100% alternative energy worldwide by 2030

[mdn2000]

I will summarize later but just to show wht the facts are

To address the energy requirments to produce fiberglass used in windmills and to identify the companies who are getting rich each of the materials in the report must be researched, where are the mined, where do they come from, who manufacturers these materials, what is the energy requirement for each individual material, than we must add those numbers to the fiberglass production numbers.

I have a shitload of files but just aint put them together. If anyone thinks answering my simple question was simple they would of done it, green energy is not as simple as stating its a good idea. Folks beleive in green energy without an understanding of the industry it takes to make the basic materials.

I will try and avoid articles and post reports, this one from the EPA

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch11/final/c11s13.pdf

Raw Materials Handling -
The primary component of glass fiber is sand, but it also includes varying quantities of
feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid, and many other materials. The bulk supplies are
received by rail car and truck, and the lesser-volume supplies are received in drums and packages.
These raw materials are unloaded by a variety of methods, including drag shovels, vacuum systems,
and vibrator/gravity systems. Conveying to and from storage piles and silos is accomplished by belts,
screws, and bucket elevators. From storage, the materials are weighed according to the desired
product recipe and then blended well before their introduction into the melting unit. The weighing,
mixing, and charging operations may be conducted in either batch or continuous mode.
Glass Melting And Refining -
In the glass melting furnace, the raw materials are heated to temperatures ranging from
1500 to 1700°C (2700 to 3100°F) and are transformed through a sequence of chemical reactions to
molten glass. Although there are many furnace designs, furnaces are generally large, shallow, and
well-insulated vessels that are heated from above. In operation, raw materials are introduced
continuously on top of a bed of molten glass, where they slowly mix and dissolve. Mixing is effected
by natural convection, gases rising from chemical reactions, and, in some operations, by air injection
into the bottom of the bed.
Glass melting furnaces can be categorized by their fuel source and method of heat application
into 4 types: recuperative, regenerative, unit, and electric melter. The recuperative, regenerative, and
unit melter furnaces can be fueled by either gas or oil. The current trend is from gas-fired to oil-fired.
Recuperative furnaces use a steel heat exchanger, recovering heat from the exhaust gases by exchange
with the combustion air. Regenerative furnaces use a lattice of brickwork to recover waste heat from
exhaust gases. In the initial mode of operation, hot exhaust gases are routed through a chamber
containing a brickwork lattice, while combustion air is heated by passage through another
corresponding brickwork lattice. About every 20 minutes, the airflow is reversed, so that the
combustion air is always being passed through hot brickwork previously heated by exhaust gases.
Electric furnaces melt glass by passing an electric current through the melt. Electric furnaces are
either hot-top or cold-top. The former use gas for auxiliary heating, and the latter use only the electric
current. Electric furnaces are currently used only for wool glass fiber production because of the
electrical properties of the glass formulation. Unit melters are used only for the "indirect" marble
melting process, getting raw materials from a continuous screw at the back of the furnace adjacent to
the exhaust air discharge. There are no provisions for heat recovery with unit melters.
9/85

So your argument would be that COAL POWER PLANTS grow from a MAGIC bean that we plant and water until a FULL FLEDGED power plant grows. If you want to be HONEST with your argument about windmills/solar panels then you have to DIRECTLY contrast the costs and the materials INCLUDING the mining of materials. Then you would have to CONSIDER the technology LEAPS that wind and even more so solar power have undergone in just the last ten years.


I think we STILL pretty much BURN coal/natural gas and I doubt we have come up with many REVOLUTIONARY new ways of doing so. They may be a bit more efficient and produce less pollution than they did 20-30 years ago but they are 100 YEAR OLD technology I mean my Gawd man how long should we keep doing the SAME F'ING thing until the fossil fuel runs out? Now there are many different views on just WHEN fossil fuels will run out but whether it is 50 years or 200 years if we REFUSE to utilize NEW technology then we will be in a REAL BAD WAY when change is FORCED on us.

Sorry I had to disappear from this thread so long ago but I have a very full life and when I have the oppurtunity to live it I make no time for the petty arguements I find myself in.

