The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[bilby]

Latest figures for Germany are 46% of Germeny's electrical needs are now met by renewables.

Hahahahaha

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

From energy company's perspectives, the goal is to have a profitable business. Here in Texas, the quickest and surest way to do that is solar and wind. Gas and renewables are the big players.

Past behavior of energy companies like Exxon Mobile, Shell and BP demonstrate they do not care about the enviroment and never did.

Go back and watch the Katie Porter grilling of the Shell executive on Shell's greenwashing. The one with the M&Ms. As long as 70% of energy subsidies go to big oil, they don't have to care, do they?

Do we see these energy giants joining forces to save the planet by creating new nuclear plants? If not, why? If not them, who?

You make an excellent argument for the government ownership and operation of infrastructure such as electricity generation and distribution.

I agree wholeheartedly that trying to operate parts of this infrastructure as profitable business is stupid and leads to poor outcomes, including (but certainly not limited to) blackouts.

I also agree that subsidies for fossil fuels should be eliminated, and replaced by taxes to reflect the externalities of their environmental damage.

Can you sel these prpositions to Mitch McConnell, Joe Manchin and Tucker Carlson?

Because here is the problam. Politics vs good ideas.

 

[skepticalbip]

Latest figures for Germany are 46% of Germeny's electrical needs are now met by renewables.

What is that supposed to mean? I have seen no one say that renewables are not a source of power. The question is reliable power 24/7/365. Renewables can not do that no matter how many solar panels and wind mills are installed. Would you be happy only having power to turn on your computer and lights during sunny days and/or windy days?

And how green is getting 46% of the power from biomass, hydro, wind, and solar and most of the rest from coal fired plants?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Latest figures for Germany are 46% of Germeny's electrical needs are now met by renewables.

Hahahahaha

Germany is rich in good hydroelectic sources.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Latest figures for Germany are 46% of Germeny's electrical needs are now met by renewables.

Hahahahaha

https://www.trade.gov/energy-resource-guide-germany-renewable-energy

 

[Swammerdami]

I have said that one billion humans will produce as much CO₂ ceteris paribus as eight billion, given eight times as long, and that therefore such drastic population reduction would simply kick the climate change can down the road - if the current population faces disaster in 25 years, the lower one would face the same disaster in 200 years, unless they stop burning fossil fuel. And if we can power civilisation without burning fossil fuel, then the population reduction becomes needless.

All arguments for anything can be made to seem ridiculous if you strip away the nuances, to leave only the straw.

But ceteris isn't paribas, is it? Has it really not occurred to you that present dams will deliver (more than) eight times their current power per capita, if the population were eight times smaller? And do you hate the concept of renewability so much that you think 1/8 the present population will deplete aquifers just as much proportionally as now? "Diminishing returns" is another concept you may want to read up on to correct your misconceptions on this topic. Also, I've taken the liberty of reddening one of your sentences. Is it really your opinion that fossil fuels (and helium!) are the ONLY scarce resources in the world? (In fact, naturally occurring U235 is also scarce!)

Finally, here's a pro-tip. When defending over-population, avoid the meme "Disproved in the 1960's! Ha ha ha." That meme gets filed under Arguments Too Fatuous to Bother Answering and leads people to ignore the rest of your post.


ETA: I like to attack overly glib arguments wherever I see them. If the consensus here were pro-renewable and anti-nuke, I'd be taking the pro-nuke side!

 

[Swammerdami]

We don’t have 25 years. And in 25 years, we will have fusion, as well as storage, both being predicted to become available in 25 years time…

My comment about fusion was a joke.

(I've paraphrased bilby's "fusion == joke" comment. The quoting facility with this software is atrocious.)

I'm sorry. Perhaps the rest of you have Super-Google installed, and when your eyes pass over the first "fusion" a sultry voice intones "Based on prior posts, bilby is being sarcastic here." But I don't have Super-Google. I'm a Luddite and find the default Google already malicious enough.

But anyway, the insistence that fusion and storage being delayed means they won't happen at all seems odd coming from the side dependent on cost-effective breeder reactors. These were first touted in the 1940's, no?

 

[skepticalbip]

...

We don’t have 25 years. And in 25 years, we will have fusion, as well as storage, both being predicted to become available in 25 years time…

My comment about fusion was a joke.

(I've paraphrased bilby's "fusion == joke" comment. The quoting facility with this software is atrocious.)

I'm sorry. Perhaps the rest of you have Super-Google installed, and when your eyes pass over the first "fusion" a sultry voice intones "Based on prior posts, bilby is being sarcastic here." But I don't have Super-Google. I'm a Luddite and find the default Google already malicious enough.

