• 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

Same way the Milwaukee Road did it in 1912 Over the Rockies and over the Cascades. Same way all diesel-electric locomotives are run now by electricity.

LOL...

P = E x I

please explain to us how you will get that power to such long hauls.
 
OMG...

You serious?

If there was a solution, now, the corporation that has it would exploit it for profit!
SMH. As if all the people running and working at solar and wind comapnies are liberal do -gooders who aren't in if for the profit-they only want to help mankind.

I've seen plenty of liberal running companies , but usually when they do, they start acting like conservatives, even though they still talk a good liberal game.

Nothing turns a liberal into a rightwing nut faster than asking them for THEIR money. LOL
 
Last edited:
Not sure why this is even a contentious discussion. Viable green and renewable energy sources are a great idea, should be used where available, and should continue to be developed (and IS). It seems to me that the only debate is over whether or not it is realistic to assume that 100% of 75% of our energy needs can be satisfied using renewable energy sources. The answer to that question HAS to be a firm definite...maybe. Not at current capacity. Not with current capabilities. And it should be noted that even with the most OPTIMISTIC assessments of what dreams may come, the Berkeley study itself show that 42% of all energy will STILL come from fossil fuel sources.

You all read that...right?
 
LOL...

P = E x I

please explain to us how you will get that power to such long hauls.

Same way the Milwaukee Road got it into the Cascades and the Rocky Mountains in 1912 now you're talking old ancient technology
 
Do you realize the complexity of powering a freight train with three locomotives, at over 3,000 HP each... using remote electricity...

It's not practical, like current trollys are.
 
Same way the Milwaukee Road got it into the Cascades and the Rocky Mountains in 1912 now you're talking old ancient technology

Have you read what the feeder station spacing was, and why they went bankrupt?

They had to be rather unreliable back that many years ago. Today, for the high power requirements, feeder station spacing can be no more than 5 miles apart at the operating voltages used, and power required.

Understand E = I x R?
 
Not sure why this is even a contentious discussion. Viable green and renewable energy sources are a great idea, should be used where available, and should continue to be developed (and IS). It seems to me that the only debate is over whether or not it is realistic to assume that 100% of 75% of our energy needs can be satisfied using renewable energy sources. The answer to that question HAS to be a firm definite...maybe. Not at current capacity. Not with current capabilities. And it should be noted that even with the most OPTIMISTIC assessments of what dreams may come, the Berkeley study itself show that 42% of all energy will STILL come from fossil fuel sources.

You all read that...right?

LOL

Interesting.
When you see a 'study;' like this, you know they already knew what the conclusion would be before they started . Then it's it's just a matter of backfilling date to support while still pretending to be just objective analyzers of the data. ( kind of like most climate studies) .
Even with all that , the best they could get to was 42 % ?

LAFF
 
Have you read what the feeder station spacing was, and why they went bankrupt?


They went bankrupt because they were built as a low occupancy line to take advantage of the trade with China and the trade never came to fruition until after the lines West were actually torn up. The other factor in the Milwaukee's demise is the end of retail railroading. The electrification for the lines West work very nicely.
 
They went bankrupt because they were built as a low occupancy line to take advantage of the trade with China and the trade never came to fruition until after the lines West were actually torn up. The other factor in the Milwaukee's demise is the end of retail railroading. The electrification for the lines West work very nicely.

Maybe, but not anywhere the power used by modern trains today.

It is not practical for any long distance. The power requirements would require higher voltages, which mean more arcing. The ozone generated would likely have a far greater greenhouse gas forcing than the CO2 eliminated. At a fiver mile spacing, due to line resistances, voltage varies from 3,500 volts to 2,500 volts on a nominal low power system. Higher power creates more complex problems, and this is being very inefficient with power to lose that much voltage and power to line losses.

I know...

Ignorance is bliss...

I have studied electronics since 1968...

This is simplistic.
 
Maybe, but not anywhere the power used by modern trains today.

It is not practical for any long distance. The power requirements would require higher voltages, which mean more arcing. The ozone generated would likely have a far greater greenhouse gas forcing than the CO2 eliminated. At a fiver mile spacing, due to line resistances, voltage varies from 3,500 volts to 2,500 volts on a nominal low power system. Higher power creates more complex problems, and this is being very inefficient with power to lose that much voltage and power to line losses.

I know...

Ignorance is bliss...