I think we STILL pretty much BURN coal/natural gas and I doubt we have come up with many REVOLUTIONARY new ways of doing so. They may be a bit more efficient and produce less pollution than they did 20-30 years ago but they are 100 YEAR OLD technology I mean my Gawd man how long should we keep doing the SAME F'ING thing until the fossil fuel runs out? Now there are many different views on just WHEN fossil fuels will run out but whether it is 50 years or 200 years if we REFUSE to utilize NEW technology then we will be in a REAL BAD WAY when change is FORCED on us

So you think Wind power is a new alternative, I disagree, Holland has used windmills for 100's of years.

So your argument would be that COAL POWER PLANTS grow from a MAGIC bean that we plant and water until a FULL FLEDGED power plant grows. If you want to be HONEST with your argument about windmills/solar panels then you have to DIRECTLY contrast the costs and the materials INCLUDING the mining of materials. Then you would have to CONSIDER the technology LEAPS that wind and even more so solar power have undergone in just the last ten years.

I have addressed Wind Power, it uses too much energy to create.

Solar, I guess that grows from the "MAGIC" bean, if only we pour more money into the technology it will work. Solar technology is old, I say at least 100 years old, we have spent billions of dollars on Solar technology since that time and it has come a long ways since the first Solar plants were use to heat water.

For some they see Wind and Solar technology as a newly discovered plant growing from a MAGIC bean that just needs a bit of pruning then we can harvest its fruit.

Not that this is a scholarly arguement but I just drove by California's largest solar plant and I paid paticular attention to the power lines that come from this solar plant of the I-395 highway, the power lines were nothing more you than what you would see in any city with a population of around 5,000 people.

The power from Solar is tiny, miniscule, insignificant and this is after 100 years of technology, research, and billions of dollars spent.

 

[Old Rocks]

wind


Wind power in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At the end of 2009, the installed capacity of wind power in the United States was just over 35,000 megawatts (35 GW),[2][3] making it the world leader ahead of Germany. Wind power accounts for about 1.9% of the electricity generated in the United States (1.3% at the end of 2008 [4][5]).

Over 9,900 MW of new wind power capacity was brought online in 2009, up from 8,800 in 2008. These new installations place the U.S. on a trajectory to generate 20% of the nation’s electricity by 2030 from wind energy.[2] Growth in 2008 channeled some $17 billion into the economy, positioning wind power as one of the leading sources of new power generation in the country, along with natural gas. New wind projects completed in 2008 account for about 42% of the entire new power-producing capacity added in the U.S. during the year.[5]

At the end of 2008, about 85,000 people were employed in the U.S. wind industry,[6] and GE Energy was the largest domestic wind turbine manufacturer.[1] Wind projects boosted local tax bases, and revitalized the economy of rural communities by providing a steady income stream to farmers with wind turbines on their land.[1] Wind power in the U.S. provides enough electricity to power the equivalent of nearly 9 million homes, avoiding the emissions of 57 million tons of carbon each year and reducing expected carbon emissions from the electricity sector by 2.5%.[5]

Enough electricity to power 9,000,000 homes on line right now.

Providing rural farmers and ranchers with a steady income.

Reducing the electrical carbon footprint by 2.5%. A significant reduction.

85,000 good paying jobs in manufacture, construction, and maintenance of the mills.

Wind counted for 42% of the new generation created in 2009. A very significan figure.

And all these figures will grow every year.

 

[boedicca]

A doable and needed plan.

Shifting the world to 100 percent clean, renewable energy as early as 2030 -- here are the numbers

Completely ludicrous and naive.

We have uncountable $T invested in current infrastruture. There is no way this Academic Mental Masturbation can be implemented in a manner with a positive cost benefit.

 

[sparky]

Home Power Magazine: Solar | Wind | Water | Design | Build

 

[KissMy]

they present new research mapping out and evaluating a quantitative plan for powering the entire world on wind, water and solar energy, including an assessment of the materials needed and costs. And it will ultimately be cheaper than sticking with fossil fuel or going nuclear, they say.

The key is turning to wind, water and solar energy to generate electrical power – making a massive commitment to them – and eliminating combustion as a way to generate power for vehicles as well as for normal electricity use.

The problem lies in the use of fossil fuels and biomass combustion, which are notoriously inefficient at producing usable energy. For example, when gasoline is used to power a vehicle, at least 80 percent of the energy produced is wasted as heat.

