100% alternative energy worldwide by 2030

[Skull Pilot]

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.

 

[mdn2000]

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.

going green requires massive amounts of production to be increased, all in china. to go green we are making millions of tons of fiberglass, millions of tons of batteries, millions of tons of copper to make electrical generators, who makes that stuff, the chinese, who is profiting, the corporations, whats driving the stock market while leaving us cold and hungry, the rich getting rich in china on government mandated ideas.

 

[uscitizen]

Yes old ,mostly doable and needed, but isn't gonna happen.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

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?

 

[Screaming Eagle]

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.

Here's a very important fact that someone forgot. If you need a peak supply of 100 units of electricity and supply that with coal, nuclear, or any other source that always puts out the same amount of power you need to produce 101 units of power. If you get it from solar and wind you need to have about 500 units available or you will have blackouts. So you don't get 51% of your power from wind, you have to build enough to get 255% of your power from wind.

 

[Mr. H.]

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?

Eco-porn.

 

[mdn2000]

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 world’s 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 power—all 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 world’s 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.

Old Crock, how come you post a link to nothing more than a headline, its not even a link to an article.

Millions of windmills, that is the proper term, wind mills are old technology, not new, we are going backwards if we use windmills.

Millions, that means a billion tons of fiberglass, cant make fiberglass without making trillions of tons of C02, if windmills are suppose to save the earth why are we destroying the earth first to save it.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

My question is WHY do so many people seem to be SO AFRAID of this idea?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Why does it strike FEAR into the hearts of conservatives? I mean I would think a CONSERVATIVE root word CONSERVE would want our Earth to be free from burning fossil fuel. Even the Bible thumpers.....Doesn't God say to care for the Earth?

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[KittenKoder]

My question is WHY do so many people seem to be SO AFRAID of this idea?

You are mistaking fear for caution, something that conservatives bring to our government but liberals do not. Take this scenario:

On one hand, you have a small chance (10%) of curing cancer by spending a fortune and risking going broke in the attempt but all the odds are stacked against you.

On the other you have a cure for heart disease (90%) that is almost there, just needs a little more of a push to finish. The odds for this are stacked for you.

You choose one, you have a slim chance of saving billions of lives but at a huge cost and risk, you choose the other which doesn't save as many but there's almost no risk or cost ... which would you pick?

Here we have an alternative energy source already, which has low risk and low cost .... nuclear ... or the high risk high cost of trying to advance basically fantasy fuels ... which do you choose?

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[mdn2000]

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.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Enviro-wackaloons, like you, who've see "The China Syndrome" one time too many get in the way of building any more nukes.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0rFbSU0hP4[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

Doodeee, you are the one that mentioned the 'China Sydrone', not I. I realize that you are not up to speed on the Gen 3 nukes. They are incapable of the 'China Syndrone'.

The problem is that we are seeing the huge cost overruns that we saw in the 70s and 80s. At $3500 per kw. you are well above the present prices for wind and geo-thermal.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[elvis]

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.

Must be a fetish of yours, eh old ****?

 

[Old Rocks]

Nuclear Bombshell: $26 Billion cost — $10,800 per kilowatt! — killed Ontario nuclear bid « Climate Progress

Ontario government put its nuclear power plans on hold last month because the bid from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the only “compliant” one received, was more than three times higher than what the province expected to pay, the Star has learned.

Sources close to the bidding, one involved directly in one of the bids, said that adding two next-generation Candu reactors at Darlington generating station would have cost around $26 billion.

It means a single project would have wiped out the province’s nuclear-power expansion budget for the next 20 years, leaving no money for at least two more multibillion-dollar refurbishment projects.

Nearly $11,000 per kw. So much for cheap nuclear.

“It’s shockingly high,” said Wesley Stevens, an energy analyst at Navigant Consulting in Toronto.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

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.

I can't believe you people. How is it that you were ever convinced that solar panels here in the U.S. is somehow going to lead to energy independence or a lessened need for foreign oil? Our electricity is already produced domestically. Solar panels do not fit in gas cans. Electricity is not the same thing as oil. Shit.

Alternative energy does not exist in any sort of a viable format in the present time. It does not work. Now if I want to live in fantasy land or in what I think the future might be like then it could be a panacea, but so are drugs for a while.

 

[Mr. H.]

Who needs nuclear energy when 60,000 acres of windmills can deliver the same electricity at a fraction of the cost.