But anyway, the insistence that fusion and storage being delayed means they won't happen at all seems odd coming from the side dependent on cost-effective breeder reactors. These were first touted in the 1940's, no?

I think you are right that breeder reactors were first touted in the 1940s.

We have had some breeder reactors that have been operating since the 1950s. They are not commonly in use because of political decisions, not physics reasons.

Fast Neutron Reactors - World Nuclear Association

Fast neutron reactors offer the prospect of vastly more efficient use of uranium resources and the ability to burn actinides which are otherwise the long-lived component of high-level nuclear waste. Some 400 reactor-years' experience has been gained in operating them.

world-nuclear.org

"About 20 fast neutron reactors (FNR) have already been operating, some since the 1950s, and some supplying electricity commercially. Over 400 reactor-years of operating experience has been accumulated. Fast reactors more deliberately use the uranium-238 as well as the fissile U-235 isotope used in most reactors. If they are designed to produce more plutonium than the uranium and plutonium they consume, they are called fast breeder reactors (FBRs)."

 

[bilby]

Latest figures for Germany are 46% of Germeny's electrical needs are now met by renewables.

What is that supposed to mean? I have seen no one say that renewables are not a source of power. The question is reliable power 24/7/365. Renewables can not do that no matter how many solar panels and wind mills are installed. Would you be happy only having power to turn on your computer and lights during sunny days and/or windy days?

And how green is getting 46% of the power from biomass, hydro, wind, and solar and most of the rest from coal fired plants?

Biomass and hydro are very far from “green”. Wind and solar are a small fraction of that 46%, and have their own environmental issues too.

I love the way wind and solar advocates pad their figures with hydroelectricity and biomass. It’s amazing how much better wind and solar look when you use ‘installed capacity’ instead of power generated, and when you claim a percentage of power generation that is mostly not from those sources.

 

[bilby]

Latest figures for Germany are 46% of Germeny's electrical needs are now met by renewables.

Hahahahaha

Germany is rich in good hydroelectic sources.

Which are not wind or solar, not scalable, and not what we were discussing.

 

[bilby]

I have said that one billion humans will produce as much CO₂ ceteris paribus as eight billion, given eight times as long, and that therefore such drastic population reduction would simply kick the climate change can down the road - if the current population faces disaster in 25 years, the lower one would face the same disaster in 200 years, unless they stop burning fossil fuel. And if we can power civilisation without burning fossil fuel, then the population reduction becomes needless.

All arguments for anything can be made to seem ridiculous if you strip away the nuances, to leave only the straw.

But ceteris isn't paribas, is it? Has it really not occurred to you that present dams will deliver (more than) eight times their current power per capita, if the population were eight times smaller?

That has nothing to do with carbon dioxide

And do you hate the concept of renewability so much that you think 1/8 the present population will deplete aquifers just as much proportionally as now?

Still has nothing to do with carbon dioxide

"Diminishing returns" is another concept you may want to read up on to correct your misconceptions on this topic. Also, I've taken the liberty of reddening one of your sentences. Is it really your opinion that fossil fuels (and helium!) are the ONLY scarce resources in the world?

That’s not only my position, it’s also the first law of thermodynamics

(In fact, naturally occurring U235 is also scarce!)

Only for a bizarre definition of ‘scarce’ that doesn’t account for the existence of fertile isotopes, and presumes that U235 is the only fissile one.

Finally, here's a pro-tip. When defending over-population, avoid the meme "Disproved in the 1960's! Ha ha ha." That meme gets filed under Arguments Too Fatuous to Bother Answering and leads people to ignore the rest of your post.

Unfortunately, your desire to ignore an argument isn’t evidence that it’s wrong.

ETA: I like to attack overly glib arguments wherever I see them. If the consensus here were pro-renewable and anti-nuke, I'd be taking the pro-nuke side!

That’s just a stupid(er) version of the argument from popularity.

I am not even sure why you are derailing this current discussion to discuss something we already did elsewhere; If you want to continue that conversation, I am happy to refute your strawmen to whatever degree of detail you need in the appropriate place.

 

[bilby]

We don’t have 25 years. And in 25 years, we will have fusion, as well as storage, both being predicted to become available in 25 years time…

My comment about fusion was a joke.

(I've paraphrased bilby's "fusion == joke" comment. The quoting facility with this software is atrocious.)

I'm sorry. Perhaps the rest of you have Super-Google installed, and when your eyes pass over the first "fusion" a sultry voice intones "Based on prior posts, bilby is being sarcastic here." But I don't have Super-Google. I'm a Luddite and find the default Google already malicious enough.

But anyway, the insistence that fusion and storage being delayed means they won't happen at all seems odd coming from the side dependent on cost-effective breeder reactors. These were first touted in the 1940's, no?