With vehicles that run on electricity, it's the opposite. Roughly 80 percent of the energy supplied to the vehicle is converted into motion, with only 20 percent lost as heat. Other combustion devices can similarly be replaced with electricity or with hydrogen produced by electricity.

Someone is making up facts. less than 33% of the energy source gets converted into motion on battery powered electric car. Also in the winter the excess heat from an Internal Combustion (IC) engine is used to heat the inside of the car.

That 80% energy waste from Gas IC engine sounds extremely bogus to me. Maybe city stop light driving would cause this with high manifold vacuum holding engine at idle. Wide open throttle (WOT) is far more efficient. Diesel IC engines have no vacuum & are more efficient at stop n go. This is where the IC engine / Battery Hybrid saves you gas. The engine runs only when all of the power is going to be converted to motion or charging power.

Energy storage is the problem with your Utopian dream. When the wind & sun are not available you are screwed. The Vehicle to Grid (V2G) concept car was supposed to solve this. The problem is the V2G auto runs on gas using an IC engine.

Maybe all you pot growing Utopian dreaming hippies up in California's 'Emerald Triangle' could build your concept city so us knuckle dragging Neanderthals could marvel at how well it works.

 

[Old Rocks]

A very efficient modern engine may get 20% efficiency at the very peak.

Internal combustion engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The thermodynamic limits assume that the engine is operating in ideal conditions: a frictionless world, ideal gases, perfect insulators, and operation at infinite time. The real world is substantially more complex and all the complexities reduce the efficiency. In addition, real engines run best at specific loads and rates as described by their power curve. For example, a car cruising on a highway is usually operating significantly below its ideal load, because the engine is designed for the higher loads desired for rapid acceleration. The applications of engines are used as contributed drag on the total system reducing overall efficiency, such as wind resistance designs for vehicles. These and many other losses result in an engines' real-world fuel economy that is usually measured in the units of miles per gallon (or fuel consumption in liters per 100 kilometers) for automobiles. The miles in miles per gallon represents a meaningful amount of work and the volume of hydrocarbon implies a standard energy content.

Most steel engines have a thermodynamic limit of 37%. Even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, most engines retain an average efficiency of about 18%-20%.[12][13] Rocket engine efficiencies are better still, up to 70%, because they combust at very high temperatures and pressures and are able to have very high expansion ratios.[14]

There are many inventions concerned with increasing the efficiency of IC engines. In general, practical engines are always compromised by trade-offs between different properties such as efficiency, weight, power, heat, response, exhaust emissions, or noise. Sometimes economy also plays a role in not only the cost of manufacturing the engine itself, but also manufacturing and distributing the fuel. Increasing the engines' efficiency brings better fuel economy but only if the fuel cost per energy content is the same.

Your source has made some fundemental mistake in his calculations. Think in terms of the hot exhaust from his engine. That represents far more than 3% efficiency loss.

 

[Old Rocks]

Home Power Magazine: Solar | Wind | Water | Design | Build

This is a very good source for those that would be independent.

 

[mdn2000]

Home Power Magazine: Solar | Wind | Water | Design | Build

This is a very good source for those that would be independent.

Old Crock expects everyone to read the links Old Crock does not read, in your own words Old Crock, summarize the article. I dont follow the links posted by Old Crock who suffers Dementia.

I have followed to many of Old Crock's links and its always the same, Old Crock does not read the link, only the headline, every link of Old Crock's I have followed has made my point, not Old Crock's. I thinks a bump of another thread may be in order to show Old Crock does not read Old Crock's links or articles.

 

[KissMy]

Home Power Magazine: Solar | Wind | Water | Design | Build

This is a very good source for those that would be independent.

Old Crock expects everyone to read the links Old Crock does not read, in your own words Old Crock, summarize the article. I dont follow the links posted by Old Crock who suffers Dementia.

I have followed to many of Old Crock's links and its always the same, Old Crock does not read the link, only the headline, every link of Old Crock's I have followed has made my point, not Old Crock's. I thinks a bump of another thread may be in order to show Old Crock does not read Old Crock's links or articles.

Yes mdn2000 is correct about the Old Crock of crap. He will believe anything his leader tells him.

