible brand engineered plant protein that tastes like real meat by adding Heme protein grown in GMO yeast.
So, sure, we could sustainably graze animals on marginal land (in principle), but that is not what is being done, and the amount of beef made that way would be a drop in the bucket of demand. As it is we grow vast amounts of corn and soybeans and send them to feedlots.
If we reduced our beef consumption (with or without plant based meat substitution) the land freed up would be larger than that needed to a 100% renewable energy system. And don't get me started on Ethanol!
People like to talk about how few decades there were between Kitty Hawk and commercial aviation, or for that matter, the moon landing.
I like to point out that that is misleading. Human flight did not start in 1903 at Kitty Hawk. It started in in 1783 with the Montgolfier brothers in Paris! It was close to 150 years later that we had commercial flight.
And lest you think that ballon thing was not important, it was. The 1800s were filled with depictions of a 'just around the corner' era of universal aviation. With all of us having a little dirigibles in our garage powered by oars or propellors hooked up to bicycle petals.
Rufus Porter Airship | New England Aviation History
My point: if history is any guide, practical fusion could be around the corner (50 years from its start) or take another 100 years to materialize.
EbS-P
Minister of Fire
So how about a residential combine cycle natural gas generator? How is this better than a high efficiency gas heater/water heater? Can it really be cheaper to generate your own electricity?
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
Ruminants don't eat grain, or at least they shouldn't, their digestive system is not set up for it. Ruminants eat primarily grasses and things that humans specifically do not eat. They are the kings of converting low value foods into high value foods. Ruminants include not just cattle, but camelids, equines, pork, rabbit, sheep, and goat. Rabbits are usually regarded as the most efficient converters of grass into proteins, but they are a bit more laborious to breed and farm. Humans used to build much more diverse farms without monocultures that destroy environments.
In keeping with the alternative energy thread, sheep and goats are usually great at cohabitating on solar farms. They keep the weeds and grasses from getting out of control and basically double the energy produced from the same plot of land. Cattle would be more efficient and less labor intensive, but they can damage the solar panel equipment.
"Plant based meats" are not necessarily better. They are loaded with sodium, fat, and cholesterol, and not the good kinds that you find in actual meat. They are junk food plain and simple, much like many other "plant based" foods like donuts.
Humans also shouldn't be eating tons and tons of grain, we only do because they are easy to intensively grow. Furthermore the food waste from the US could probably feed the whole world. Chickens are much more efficient at converting grain into protein than humans, and were one of the primary food sources across the world for centuries.
Most fruit isn't even that great for humans being mostly easily absorbed carbohydrates and some fiber. They take a lot of energy and resources to grow, but I'm sure we would all be sad without fruit products.
I do think nuclear power does need more investments and to be brought back "into the fold".
In keeping with the alternative energy thread, sheep and goats are usually great at cohabitating on solar farms. They keep the weeds and grasses from getting out of control and basically double the energy produced from the same plot of land. Cattle would be more efficient and less labor intensive, but they can damage the solar panel equipment.
"Plant based meats" are not necessarily better. They are loaded with sodium, fat, and cholesterol, and not the good kinds that you find in actual meat. They are junk food plain and simple, much like many other "plant based" foods like donuts.
Humans also shouldn't be eating tons and tons of grain, we only do because they are easy to intensively grow. Furthermore the food waste from the US could probably feed the whole world. Chickens are much more efficient at converting grain into protein than humans, and were one of the primary food sources across the world for centuries.
Most fruit isn't even that great for humans being mostly easily absorbed carbohydrates and some fiber. They take a lot of energy and resources to grow, but I'm sure we would all be sad without fruit products.
I do think nuclear power does need more investments and to be brought back "into the fold".
The bigger issue here with renewable energy is the SCOPE of the problem. We don't need to JUST (1) switch our (let's say North American) energy systems over to renewable electricity, we ALSO (2) need to come up with a system that the rest of the world can duplicate to match our lifestyle!
The first thing (1) will require roughly DOUBLING the output of the US electrical grid, while decarbonizing it. I've said before that that growth is actually helpful to the transition....it brings in new investment and jobs and a more dynamic and innovative mindset. Allowing 'clean sheet' designs and projects.
But the bigger issue is (2). Roughly a billion people currently use 'energy services' at a level comparable (within a factor of 2) to the US, and another 7 billion get by on far less. I'm not saying they are in abject poverty, merely that as they become wealthier, they will use their money to purchase more energy, just like we did 50-100 year ago.
So we don't need to just replace the current global energy system with renewables, we have increase its output 5-10 fold to account for that demand increase before 2100!
