• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Most of The World Could Be 100% Powered With Renewables by 2050

Along with the growth in the Renewable energy, a large number of jobs are being created in the US.

U.S. Renewable Energy Jobs Employ 800,000+ People and Rising: in Charts | InsideClimate News

The United States has seen explosive growth in renewable energy jobs over the past three years, led by solar jobs (up 82 percent) and wind jobs (up 100 percent), according to new numbers released by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).

The story is much the same for International growth and jobs.

WorldRenewablesJobs.jpg
 
Another expert reference article by the High-Schooler Watts. Did he misrepresent the author again, and retitle the article? Did he cherrypick from the author's article again? Are did he just pick a blog as a source for his High-Schooler blog?

Another data-dodging ad hominem.​ It shows fear.
 
[h=2]Electric cars are perfect for socialists: Labor plan boosts Big-Gov, but worse for CO2, pollution, coal use, and grid[/h]
[h=4][/h][h=4]Labor’s electric car plan means higher emissions, more pollution, more coal use, and threatens the grid but it’s great for socialists.[/h]Fantasy-land: Labor wants half of all new cars sales to be EV’s by 2030. That’s a radical change in a big country that loves its cars and drives great distances. Last year only 0.2% of new car purchases were EV’s. Our grid is already struggling, and extra charging cars would push it over the edge and may add something like $20b a year in extra network and generation costs.
This makes no sense on so many levels: in Australia EV’s are 80% fossil fuel powered and over their lifetime they cause more pollution than internal combustion engines.
[h=4]Electric Vehicles produce more carbon emissions if the grid that charges them is powered by fossil fuels.[/h]The results reveal that the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of a battery electric vehicle production range from 92.4 to 94.3 GJ and 15.0 to 15.2 t CO[SUB]2[/SUB]eq, which are about 50% higher than those of an internal combustion engine vehicle, 63.5 GJ and 10.0 t CO[SUB]2[/SUB]eq. This substantial change can be mainly attributed to the production of traction batteries, the essential components for battery electric vehicles. (Qiao, 2017)
… an electric car recharged by a coal-fired plant produces as much CO2 as a gasoline-powered car that gets 29 miles per gallon (12.3 km/L).” (Sivak, 2017)
In a coal fired country, EV’s achieve nothing for carbon emissions, but over their lifecycle, they’re worse for human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and mineral resource depletion. (Hawkins, 2012).

EV’s are so useless for the environment you might wonder why Labor and the Greens love them. Take your pick:


  1. Labor Green policitians are honest but stupid.
  2. Labor Green politicans don’t care less about the environment but want a great socialist car.
With our coal fired grid and long distances the only place on Earth less suited to EV’s is Antarctica, where it is too cold for the batteries to work and where people die when they run out of “fuel”. Although at least Antarcticans won’t have to worry about extreme heat setting their batteries on fire. . . .
 
It is lots easier to do than to map in a normal way as the map you will get out of it would have 2 layers which can be overlapped so you know where the last bit ended and the new one starts. This will make piecing the various runs together much easier than just with a normal land image with all the noise of vegetation etc.

What kind of gobbledegook is this??

Antarctica is 5.4 million square miles, not including the floating ice sheets around it. The United States is only 3.8 million square miles. Do you realize just how big that sucker is down there?
 
Actually if you really knew what you were talking about, you would have realized that it's not just additions, but additions and retirements. A lot of coal powered plant were retired. I guess it's beyond you to understand that when you're about growth in a sector, you talk about additions.

I guess you can't read your own graphs. Now you're fixating on coal for some reason. Can't you stay on topic?
 
Along with the growth in the Renewable energy, a large number of jobs are being created in the US.

U.S. Renewable Energy Jobs Employ 800,000+ People and Rising: in Charts | InsideClimate News

The United States has seen explosive growth in renewable energy jobs over the past three years, led by solar jobs (up 82 percent) and wind jobs (up 100 percent), according to new numbers released by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).

The story is much the same for International growth and jobs.

View attachment 67253880

Big deal. You are calling government welfare "jobs".
 
Another data-dodging ad hominem.​ It shows fear.

Perhaps so. I noticed when he gets caught he tends to try to steer the conversation elsewhere. He can't stay on topic.
 
