• 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

Grid scale energy storage is not really figured out yet, Batteries are expensive, and options like large scale pumped hydro are location specific as well as heavy on upfront investment. I read that smaller scale pumped hydro style storage using abandoned mines etc is being seriously looked at. Will be interesting to see if that goes anywhere. The other option that is only just entering the mix is the potential for hydrogen powered generation to carry some of the load when solar and wind are not generating enough. It seems like now we are looking we are finding more geological (green) hydrogen than we ever thought existed. My current thinking is that we will end up with much more location specific solutions than today, using a location specific mix of an array of technologies. Other options like deep drilled geothermal can also become base load plants when solar and wind aren't keeping up. The days of only using hydro, geothermal, and oil/gas/coal fired plants are behind us I think. I think our generation will also be more distributed than today. That has some infrastructure costs, but also adds resilience in a climate change impacted world.
There are two possible options, one of which is actually viable and in small production, Ammonia energy storage and hydrocarbon energy storage.
of the two, Hydrocarbon energy storage has the greatest potential, because of the vast refining and distribution infrastructure already in place,
as well as the existing demand. The climate alarmist do not like hydrocarbon energy storage because they spent too much time demonizing the oil companies. (Existing refineries are best set up to create fuels from captured CO2, hydrogen from water, and electricity.)
Power-to-liquid
While the process is not yet economically viable to compete directly with fuels made from oil, it is getting close, and the
cost curves are in motion. Fuels made from oil will continue to increase in price, and fuels made from scratch
will continue to decrease in price. At some point it will be more profitable for a refinery to make their own fuels from scratch than to
make fuels from purchased oil.
From an energy storage perspective one of the early lectures on the Navy's process for making jet fuel, they mentioned that one of the difficult steps was to force the molecules into the desired liquid form. The process tended to selected the simplest molecule, CH4, natural gas.
We can store almost unlimited quantities of natural gas, to be burned in existing combined cycle powerplants as needed.
An example is that we could store all the surplus electricity from Spring Solar, as natural gas to supply electricity for Summer cooling.
 
Grid scale energy storage is not really figured out yet, Batteries are expensive, and options like large scale pumped hydro are location specific as well as heavy on upfront investment. I read that smaller scale pumped hydro style storage using abandoned mines etc is being seriously looked at. Will be interesting to see if that goes anywhere. The other option that is only just entering the mix is the potential for hydrogen powered generation to carry some of the load when solar and wind are not generating enough. It seems like now we are looking we are finding more geological (green) hydrogen than we ever thought existed. My current thinking is that we will end up with much more location specific solutions than today, using a location specific mix of an array of technologies. Other options like deep drilled geothermal can also become base load plants when solar and wind aren't keeping up. The days of only using hydro, geothermal, and oil/gas/coal fired plants are behind us I think. I think our generation will also be more distributed than today. That has some infrastructure costs, but also adds resilience in a climate change impacted world.

Informative channel about the development in energy storage and other green technologies.



There are now advancements in many types of energy storage.



 
There are two possible options, one of which is actually viable and in small production, Ammonia energy storage and hydrocarbon energy storage.
of the two, Hydrocarbon energy storage has the greatest potential, because of the vast refining and distribution infrastructure already in place,
as well as the existing demand. The climate alarmist do not like hydrocarbon energy storage because they spent too much time demonizing the oil companies. (Existing refineries are best set up to create fuels from captured CO2, hydrogen from water, and electricity.)
Power-to-liquid
While the process is not yet economically viable to compete directly with fuels made from oil, it is getting close, and the
cost curves are in motion. Fuels made from oil will continue to increase in price, and fuels made from scratch
will continue to decrease in price. At some point it will be more profitable for a refinery to make their own fuels from scratch than to
make fuels from purchased oil.
From an energy storage perspective one of the early lectures on the Navy's process for making jet fuel, they mentioned that one of the difficult steps was to force the molecules into the desired liquid form. The process tended to selected the simplest molecule, CH4, natural gas.
We can store almost unlimited quantities of natural gas, to be burned in existing combined cycle powerplants as needed.
An example is that we could store all the surplus electricity from Spring Solar, as natural gas to supply electricity for Summer cooling.

The only examples of hydrocarbon storage you have provided was a small trial that was planned for 2020.

Also the fuels you propose are very costly and inefficient.

 
The only examples of hydrocarbon storage you have provided was a small trial that was planned for 2020.