(And when they get wealthy, they will want to eat like us too. There isn't enough acres to run the feedlots to increase global beef production by 5-10x what it is currently, let alone switch all those animals to 'free range' diets, which takes even more land).
So, nukes. Right now, nukes provide 20% of US power with 94 plants. We would need to increase that by 10x to decarbonize the US energy needs (incl heating and transportation) without renewables; 1000 nuke plants. And by 50-100X !! to give the current world population our access to energy services, 5000-10,000 plants. At that scale, we don't have nearly enough uranium (without breeders or thorium).
Conversely, we DO have enough agriculture to feed all those people today. If we want to scale global meat production 5-10x, we will need to scale plant based substitutes instead.
And the engineers tell us that there IS enough land and minerals and metals to build out THAT MUCH wind and solar and batteries to meet THAT global need.
The first thing (1) will require roughly DOUBLING the output of the US electrical grid, while decarbonizing it. I've said before that that growth is actually helpful to the transition....it brings in new investment and jobs and a more dynamic and innovative mindset. Allowing 'clean sheet' designs and projects.
But the bigger issue is (2). Roughly a billion people currently use 'energy services' at a level comparable (within a factor of 2) to the US, and another 7 billion get by on far less. I'm not saying they are in abject poverty, merely that as they become wealthier, they will use their money to purchase more energy, just like we did 50-100 year ago.
So we don't need to just replace the current global energy system with renewables, we have increase its output 5-10 fold to account for that demand increase before 2100!
(And when they get wealthy, they will want to eat like us too. There isn't enough acres to run the feedlots to increase global beef production by 5-10x what it is currently, let alone switch all those animals to 'free range' diets, which takes even more land).
So, nukes. Right now, nukes provide 20% of US power with 94 plants. We would need to increase that by 10x to decarbonize the US energy needs (incl heating and transportation) without renewables; 1000 nuke plants. And by 50-100X !! to give the current world population our access to energy services, 5000-10,000 plants. At that scale, we don't have nearly enough uranium (without breeders or thorium).
Conversely, we DO have enough agriculture to feed all those people today. If we want to scale global meat production 5-10x, we will need to scale plant based substitutes instead.
And the engineers tell us that there IS enough land and minerals and metals to build out THAT MUCH wind and solar and batteries to meet THAT global need.
I'd agree that current plant based meats aren't necessarily better but you ought to check your self on the cholesterol claim. Perhaps you meant saturated fat?
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
I agree that plant based meats are not 'healthy', or even healthier as a substitute for ground beef. The fat is coconut oil with a similar saturated fat content as beef.
I use it as a component of a 'flexitarian' or 'climatarian' diet which does not include a lot of meat (plant based or otherwise).
I use it as a component of a 'flexitarian' or 'climatarian' diet which does not include a lot of meat (plant based or otherwise).
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
It is tasty. I don't know if I've had the "impossible" brand, but I've gotten "Field Burgers" from the local grocery store several times. I also can't see it being as energy efficient as raising meat animals with "holistic" environmental practices. For the animal I just raise it and eat it, very minimal processing involved in cooking the meat. For plant based meat alternatives you have to do a whole lot more to the plants that are otherwise edible as they are from the ground. There's definitely a lot of carbon and habitat destruction involved in monoculture factory farms growing crops and then transporting them to a processing facility, and then transporting those processed foods to stores, and then to transport again to your home.
All of my red meat comes from a licensed processing facility less than two hours away. and all the animals processed are also from a two hour driving radius. Most Maine farms are not large factory farms, more of a "mid size" farm, and most can't afford to feed their herds tons and tons of grain. Instead they rotationally graze their herds, supplement with hay in the winter for dairy or breeding cows, and do not use drugs unless absolutely necessary. Most of the houses on the main road near my house have chickens or rabbits.
I know this kind of local farming isn't possible in places like Boston, NYC, etc, and those places will be relying on more processed foods and stuff that has to be shipped great distances. All of the produce we buy in the winter is shipped from at least the giant indoor greenhouses in Southern Maine, most even further. That being said, we also don't buy exotic fruits and veg and eat seasonally. We also have a growing vegetable garden, but that can't provide all the veg we need. We also got lucky and have plenty of wild apples, blackberries, and blueberries, so lots of fresh pie in the fall.
Maine is also pretty progressive in terms of non-fossil fuel energy, but there is so much opposition to any kind of development. One of the two power companies also said it would cost millions of dollars to connect many renewable energy sources to the main grid, but then was suddenly willing to do it for $700k when a probe by Gov Mills was launched into why it was going to be so expensive. With so much push back on anything other than coal and gas power it's no wonder there is so much propaganda out there.
Similar threads
