Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
possible and probable are 2 different things.
A 100% changeover from fossil fuels to so called renewable energy will cost quadrillions of dollars.
once again we see the abandonment of the good for the perfect.
As pointed out, the original article is in the November issue of the Scientific American. However, here is another article based on that article;
100% Renewables by 2030 for Less Than Fossil Power: A Case is Made | SolveClimate.com
Wind: 51% of power needs. This would require 3.8 million large new wind turbines worldwide. Currently, less than 1% of that amount is installed.
Solar: 40% of power needs. This calls for 89,000 photovoltaic installations and concentrating solar power farms, all at 300 megawatts each. Like wind, the world is at less than 1% of that target.
Water: 9% of power needs. This would require the deployment of numerous "mature water-related" technologies, including 490,000 tidal turbines, 5,350 geothermal plants and 900 hydroelectric plants. For hydroelectric, the world has 70 percent in place. For geothermal, there are less than 2% of the needed facilities installed, and turbines, less than 1%.
The authors assume that most fossil fuel transportation can be replaced by battery and fuel-cell vehicles. They also say that resource availability for the plan isn't a problem.
Even if it were possible, why should we give a shit? Does it give you the jollies to know that a windmill or a solar panel has been put up?
A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables: Scientific American
A year ago former vice president Al Gore threw down a gauntlet: to repower America with 100 percent carbon-free electricity within 10 years. As the two of us started to evaluate the feasibility of such a change, we took on an even larger challenge: to determine how 100 percent of the worlds energy, for all purposes, could be supplied by wind, water and solar resources, by as early as 2030. Our plan is presented here.
Scientists have been building to this moment for at least a decade, analyzing various pieces of the challenge. Most recently, a 2009 Stanford University study ranked energy systems according to their impacts on global warming, pollution, water supply, land use, wildlife and other concerns. The very best options were wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and hydroelectric powerall of which are driven by wind, water or sunlight (referred to as WWS). Nuclear power, coal with carbon capture, and ethanol were all poorer options, as were oil and natural gas. The study also found that battery-electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles recharged by WWS options would largely eliminate pollution from the transportation sector.
Our plan calls for millions of wind turbines, water machines and solar installations. The numbers are large, but the scale is not an insurmountable hurdle; society has achieved massive transformations before. During World War II, the U.S. retooled automobile factories to produce 300,000 aircraft, and other countries produced 486,000 more. In 1956 the U.S. began building the Interstate Highway System, which after 35 years extended for 47,000 miles, changing commerce and society.
Is it feasible to transform the worlds energy systems? Could it be accomplished in two decades? The answers depend on the technologies chosen, the availability of critical materials, and economic and political factors.
My question is WHY do so many people seem to be SO AFRAID of this idea?
Kitten, were it low cost, we would be doing it. Thus far, even building the Gen 3 plants has turned into the same ol', same ol'. Sold as a way to build for $1000 per kwh, it is not finished, and the price is up to $3500 per kwh.
Nonsense.Kitten, were it low cost, we would be doing it. Thus far, even building the Gen 3 plants has turned into the same ol', same ol'. Sold as a way to build for $1000 per kwh, it is not finished, and the price is up to $3500 per kwh.
Kitten, were it low cost, we would be doing it. Thus far, even building the Gen 3 plants has turned into the same ol', same ol'. Sold as a way to build for $1000 per kwh, it is not finished, and the price is up to $3500 per kwh.
yet that is much less than the $200,000 per kwh it costs for windpower.
How come Old Crock never gives a source, only articles that vaguely reference a faulty report that Old Crock refuses to post.
The truth is Old Crock is a hack.
Kitten, were it low cost, we would be doing it. Thus far, even building the Gen 3 plants has turned into the same ol', same ol'. Sold as a way to build for $1000 per kwh, it is not finished, and the price is up to $3500 per kwh.
yet that is much less than the $200,000 per kwh it costs for windpower.
How come Old Crock never gives a source, only articles that vaguely reference a faulty report that Old Crock refuses to post.
The truth is Old Crock is a hack.
You know, if you keep pulling shit like this out of your asshole, you will lose even the idiots on this board.
These are not conservatives, they are Conservatives. And too damned dumb even to do something as simple as checking the November issue of the Scientific American in a store to see if the article exists. But that would require basis logic, which this bunch sorely lack.
They are the patriots that wish to give our economy to Saudi Arabia and China. They are the people that would prefer a point system of electrical generation so that all the wealth can flow to a small number of people. They are the people that wish to saddle the next generation with the illnesses from the dirty coal plants, and the ecological damage from the coal mining. They are the people that will saddle the coming generations with the damage that will result from the GHGs released into the atmosphere. And they routinely wrap themselves in the flag.
