• 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

And what about batteries or some other storage, for the times of no sunlight and dead wind patterns?

Who's crystal ball says we will have adequate storage means by then?

You build overlap redundancy in the system by building different systems. If your system only relied on solar power, then yes a cloudy day would be bad. But you include wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, etc. all together and if one falls short the others make up for it.
 
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???


Again you're living in the past. It's been pointed out again and again that renewable costs continue to come down. Trump pandering to coal miners is not what the country needs we need research into Renewables in terms of storage and other aspects. The real Point here is that the world is going renewable Audi won't even make an internal combustion car in a couple of years. The future is coming and it's Renewables. Next you're going to argue we can't have solar because of eclipses.
 
Again you're living in the past. It's been pointed out again and again that renewable costs continue to come down. Trump pandering to coal miners is not what the country needs we need research into Renewables in terms of storage and other aspects. The real Point here is that the world is going renewable Audi won't even make an internal combustion car in a couple of years. The future is coming and it's Renewables. Next you're going to argue we can't have solar because of eclipses.
Its my fault. I bothered reading your post.
 
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.

Sorry, I haven't been following your debate...I just hit a link to a nearby post and your E=IR caught my eye from my ham radio days, half decade ago, anyway...

A big part of our problem began with Eisenhower when the oil companies convinced him we had unlimited supply of fossil fuels and didn't need to develop hydrogen energy technology gained from the Germans...let's add in the effect of "petro dollars" based on US currency to get into the market...granted, there's side deals...Saddam wanted to trade in euros...no doubt Iran and China don't partake.

There was some action as regards domestic hydrogen for all sorts of things back in the early 70's ...a city in Utah ran on it...piped into houses to cook with...ran lawn mowers with it, etcetera ...a couple of buses were tried out in Riverside California which didn't catch on because they allowed the drinkable exhaust to escape in a white plume instead of a more discreet method of disposal...it's safer and non polluting other than in producing water vapor (I would question the effect to global humidity if it were used exclusively)...I mention hydrogen because it goes to the mindset of our economy and the fossil fuels industry...we are very slow to evolve in our conservative ways...



ChartOfTheDay_1576_Chinese_Solar_Photovoltaic_Production_Soars_n.jpg


*There is no doubt more current info but this should suffice to illustrate the point...so much for made in USA.


https://www.bing.com/images/search?...solar+energy+production+by+country&ajaxhist=0

What Does E=IR Really Mean?
 
Sorry, I haven't been following your debate...I just hit a link to a nearby post and your E=IR caught my eye from my ham radio days, half decade ago, anyway...

A big part of our problem began with Eisenhower when the oil companies convinced him we had unlimited supply of fossil fuels and didn't need to develop hydrogen energy technology gained from the Germans...let's add in the effect of "petro dollars" based on US currency to get into the market...granted, there's side deals...Saddam wanted to trade in euros...no doubt Iran and China don't partake.

There was some action as regards domestic hydrogen for all sorts of things back in the early 70's ...a city in Utah ran on it...piped into houses to cook with...ran lawn mowers with it, etcetera ...a couple of buses were tried out in Riverside California which didn't catch on because they allowed the drinkable exhaust to escape in a white plume instead of a more discreet method of disposal...it's safer and non polluting other than in producing water vapor (I would question the effect to global humidity if it were used exclusively)...I mention hydrogen because it goes to the mindset of our economy and the fossil fuels industry...we are very slow to evolve in our conservative ways...



View attachment 67221854


*There is no doubt more current info but this should suffice to illustrate the point...so much for made in USA.


https://www.bing.com/images/search?...solar+energy+production+by+country&ajaxhist=0

What Does E=IR Really Mean?


The coaL people on here are working hard to give the future to the Chinese
 
Again you're living in the past. It's been pointed out again and again that renewable costs continue to come down. Trump pandering to coal miners is not what the country needs we need research into Renewables in terms of storage and other aspects. The real Point here is that the world is going renewable Audi won't even make an internal combustion car in a couple of years. The future is coming and it's Renewables. Next you're going to argue we can't have solar because of eclipses.


Goldman Sachs it says energy will not need any subsidies by the year 2023. Try to get current information.
 
Next you're going to argue we can't have solar because of eclipses.

LOL...imagine what it would be like watching it in an energy distribution system when solar residential that are on the grid go from supply to demand for a couple of minutes during the day...

Smileys-Wave-82553.gif
 

Attachments

  • wave_smiley.gif
    wave_smiley.gif
    14.2 KB · Views: 874
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.

Thorium sounds interesting and I confess I hadn't heard of it until you mentioned it...just a quick web search led me to this...