Also the fuels you propose are very costly and inefficient.

Yet hydrocarbon energy storage and Ammonia are just about the only options available that have the capacity, and can be used everywhere.
What solutions for energy storage have you proposed that can meet both requirements?
 
The only examples of hydrocarbon storage you have provided was a small trial that was planned for 2020.

Also the fuels you propose are very costly and inefficient.


As explained earlier, the world will need every energy source available to meet more than basic needs, and a lot more to copy countries like Norway.
 
Yet hydrocarbon energy storage and Ammonia are just about the only options available that have the capacity, and can be used everywhere.
What solutions for energy storage have you proposed that can meet both requirements?

The transition away from fossil fuels means that you can have many different types of renewable energy and energy storage adapted to different regions and needs. This also means that both big and small companies as well as households and communities can produce electricity and help balance the grid. Instead of having a few big fossil fuel companies controlling the energy market.

For long duration energy storage you for example have hydropower in many areas around the world. There you can also add pump storage capability. Pump hydro energy storage also works in many places around the world with closed down mines. Close loop pump hydrogen storage can also work in areas with limited water reserves.

Long duration storage of heat in sand and water can also be a solution for towns and cities with district heating. Sand batteries might be able to store heat at such high temperatures that it also works for industrial processes. While a solution that can work all across the world is liquid air energy storage.

 
As explained earlier, the world will need every energy source available to meet more than basic needs, and a lot more to copy countries like Norway.

There is a transition away from fossil fuels all across the world. It's just that this transition could and should have come much sooner.


 
The transition away from fossil fuels means that you can have many different types of renewable energy and energy storage adapted to different regions and needs. This also means that both big and small companies as well as households and communities can produce electricity and help balance the grid. Instead of having a few big fossil fuel companies controlling the energy market.

For long duration energy storage you for example have hydropower in many areas around the world. There you can also add pump storage capability. Pump hydro energy storage also works in many places around the world with closed down mines. Close loop pump hydrogen storage can also work in areas with limited water reserves.

Long duration storage of heat in sand and water can also be a solution for towns and cities with district heating. Sand batteries might be able to store heat at such high temperatures that it also works for industrial processes. While a solution that can work all across the world is liquid air energy storage.

You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between fossil fuels, and hydrocarbon fuels!
There is almost zero reasons to transition away from hydrocarbon fuels if we can make them carbon neutral!
What’s more is that the transition from fossil fuels to man made hydrocarbon fuels will happen without government fiat!
In the future I am confident we will find some better way to store energy that can be used everywhere, but for now, our choices are limited.
 
There is a transition away from fossil fuels all across the world. It's just that this transition could and should have come much sooner.



The transition started after 1979, when oil production per capita peaked. The problem is that lots of oil is needed for the same transition, while even more oil is needed because the ones involved in that transition are for-profit corporations, which want the opposite of sustainability. Finally, the latter is assured because 70 pct of human beings lack basic needs and want what the 30 pct (those dreaming of a cute Norway world where everyone has an ICEV for leisurely long trips and on top of that an EV to show that they're "environmentally friendly") have, while the same 30 pct are counting on the 70 pct to borrow and spend more because their own lifestyles are dependent on increasing profits from increasing sales of increasing production of good and produced, leading to increasing profits churned back into the same system to increase production for increasing sales for which increasing profits are made once more.

Why increasing production? Because the amount of energy and resources needed to meet at least the basic needs of that 70 pct is at least an additional earth. To attain a cute Norway future? Three more earths.
 
The transition started after 1979, when oil production per capita peaked. The problem is that lots of oil is needed for the same transition, while even more oil is needed because the ones involved in that transition are for-profit corporations, which want the opposite of sustainability. Finally, the latter is assured because 70 pct of human beings lack basic needs and want what the 30 pct (those dreaming of a cute Norway world where everyone has an ICEV for leisurely long trips and on top of that an EV to show that they're "environmentally friendly") have, while the same 30 pct are counting on the 70 pct to borrow and spend more because their own lifestyles are dependent on increasing profits from increasing sales of increasing production of good and produced, leading to increasing profits churned back into the same system to increase production for increasing sales for which increasing profits are made once more.