I can assure you his Utopian plan is shit or people would be doing it. I have a 1000 acre farm in a remote rural area. The electricity rates are almost double what urban dwellers pay. The neighbors & I have an electric coop. We have looked at all sorts of hydro, wind & solar. They all cost more than our current rate. We found our home maid windmills to be the most cost effective but you need to have reversing power meters. You still have to have base load power or some massive storage. All the states dams & reservoirs can only store enough for peak load power. There is no place to draw power from when the wind is not blowing. Cheap storage is the key to green power. The V2G auto is the closest answer so far but we are not there yet. We are Dependant on base load power. We even looked into bio-fuel power plants to serve as base load power. Bio-fuel is best used as transportation fuel & batteries best used for grid power. We are just now looking into the bloom box. Do not have any real world figures on these yet.

 

[thomas78]

100% is a long shot. Especially when you take all the developing countries into consideration. Not likely that many of them will want to go green. There was a good article in a swedish newspaper I read the other day where they said that a leading US utility company is entering into a contract with a tech startup that promises to deliver solar powered electricity with the help of satelites from space transmitting the energy back to earth with radiowaves. I like the idea =)

 

[mdn2000]

100% is a long shot. Especially when you take all the developing countries into consideration. Not likely that many of them will want to go green. There was a good article in a swedish newspaper I read the other day where they said that a leading US utility company is entering into a contract with a tech startup that promises to deliver solar powered electricity with the help of satelites from space transmitting the energy back to earth with radiowaves. I like the idea =)

Did you read this thread, the premise of the first article was opposite of the title. Scientific America made the case its impossible.

1% is impossible, there is no way alternatives can be used in developing countries, not to develop the country simply because they do not provide the energy needed. One way to keep the developing countries from developing and competing in world markets.

 

[Big Fitz]

In Oregon, we have only one coal fired plant, and we will close that dirty monstrousity soon. The rest we get from hydro, and wind.

I work in a steel mill. We no longer smelt, and when we did, we used only electric furnaces for the smelting. 100 tons per pour melted in 20 minutes. At present we use natural gas for heating the slabs for rolling, and heat treating.

well, I consider it to your detriment to have such an expensive backup to hydro. And as it is, hydro plants are all but illegal anymore to make thanks to econazis complaining about flooded land and habitat lost. Hydro's the best form of electricity production. Nuclear's second, coal's third. Natural gas is expensive and is good for only specific industrial purposes.

Not only is AGW not dead, it is beginning to look as if the "Storms of our Grandchildren", are not going to wait for our grandchildren.

And March, 2010, is shaping up to be, like January and February, a very warm month. If the year continues on this path, the records of 1998 may be eclipsed.

Dead dead deadski. You keep playing in fantasy land about this, hopefully we'll be smart to never allow you influence or power in politics ever again.

Thin-film solar cell manufacturer First Solar yesterday announced it has broken the $1 (70p) per watt cost barrier that is widely accepted as the point at which solar panels become cost competitive with fossil fuels.

The company said that during the fourth quarter of last year, the manufacturing cost for its solar modules stood at 98 cents per watt, taking it below the $1 per watt mark for the first time.

Mike Ahearn, chief executive at the company, hailed the achievement as a " milestone in the solar industry's evolution towards providing truly sustainable energy solutions", adding that it provided evidence that solar manufacturers could prosper in the long term even as government subsidies are reduced.

First Solar said it was confident that plans to more than double its production capacity through 2009 to more than one gigawatt would allow it to reduce costs further to a point where energy from solar panels can undercut that from natural gas and coal.

Oh good. Increase production by 90,000% and then we can talk on it being useful. You've got 10 years by your fantasies. Or we'll all die in a freezy burny blizzard of locusts hail and steam.

This is good, but it's not ready for prime time. But that's okay, by the time it's ready, you may finally give up on the delusional belief man can control climate.

 

[sealybobo]

A doable and needed plan.

Shifting the world to 100 percent clean, renewable energy as early as 2030 -- here are the numbers


Shifting the world to 100 percent clean, renewable energy as early as 2030 -- here are the numbers



IMAGE: Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering, has coauthored an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. The article presents new research mapping...


Click here for more information.