Actually, though, the United States has tried to develop thorium as an energy source for some 50 years and is still struggling to deal with the legacy of those attempts. In addition to the billions of dollars it spent, mostly fruitlessly, to develop thorium fuels, the US government will have to spend billions more, at numerous federal nuclear sites, to deal with the wastes produced by those efforts. And America’s energy-from-thorium quest now faces an ignominious conclusion: The US Energy Department appears to have lost track of 96 kilograms of uranium 233, a fissile material made from thorium that can be fashioned into a bomb, and is battling the state of Nevada over the proposed dumping of nearly a ton of left-over fissile materials in a government landfill, in apparent violation of international standards.

That bothers me.

Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
 
Thorium sounds interesting and I confess I hadn't heard of it until you mentioned it...just a quick web search led me to this...

That bothers me.

Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

I'm no nuclear physicist, you'll have to keep reading and convince yourself (either way.) This article seems fairly even handed.

A big point in favor for me is that you can design a reactor that can not melt down, as the the reaction is never out of control.

Also, though it is possible to collect weapons-grade material from them, it is significantly harder than with traditional reactors.

Also, there are designs that can recycle spent uranium fuel, though I don't believe that's unique to Thorium reactors.
 
I'm no nuclear physicist, you'll have to keep reading and convince yourself (either way.) This article seems fairly even handed.

A big point in favor for me is that you can design a reactor that can not melt down, as the the reaction is never out of control.

Also, though it is possible to collect weapons-grade material from them, it is significantly harder than with traditional reactors.

Also, there are designs that can recycle spent uranium fuel, though I don't believe that's unique to Thorium reactors.

I'm no nuclear physicist either but I thank you for the enlightenment.

I lean toward other alternatives...solar, wind, wave action, etcetera.

If we could go from fission to fusion from my limited studies decades ago you do away with the recycle problem...don't quote me on that...it's just a fractured memory.
 
We also could all be dead from Trump Brand World War (formerly World War 3) but i don't expect it.
 
Not to mention that most countries get their wealth from fossil fuels. I think those countries that are rich with fossil fuels will oppose this because it can harm their economy.

A cool country is Norway, there in June of this year 42 percent of new cars was electric and 27 percent of them was all-electric vehicles.

https://electrek.co/2017/07/04/electric-car-norway-tesla-model-x/

That they have had democratic and wise governments that saved a lot of the profit from oil and natural gas, so Norway will do fine after the end of fossil fuel.
 
Last edited:
There are many challenges to such a utopian dream, all of which derail the rather naive belief that humans and cultures could achieve such a result.

I realize that science, and scientists, can't quantify humans, so they just ignore them.

Over the last 100 years, there are Nations and cultures that have failed to reach even the most modest of modernization goals common among more advanced industrialized countries.

Expecting these nations to make some quantum leap into the future is a bit fantastical.

Further, the transition period to 100% renewables globally will take investment beyond the wildest imagination of even the most pessimistic among us.

That channeling of resources could potentially have a cataclysmic impact on the global economy that the projected "24 million new jobs" couldn't begin to counter.

To think it all could be done by 2050 calls into question the motivation for such a claim, or at least at minimum, the sanity of the authors and scientists behind this claim.

There is little question a transition to alternative energy will take place in the coming decades and centuries.

It will be rational and reasoned efforts that will drive that transition, not agenda driven groups using energy discussion as a means to an end.

Already countries like Denmark, Egypt, India, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates are getting electricity from renewables at prices a lot lower than nuclear and fossil fuel energy.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ble-energy-costs-leads-to-record-global-boost

Also, just in the next ten years it will be rapid advancement in battery technology and production.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/25/t...e-battery-could-make-its-way-to-cars-by-2020/

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/25/70-decrease-energy-storage-costs-2030-says-report/

Stunning new lows in solar and battery storage costs : RenewEconomy

You can also compare the cost of investing in a renewable future to being dependent on oil from the Middle East. That USA should have give three billion dollars to the Green Climate Fund if Trump hadn’t pulled out of the Paris Agreement while the Iraq war is estimated to have cost over two trillion dollars.
 
Awesome....

"The model estimates derived from the full dataset were compared to the results of independent, representative state- and city-level surveys conducted in California, Colorado, Ohio, Texas, San Francisco, and Columbus, Ohio in 2013. The mean absolute difference between model estimates and validation survey results was 2.9 percentage points (SD = 1.5) among the four states (CA, TX, OH, CO) and 3.6 percentage points (SD = 2.9) among the two metropolitan areas (Columbus, OH, and San Francisco, CA), well within the margins of error for the survey results alone (at a 95% confidence level)."

So the Yale study interviewed 18,000 people with a nationwide representative sampling coming from 4 states and 2 metropolitan areas. Now...what do you think the results would have been had those poll respondents been asked "What specifically are the results anticipated via the Paris Accord that you find worthy of US support", and "If the Paris Accord were worthwhile, why was it not submitted for adoption as a treaty?"
 