Storage is just as big a joke as fusion. That’s my point.

My argument is in no way dependant on cost effective breeder reactors; They would be a nice bonus, but my position is perfectly sound if we only use current in-service reactor designs.

 

[skepticalbip]

Latest figures for Germany are 46% of Germeny's electrical needs are now met by renewables.

What is that supposed to mean? I have seen no one say that renewables are not a source of power. The question is reliable power 24/7/365. Renewables can not do that no matter how many solar panels and wind mills are installed. Would you be happy only having power to turn on your computer and lights during sunny days and/or windy days?

And how green is getting 46% of the power from biomass, hydro, wind, and solar and most of the rest from coal fired plants?

Biomass and hydro are very far from “green”. Wind and solar are a small fraction of that 46%, and have their own environmental issues too.

I love the way wind and solar advocates pad their figures with hydroelectricity and biomass. It’s amazing how much better wind and solar look when you use ‘installed capacity’ instead of power generated, and when you claim a percentage of power generation that is mostly not from those sources.

Yes, people making such arguments are demonstrating their ignorance of the difference between power (Watts) and energy (Watt-hours). The propagandists they get their 'information' from rely on their ignorance to convince them that their arguments make sense.

Power companies understand the difference. That is why they charge usage by the Watt-hour consumed rather than the Watt.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Hydro does not use fossil fuels. It is indeed green.

 

[skepticalbip]

Hydro does not use fossil fuels. It is indeed green.

Only if the the tens or hundreds of thousands of acres of forests and fields that are destroyed by flooding to make the reservoir is ignored. If instead, those forests were clear cut by logging rather than killed by flooding then you would likely see that as not a green activity.

 

[bilby]

Hydro does not use fossil fuels. It is indeed green.

Only if the the tens or hundreds of thousands of acres of forests and fields that are destroyed by flooding to make the reservoir is ignored. If instead, those forests were clear cut by logging rather than killed by flooding then you would likely see that as not a green activity.

And of course you need to ignore the fossil fuel burned by the trucks and heavy plant used to build the dams, turbines, generators and races; And the carbon emissions from the concrete for the dam wall; and the methane produced as the flooded vegetation decays.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Dams often are disliked. They disrupter warer resources downstream, and disrupt ecosystems. In Plthe U.S. afew dams are slated to be demolished.

H.R.1588 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Hydropower Clean Energy Future Act

Summary of H.R.1588 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Hydropower Clean Energy Future Act

www.congress.gov

This bill mandates 25% of energy used by the federal government be obtained by renewable sources by 2026. Among renewables, hydroelectric sources are explistically listed.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Hydro does not use fossil fuels. It is indeed green.

Only if the the tens or hundreds of thousands of acres of forests and fields that are destroyed by flooding to make the reservoir is ignored. If instead, those forests were clear cut by logging rather than killed by flooding then you would likely see that as not a green activity.

And of course you need to ignore the fossil fuel burned by the trucks and heavy plant used to build the dams, turbines, generators and races; And the carbon emissions from the concrete for the dam wall; and the methane produced as the flooded vegetation decays.

Nukes of course don't use trucks, steel, concrete or large amounts of water for cooling. They are built from fairy dust.

 

[bilby]

All electricity generation implies some level Carbon Dioxide emissions.

According to IPCC and Electricitymap, the emissions in gCO₂eq/kWh are:

Wind: 11g
Nuclear: 12g
Hydro: 24g
Geothermal: 38g
Solar: 45g
————————————
Biomass: 230g
Battery Storage: 253g
————————————
Gas: 490g
Oil: 650g
Coal: 820g

Clearly there are five ‘green’ options; Equally clearly, the class ‘renewables’ becomes nonsensical as an indication of environmental impact, if you include biomass therein, or if you exclude nuclear therefrom.

Nuclear is the second best option to keep carbon dioxide emissions low, and the best of the reliable options.

 

[bilby]

Hydro does not use fossil fuels. It is indeed green.

Only if the the tens or hundreds of thousands of acres of forests and fields that are destroyed by flooding to make the reservoir is ignored. If instead, those forests were clear cut by logging rather than killed by flooding then you would likely see that as not a green activity.

And of course you need to ignore the fossil fuel burned by the trucks and heavy plant used to build the dams, turbines, generators and races; And the carbon emissions from the concrete for the dam wall; and the methane produced as the flooded vegetation decays.

Nukes of course don't use trucks, steel, concrete or large amounts of water for cooling. They are built from fairy dust.

Of course they do; But far less than hydro, per unit of electricity generation.

Nuclear plants emit about half the carbon dioxide as hydro plants, per kWh; And about a quarter of the emissions of a solar power system.