Most of the technology needed to shift the world from fossil fuel to clean, renewable energy already exists. Implementing that technology requires overcoming obstacles in planning and politics, but doing so could result in a 30 percent decrease in global power demand, say Stanford civil and environmental engineering Professor Mark Z. Jacobson and University of California-Davis researcher Mark Delucchi.

To make clear the extent of those hurdles – and how they could be overcome – they have written an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. In it, they present new research mapping out and evaluating a quantitative plan for powering the entire world on wind, water and solar energy, including an assessment of the materials needed and costs. And it will ultimately be cheaper than sticking with fossil fuel or going nuclear, they say.

The key is turning to wind, water and solar energy to generate electrical power – making a massive commitment to them – and eliminating combustion as a way to generate power for vehicles as well as for normal electricity use.

The problem lies in the use of fossil fuels and biomass combustion, which are notoriously inefficient at producing usable energy. For example, when gasoline is used to power a vehicle, at least 80 percent of the energy produced is wasted as heat.

With vehicles that run on electricity, it's the opposite. Roughly 80 percent of the energy supplied to the vehicle is converted into motion, with only 20 percent lost as heat. Other combustion devices can similarly be replaced with electricity or with hydrogen produced by electricity.




IMAGE: Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering, has coauthored an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. The article presents new research mapping...


Click here for more information.



Jacobson and Delucchi used data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to project that if the world's current mix of energy sources is maintained, global energy demand at any given moment in 2030 would be 16.9 terawatts, or 16.9 million megawatts.

They then calculated that if no combustion of fossil fuel or biomass were used to generate energy, and virtually everything was powered by electricity – either for direct use or hydrogen production – the demand would be only 11.5 terawatts. That's only two-thirds of the energy that would be needed if fossil fuels were still in the mix.

I now hear 2030 is the end of humanity as we know it. We have passed the point of no return.

And so what really? How many other species have gone extinct? More species than exist today have come and gone.

Then the planet will return to being a true garden of eden.

And what will be the purpose of the animals that exist after we’re gone? To breed. To live.

There will be plenty of natural resources for the animals left behind after we’re gone. Then maybe some future evolved species will fuel its car on our oil. Isn’t that where oil comes from? Dinosaur remains? I find that hard to believe.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If any of you people think that in just 12 years the world will be 100% run on wind and solar you're all even dumber than I thought and that's saying something

 

[Old Rocks]

No, we will not be able to do that, thanks to retards like you. However, things are progressing pretty fast in the solar field.

Latin America's largest solar park turns Mexican desert green

Driving through the endless dunes and cacti of the Chihuahuan desert in northern Mexico, a shimmering blue field suddenly appears on the horizon—not a mirage, but the largest solar park in Latin America.

This silent stretch of sand in the state of Coahuila is the spot the Italian energy giant Enel picked to build the Villanueva power plant: 2.3 million solar panels that sprawl across a sun-soaked area the size of 2,200 football fields.

When the plant reaches full capacity later this year, it will supply enough electricity to power 1.3 million homes.

It is the biggest solar project in the world outside China and India.

The panels are designed to turn in tandem with the sun, like a field of metallic sunflowers.

They are part of Mexico's push to generate 35 percent of its electricity from clean sources by 2024.

Mexico won plaudits from environmentalists in 2015 when it became the first emerging country to announce its emissions reduction targets for the United Nations climate accord, ambitiously vowing to halve them by 2050.



Read more at: Latin America's largest solar park turns Mexican desert green

 

[Old Rocks]

Just the beginning.

 

[Old Rocks]

And there will be more.

 

[Old Rocks]

China has ambitions.

 

[Old Rocks]

And here in the US, a co-op in Texas led the way. We are now seeing similar installations in many other states.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am SO glad that you bring politics into this, because politics belongs squarely in the middle of this discussion.

If green energy is as good, cheap, and clean as supporters say, why havent market forces should make it an increasing part of the energy picture?

Politics: rather than the promotion of new sources of energy, the movement has been hijacked by those whose main motivation is the devolution of America, or to accomplish government ownership and control of our energy supply.

Sometimes called the Watermelon Effect, it is made up of the green pro-environment policies on the outside, hiding the red Marxist redistributive policies on the inside.

BTW, we imported just over a third of our oil in 1981, and now 70%.

Don't you think it's time to untie the hands of Big Oil, and tie those of Sierra Club- Big Green?