As I understand it most Americans support the Paris Agreement.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...upport-staying-in-the-paris-agreement/528663/

While a lot of American cities, states and businesses pledge to uphold the Paris Agreement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/climate/american-cities-climate-standards.html?mcubz=3
"The unnamed group — which, so far, includes 30 mayors, three governors, more than 80 university presidents and more than 100 businesses — is negotiating with the United Nations to have its submission accepted alongside contributions to the Paris climate deal by other nations."

That doesnt seem like "a lot". On the other hand...good for them.
 
Already countries like Denmark, Egypt, India, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates are getting electricity from renewables at prices a lot lower than nuclear and fossil fuel energy.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ble-energy-costs-leads-to-record-global-boost

Also, just in the next ten years it will be rapid advancement in battery technology and production.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/25/t...e-battery-could-make-its-way-to-cars-by-2020/

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/25/70-decrease-energy-storage-costs-2030-says-report/

Stunning new lows in solar and battery storage costs : RenewEconomy

You can also compare the cost of investing in a renewable future to being dependent on oil from the Middle East. That USA should have give three billion dollars to the Green Climate Fund if Trump hadn’t pulled out of the Paris Agreement while the Iraq war is estimated to have cost over two trillion dollars.

There is fantasy, and there is reality. Perhaps you should follow these dollars, and see where they are landing.

The Green Climate Fund is a scam, as is the entire effort of the IPCC. It a global social justice scheme seeking to enrich a select few groups, wrapped in a story about calamity should people fail to respond to their preaching's.

Before you ignore this fact by assigning my words as nothing but more "denier" BS, do some research yourself.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms4.html

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/iea-44-trillion-in-energy-investment-wont-limit-climate-change-to-2-degrees

So tell me, how does the West provide $44 trillion dollars over the next 25 years, without completly dropping spending on anything but renewable energy?

This story you're telling is cool, but it's a complete fantasy, and a warning sign to those not caught up in the propaganda being spread by those eager to line their pockets with Western treasure.
 
A cool country is Norway, there in June of this year 42 percent of new cars was electric and 27 percent of them was all-electric vehicles.

https://electrek.co/2017/07/04/electric-car-norway-tesla-model-x/

That they have had democratic and wise governments that saved a lot of the profit from oil and natural gas, so Norway will do fine after the end of fossil fuel.

Although the percentage is less than half, the country is indeed amazing for making their automobiles electric. However, electric cars still utilize few fossil fuels. Nevertheless, it is still a great contribution to the world's environment. I wish every nation would implement the use of these cars now to save our earth because our environment is steadily worsening. There are reports of massive reduction of habitat that has increased over the past years. This is frustrating to hear because it seems like we are not even aware of the earth's destruction. People are fully informed about the dos and donts in regards with our surroundings, but we still continue to lean on the dont's which is deeply sad.
 
Awesome....

"The model estimates derived from the full dataset were compared to the results of independent, representative state- and city-level surveys conducted in California, Colorado, Ohio, Texas, San Francisco, and Columbus, Ohio in 2013. The mean absolute difference between model estimates and validation survey results was 2.9 percentage points (SD = 1.5) among the four states (CA, TX, OH, CO) and 3.6 percentage points (SD = 2.9) among the two metropolitan areas (Columbus, OH, and San Francisco, CA), well within the margins of error for the survey results alone (at a 95% confidence level)."

So the Yale study interviewed 18,000 people with a nationwide representative sampling coming from 4 states and 2 metropolitan areas. Now...what do you think the results would have been had those poll respondents been asked "What specifically are the results anticipated via the Paris Accord that you find worthy of US support", and "If the Paris Accord were worthwhile, why was it not submitted for adoption as a treaty?"

Don't know but I'd imagine if one of the choices was "What's this Paris thing y'all are talking about?"...it would probably get a fair representation.
 
Don't know but I'd imagine if one of the choices was "What's this Paris thing y'all are talking about?"...it would probably get a fair representation.

You didn't get a fair representation on THIS site. No one had the first ****ing clue about the Paris Climate accord til Trump pulled the US out of it. Suddenly people were outraged. But ask them about what conditions were in the accord. Ask them about how much we were paying and especially who the beneficiaries were. Ask them if they knew which countries were given 30 years grace with no expectation of change. And then ask them to explain the treaty process and why this could t POSSIBLY ever pass a senatorial muster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You didn't get a fair representation on THIS site. No one had the first ****ing clue about the Paris Climate accord til Trump pulled the US out of it. Suddenly people were outraged. But ask them about what conditions were in the accord. Ask them about how much we were paying and especially who the beneficiaries were. Ask them if they knew which countries were given 30 years grace with no expectation of change. And then ask them to explain the treaty process and why this could t POSSIBLY ever pass a senatorial muster.
What does THIS site have to do with what the respondents of some poll that I'd bet few members on THIS site never heard of have?

*** I'm assuming by THIS site you are referring to DP...if not...


 
Back
Top Bottom