I have studied electronics since 1968...

This is simplistic.


You may have studied it but not in any meaningful way. The Milwaukee use power from local power companies mostly hydroelectric. The substations along the railroad were simply there two convert the power for the voltages used by the railroad. A couple of facts that you may not know is that the line was only electrified in the section where a train was running. The locomotives also used electrical regeneration going back into their grid on the downhill run. The electrification was considered hugely successful from an operational point of view. Part of the reason the electrification was abandon was abandon was spare parts became more and more difficult and expensive to acquire in the by the 1970s
 
You may have studied it but not in any meaningful way. The Milwaukee use power from local power companies mostly hydroelectric. The substations along the railroad were simply there two convert the power for the voltages used by the railroad. A couple of facts that you may not know is that the line was only electrified in the section where a train was running. The locomotives also used electrical regeneration going back into their grid on the downhill run. The electrification was considered hugely successful from an operational point of view. Part of the reason the electrification was abandon was abandon was spare parts became more and more difficult and expensive to acquire in the by the 1970s

Yes, it is not cost effective. Even less so today.

Maintenance costs are my major problem with wind generation as well. As they age, they will not be profitable to maintain.
 
Yes, it is not cost effective. Even less so today.

Maintenance costs are my major problem with wind generation as well. As they age, they will not be profitable to maintain.


Your ability to draw a considered opinion from a base of information is not good.
 
LOL

Interesting.
When you see a 'study;' like this, you know they already knew what the conclusion would be before they started . Then it's it's just a matter of backfilling date to support while still pretending to be just objective analyzers of the data. ( kind of like most climate studies) .
Even with all that , the best they could get to was 42 % ?

LAFF
No no. It was the 100% you are supposed to be focused on. You arent supposed to look at the totality of the comments 100% of 75% (in total numbers, if you exclude the worlds manufacturing and industrial leaders).
 
believe as you wish.


Wind turbine maintenance costs continue to drop sharply as the world gains more experience with them. Wind turbines are still considered to be a fairly recent technology and the industry is learning a lot about them.
 
Have you read what the feeder station spacing was, and why they went bankrupt?

They had to be rather unreliable back that many years ago. Today, for the high power requirements, feeder station spacing can be no more than 5 miles apart at the operating voltages used, and power required.

Understand E = I x R?
E=IxR is why the concentrated solar plants, despite massive investments, will still be expected to only produce 9% of energy...at best. Storage and transmission, especially along hardline media, is inefficient. And even with best case future estimates, the calculations fail when they consider existing grid AND home developments. We really are about 30 years behind the curve on engineer and design of energy efficient homes.
 
Wind turbine maintenance costs continue to drop sharply as the world gains more experience with them. Wind turbines are still considered to be a fairly recent technology and the industry is learning a lot about them.

Weekly, monthly, and other such routine maintenance can be streamlined. I'm talking about say 20 years out, when the moving parts need replaced, and things like say... 50,000 hour bearing changes.

Most things like this cost far more to maintain long term than advertised. There is almost always some unforeseen problem that arises, and affects all of them. These things are high in the air, and not cheap to repair.

I will let the future's history judge my accuracy of such things. Not you!
 
The THEORY...it all sounds so good. And I truly wish it was as good as it sounds. Moving towards reliable and viable green energy is TREMENDOUS and the absolutely right thing to do.

But...

Spain in 2013 was a leader in the green energy market and expected to be above 80% by now.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/06/wind-power-spain-electricity-2013. The problem is the only gains came at a massive price to the Spanish government and as a result, they capped production in 2014 for 2015 and 2016. Today...the rates remain at 2013 rates with no progress.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/26/spain-green-energy-production-crippled-as-subsidies-removed/

AND...it has come witha MASSIVE cost. In terms of investment, "Each wind industry job in Spain was estimated to cost $1.3 million to create. Only one out of 10 green jobs created in Spain was permanent." The nations largest green industry leader is threatening bankruptcy, despite the massive influx of government cash. Obama invested 2.2 billion of US Taxpayer dollars into this firm as part of his green energy initiative. Its looking like the company will suffer the same fate of similar green energy leaders in the US.

We can do better...but we are nowhere near making 2050 a reality.
 
Weekly, monthly, and other such routine maintenance can be streamlined. I'm talking about say 20 years out, when the moving parts need replaced, and things like say... 50,000 hour bearing changes.