Why increasing production? Because the amount of energy and resources needed to meet at least the basic needs of that 70 pct is at least an additional earth. To attain a cute Norway future? Three more earths.
Enough energy in the form of sunlight falls on the Earth to allow everyone alive to live a first world lifestyle.
The problem is that energy is not in a usable form, and the duty cycle, means it cannot fill the entire demand without massive energy storage.
While many people talk down about profit driven companies, profits come from suppling a demand.
Fossil fuels do not exists in levels needed to allow everyone alive to live a first world lifestyle for long.
Solar panels can convert Sunlight to electricity, and produce over their lifetime more energy than they take to create.
Calculating energy required to produce a solar panel vs the production of that panel.
more on this later.
 
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?
All of the world powered by coal since 1920.
 
You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between fossil fuels, and hydrocarbon fuels!
There is almost zero reasons to transition away from hydrocarbon fuels if we can make them carbon neutral!
What’s more is that the transition from fossil fuels to man made hydrocarbon fuels will happen without government fiat!
In the future I am confident we will find some better way to store energy that can be used everywhere, but for now, our choices are limited.

Fossil fuel companies have known about the need to transition away from fossil fuel for many decades and still haven't started significant production of the fuels you propose.



Also as my previous link showed, the fuels you propose are very inefficient and costly.

Natural gas plants also have an efficiency of 44 percent. There producing carbon neutral alternative, store it and use it produce electricity would lead to even lower efficiency. Because of the energy lost in producing those fuels.


While for example air liquid air energy storage that can work all across the world and use existing technology have an efficiency of 60 percent. While other types of energy storage can have an efficiency much higher than 60 percent.
 
The transition started after 1979, when oil production per capita peaked. The problem is that lots of oil is needed for the same transition, while even more oil is needed because the ones involved in that transition are for-profit corporations, which want the opposite of sustainability. Finally, the latter is assured because 70 pct of human beings lack basic needs and want what the 30 pct (those dreaming of a cute Norway world where everyone has an ICEV for leisurely long trips and on top of that an EV to show that they're "environmentally friendly") have, while the same 30 pct are counting on the 70 pct to borrow and spend more because their own lifestyles are dependent on increasing profits from increasing sales of increasing production of good and produced, leading to increasing profits churned back into the same system to increase production for increasing sales for which increasing profits are made once more.

Why increasing production? Because the amount of energy and resources needed to meet at least the basic needs of that 70 pct is at least an additional earth. To attain a cute Norway future? Three more earths.

Global sale of fossil fuel cars peaked in 2017.


That it is now not only a transition towards electric cars all across the world but also investments into public transport, cycling and walkable cities.



 
Global sale of fossil fuel cars peaked in 2017.


That it is now not only a transition towards electric cars all across the world but also investments into public transport, cycling and walkable cities.




I'm referring to world oil production per capita, which peaked back in 1979.

World <> China, Europe, and the U.S. Get your story straight.

Finally, every point your raise still proves my point: references to industrialized countries. When you factor in most of the world, which is still industrializing, then your cute Norway story falls apart.
 
Fossil fuel companies have known about the need to transition away from fossil fuel for many decades and still haven't started significant production of the fuels you propose.



Also as my previous link showed, the fuels you propose are very inefficient and costly.

Natural gas plants also have an efficiency of 44 percent. There producing carbon neutral alternative, store it and use it produce electricity would lead to even lower efficiency. Because of the energy lost in producing those fuels.


While for example air liquid air energy storage that can work all across the world and use existing technology have an efficiency of 60 percent. While other types of energy storage can have an efficiency much higher than 60 percent.
So how much air storage capacity do you need to supply day a single GWh of capacity?
 
I'm referring to world oil production per capita, which peaked back in 1979.

World <> China, Europe, and the U.S. Get your story straight.

Finally, every point your raise still proves my point: references to industrialized countries. When you factor in most of the world, which is still industrializing, then your cute Norway story falls apart.

My source showed that global sales of fossil fuel cars peaked in 2017, that even with large parts of the world still industrializing.

While for example China, which is still industrializing and a major exporter of goods, might start to see a decline in its C02 emissions this year.


While there is also an expansion of electric vehicles and renewable energy in India.



Developing countries also see the benefits of reducing car dependency.



 
So how much air storage capacity do you need to supply day a single GWh of capacity?

I don't know exactly but what is good is that you can use regular storage tanks and it can be possible to quickly build out the storage capacity.


“Hiighview is already preparing to deploy its technology at a number of locations, including a 50MW/300MWh project near Manchester in England.