[h=2]Electric cars are perfect for socialists: Labor plan boosts Big-Gov, but worse for CO2, pollution, coal use, and grid[/h]
[h=4][/h][h=4]Labor’s electric car plan means higher emissions, more pollution, more coal use, and threatens the grid but it’s great for socialists.[/h]Fantasy-land: Labor wants half of all new cars sales to be EV’s by 2030. That’s a radical change in a big country that loves its cars and drives great distances. Last year only 0.2% of new car purchases were EV’s. Our grid is already struggling, and extra charging cars would push it over the edge and may add something like $20b a year in extra network and generation costs.
This makes no sense on so many levels: in Australia EV’s are 80% fossil fuel powered and over their lifetime they cause more pollution than internal combustion engines.
[h=4]Electric Vehicles produce more carbon emissions if the grid that charges them is powered by fossil fuels.[/h]The results reveal that the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of a battery electric vehicle production range from 92.4 to 94.3 GJ and 15.0 to 15.2 t CO[SUB]2[/SUB]eq, which are about 50% higher than those of an internal combustion engine vehicle, 63.5 GJ and 10.0 t CO[SUB]2[/SUB]eq. This substantial change can be mainly attributed to the production of traction batteries, the essential components for battery electric vehicles. (Qiao, 2017)
… an electric car recharged by a coal-fired plant produces as much CO2 as a gasoline-powered car that gets 29 miles per gallon (12.3 km/L).” (Sivak, 2017)
In a coal fired country, EV’s achieve nothing for carbon emissions, but over their lifecycle, they’re worse for human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and mineral resource depletion. (Hawkins, 2012).

EV’s are so useless for the environment you might wonder why Labor and the Greens love them. Take your pick:


  1. Labor Green policitians are honest but stupid.
  2. Labor Green politicans don’t care less about the environment but want a great socialist car.
With our coal fired grid and long distances the only place on Earth less suited to EV’s is Antarctica, where it is too cold for the batteries to work and where people die when they run out of “fuel”. Although at least Antarcticans won’t have to worry about extreme heat setting their batteries on fire. . . .

This unfortunately is true. EV's do use fossil fuels in many cases to charge them. Here in Idaho we just crank up the gas fires a bit.
 
This unfortunately is true. EV's do use fossil fuels in many cases to charge them. Here in Idaho we just crank up the gas fires a bit.

Good thing I have my Solar and Wind to power my Volt!

SolarWind_Chevy_Volt_2_Pics.jpg
 
By 2050 most of the world could be 100% powered with renewable energy while at the same lead to a net increase of 24 million new jobs, according to a new 2050 roadmap.



Most of The World Could Be 100% Powered With Renewables by 2050

Direct link to the study: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf

There really isn't a such thing as renewables. You have to dig up and process ore to make batteries, conductors, and so forth. You have to chop down trees to run power lines you have to mine and refine aluminum for said power lines, you either have to produce iron from ore to make power line towers or recycled iron and either way it's expensive in resources you have to refine petroleum in order to make plastic components.

I don't see any issue in using alternative fuel sources..
 
Why do i have a feeling you’re soon going to be telling us how we can’t measure the temperature oof the earth and spouting ‘RandU fallacy’?

You're not the only person thinking that ;)
 
What kind of gobbledegook is this??

Antarctica is 5.4 million square miles, not including the floating ice sheets around it. The United States is only 3.8 million square miles. Do you realize just how big that sucker is down there?

The ice has been mapped. It was done using a plane with 2 types of radar on.
 
I only point it out because you are discounting alternatives for that reason.

No, I'm not. I'm actually not discounting any form of energy. I'll use the cheapest, thanks.
 
Another expert reference article by the High-Schooler Watts. Did he misrepresent the author again, and retitle the article? Did he cherrypick from the author's article again? Are did he just pick a blog as a source for his High-Schooler blog?

Since you present ZERO evidence that he did any of that, you make clear that you didn't notice it was written by Bjorn Lomborg and was indeed from his facebook page

You are so busy with your juvenile attacks, that you didn't do what I did to show that it was indeed on his facebook page, Anthony wanted to increase exposure of that presentation on his blog. It took me less than 30 seconds to see it.

You are indeed a very lazy person who prefers ad homs over real debate.
 
No, I'm not. I'm actually not discounting any form of energy. I'll use the cheapest, thanks.
I think most people will do the same, whatever is cheapest and get the job done.
Where we might disagree, is that I think, at some point what is cheapest will be man made fuels, not fuels made from oil.
 
I think most people will do the same, whatever is cheapest and get the job done.
Where we might disagree, is that I think, at some point what is cheapest will be man made fuels, not fuels made from oil.

Maybe, but I pay for what is available now. You seem to have put a lot of stock in this prediction of yours.
 
This map shows a single flight made over the continent. It does not map the terrain under the ice anywhere but a representative cross section along the planes' path. Do you have anything else?

Not that I can be bothered digging up for you.
 
Maybe, but I pay for what is available now. You seem to have put a lot of stock in this prediction of yours.
Consider which is most likely, that the world will suddenly switch all ground vehicles to electric before the infrastructure is ready,
or that the finished fuel product companies (Oil companies) will make a product compatible with existing vehicles and distribution infrastructure?
For yourself, would you care that the gasoline at the pump were man made, if it were the lowest price one there?
 
Back
Top Bottom