Most things like this cost far more to maintain long term than advertised. There is almost always some unforeseen problem that arises, and affects all of them. These things are high in the air, and not cheap to repair.

I will let the future's history judge my accuracy of such things. Not you!


steam locomotives needed maintenance every 50 miles or so yet they built a nation. maintenance just means jobs until automation takes over.
 
The THEORY...it all sounds so good. And I truly wish it was as good as it sounds. Moving towards reliable and viable green energy is TREMENDOUS and the absolutely right thing to do.

But...

Spain in 2013 was a leader in the green energy market and expected to be above 80% by now.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/06/wind-power-spain-electricity-2013. The problem is the only gains came at a massive price to the Spanish government and as a result, they capped production in 2014 for 2015 and 2016. Today...the rates remain at 2013 rates with no progress.
Spain Green Energy Production Crippled Withou | The Daily Caller

AND...it has come witha MASSIVE cost. In terms of investment, "Each wind industry job in Spain was estimated to cost $1.3 million to create. Only one out of 10 green jobs created in Spain was permanent." The nations largest green industry leader is threatening bankruptcy, despite the massive influx of government cash. Obama invested 2.2 billion of US Taxpayer dollars into this firm as part of his green energy initiative. Its looking like the company will suffer the same fate of similar green energy leaders in the US.

We can do better...but we are nowhere near making 2050 a reality.


trump diverting attention to coal is backwards and not constructive.
 
trump diverting attention to coal is backwards and not constructive.
Holy ****.

You cant help yourself...can you?

Just...sad.
 
Three suggestions that I think would accelerate things:

Stop attaching renewable energy to global warming. Energy efficiency is it's own reward, and the marketing for global warming is overly political and counter-productive.

Stop trying to relaunch the space race. Many hope that when the government gets "really" serious about renewables that the wave of money will wash away all the technical challenges and economic pressures. Ultimately, if it can't stand on it's own, it's going to fall. Certainly, the government should be promoting and judiciously sponsoring renewables, but the anticipation of that big spending orgy makes for many short-lived ventures, when what we need are sustainable (read profitable) commercial products that draw customers in volume and over time, not a million start-ups chasing government funding and then dying.

Finally, whatever combination of political forces that are still holding back nuclear needs to just die. Thorium in particular needs to be pushed hard. We could (and should) start rolling out those reactors worldwide a lot faster than we can make wind or solar practical. If we had doled thorium reactors to the third world for the last 50 years instead of weaponry, imagine where we would be and how those nations would feel about us today.
 
Last edited:
Holy ****.

You cant help yourself...can you?

Just...sad.


the past is the past its that simple. there are 2.3 more solar (doesnt include wind) for every coal job. got anything more than childishness?
 
Three suggestions that I think would accelerate things:

Stop attaching renewable energy to global warming. Energy efficiency is it's own reward, and the marketing for global warming is overly political and counter-productive.

Stop trying to relaunch the space race. Many hope that when the government gets "really" serious about renewables that the wave of money will wash away all the technical challenges and economic pressures. Ultimately, if it can't stand on it's own, it's going to fall. Certainly, the government should be promoting and judiciously sponsoring renewables, but the anticipation of that big spending orgy makes for many short-lived ventures, when what we need are sustainable (read profitable) commercial products that draw customers in volume and over time, not a million start-ups chasing government funding and then dying.

Finally, whatever combination of political forces that are still holding back nuclear needs to just die. Thorium in particular needs to be pushed hard. We could (and should) start rolling out those reactors worldwide a lot faster than we can make wind or solar practical. If we had doled thorium reactors to the third world for the last 50 years instead of weaponry, imagine where we would be and how those nations would feel about us today.


hard to get to smart when there is a neanderthal in the WH but it is coming. Daily costs are less for renewables.
 
the past is the past its that simple. there are 2.3 more solar (doesnt include wind) for every coal job. got anything more than childishness?
At what cost? I just presented a source that showed only 1 in 10 of those green energy jobs are sustainable AND that each individual job costs 1.3 million. Childishness...are you actually arguing based on ANYTHING other than bias/bent and your inability to have a discussion about ANYTHING without TTTTRRRRRRRRRRUUUUUUMMMMPPPP!!!!! AAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!! Seriously...WTF does Trump have to do with a Berkeley study based on global predictions for 2050 and real world concerns of green energy production???
 
Back
Top Bottom