Smaller demonstration pilots have been installed and tested at the University of Birmingham and at the Pilsworth Landfill facility in Greater Manchester. A second commercial project will be built in Yorkshire, a 200MW/2.5GWh facility which will be the first of 18 sites for wider UK deployment.”

 
I don't know exactly but what is good is that you can use regular storage tanks and it can be possible to quickly build out the storage capacity.


“Hiighview is already preparing to deploy its technology at a number of locations, including a 50MW/300MWh project near Manchester in England.

Smaller demonstration pilots have been installed and tested at the University of Birmingham and at the Pilsworth Landfill facility in Greater Manchester. A second commercial project will be built in Yorkshire, a 200MW/2.5GWh facility which will be the first of 18 sites for wider UK deployment.”

I am sorry you do not understand the physics involved, it would not be "regular storage tanks" that hold liquid air at -196°C.
while there is some merit to the technology, there are some questions to the costs.
 
My source showed that global sales of fossil fuel cars peaked in 2017, that even with large parts of the world still industrializing.

While for example China, which is still industrializing and a major exporter of goods, might start to see a decline in its C02 emissions this year.


While there is also an expansion of electric vehicles and renewable energy in India.



Developing countries also see the benefits of reducing car dependency.




World oil consumption doesn't rely solely on using cars. As explained to you many times in this thread, it's used for the bulk of mining, up to half of manufacturing (as long as you don't include petrochemicals used for thousands of applications), and shipping.

World oil production per capita peaked back in 1979:


laherrereGraph.JPG


That's why the transition you've been dreaming about has been in place for decades and yet oil production and consumption continue to rise.

In addition, much of the world is industrializing, not industrialized. All of the examples you give involve industrialized countries and essentially a quarter of human beings. The rest still live on less than $10 a day and want to earn more, while the same quarter are relying on them to earn more because their own incomes and returns on investment are heavily dependent on increasing production and consumption of goods and services.


The amount of energy and material resources needed to maintain the needs of the global population is way above biocapacity:


The smart city/investment schemes you promote require even more energy and material resources.

Finally, that opposite of sustainability is also what the companies you promote also want, as they're competing and for-profit.
 
World oil consumption doesn't rely solely on using cars. As explained to you many times in this thread, it's used for the bulk of mining, up to half of manufacturing (as long as you don't include petrochemicals used for thousands of applications), and shipping.

World oil production per capita peaked back in 1979:


laherrereGraph.JPG


That's why the transition you've been dreaming about has been in place for decades and yet oil production and consumption continue to rise.

In addition, much of the world is industrializing, not industrialized. All of the examples you give involve industrialized countries and essentially a quarter of human beings. The rest still live on less than $10 a day and want to earn more, while the same quarter are relying on them to earn more because their own incomes and returns on investment are heavily dependent on increasing production and consumption of goods and services.


The amount of energy and material resources needed to maintain the needs of the global population is way above biocapacity:


The smart city/investment schemes you promote require even more energy and material resources.

Finally, that opposite of sustainability is also what the companies you promote also want, as they're competing and for-profit.

There are now a transition away from fossil fuels in more sectors.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/04/10/1071208/the-hottest-new-climate-technology-is-bricks/



While also developing countries are implementing right to repair laws.

 
There are now a transition away from fossil fuels in more sectors.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/04/10/1071208/the-hottest-new-climate-technology-is-bricks/



While also developing countries are implementing right to repair laws.


The transition started back in 1979.

The goal of reducing costs is not to decrease use but to increase productivity, which means increasing consumption.

Every point you say derails the idea of sustainability that you promote.
 
The transition started back in 1979.

The goal of reducing costs is not to decrease use but to increase productivity, which means increasing consumption.

Every point you say derails the idea of sustainability that you promote.

For example the EU have set bindning targets to reduce energy consumption.

 
For example the EU have set bindning targets to reduce energy consumption.


How does the EU represent the world population, which is dominated by developing economies which need a lot of energy and material resources to continue industrialization?
 
How does the EU represent the world population, which is dominated by developing economies which need a lot of energy and material resources to continue industrialization?

I provided many examples of how development countries can develop in much more sustainable ways. While also how developed countries reduce their CO2 emissions and create more efficient and sustainable societies. While at the same time a lot more work need to be done and the transition needs to speed up.
 
Back
Top Bottom