Shutting down the EPA

Putting energy usage back to 1600s levels will pretty much polish off civilization as we know it.

 

So??? What does that have to do with anything?

Are you actually ignorant and brainwashed enough to believe that anyone anywhere is actually proposing "putting energy usage back to 1600s levels" as a way of dealing with the climate change crisis?

Perhaps you could cite an example....

LOLOLOLOL

You seem very fond of straw man arguments and not too fond of reality.

A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables
Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world's energy, eliminating all fossil fuels. Here's how

By Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi
Scientific American
October 26, 2009
(excerpts)

Our plan calls for millions of wind turbines, water machines and solar installations. The numbers are large, but the scale is not an insurmountable hurdle; society has achieved massive transformations before. During World War II, the U.S. retooled automobile factories to produce 300,000 aircraft, and other countries produced 486,000 more. In 1956 the U.S. began building the Interstate Highway System, which after 35 years extended for 47,000 miles, changing commerce and society.

Is it feasible to transform the world’s energy systems? Could it be accomplished in two decades? The answers depend on the technologies chosen, the availability of critical materials, and economic and political factors.

 

"Renewable" are already failing. Tens of thousands of "renewable" energy units - often situated to exploit primo "renewable" resources are being shut down. I started a thread on this a while back.

Since renewables don't work, cutting out fossil fuels puts us back into the technology level of colonial America.

 

Do you live on Mars?

 

No, I don't live on Mars. Do you?

Despite the fact that wind and solar are mature technologies, they simply don't work. Why else would they be massively abandoned?

 

If you're not living on Mars, you clearly need to get out more. Wind and solar being "massively abandoned"? Where'd you get that? Rush Limbaugh? Find me a reliable source for that, or just admit that you're wrong.

The truth is, investment in renewables surpassed fossil fuels for the first time in 2011. That's not massive abandonment. And that's on top of a 13% growth in global renewables investment in 2010. No massive abandonment there either.

Bloomberg (hardly a left-wing rag) expects investments in renewables to double in the next eight years. Hardly massive abandonment.

The US exported (you read that right: EXPORTED) a net of $1.9 billion in solar products in 2010. Where's the "massive abandonment" here?

In Germany, solar PV installations broke a record in 2011 with 3 GW of new installation. That beat the previous record for installs, set all the way back in 2010. No "massive abandonment" there.

Here's a graph of global wind installation. Please point to where the "massive abandonment" is occurring:


If you haven't heard about any of these stories, maybe you are living on Mars. Or maybe you're just watching FOX News, which amounts to the same thing.

 

Installed capacity is one thing. Output is entirely another.

Why is it that wind and solar put out such a small percentage of installed capacity?

Why is it that tens of thousands of wind and solar units are being abandoned?

Why is Germany having to import electricity from France and the Czech Republic?

Simple conclusion: Wind and solar are over-rated.

 

I've never heard of a degree in "sustainability" so I looked it up. Its offered at a number of universities, but its one of those programs that politically correct universities create to get on board the latest funding/political band wagon. Its like womens studies, african american studies, etc. Its a program to make the university look good but produces nothing except brownie points for the pc crowd.

I looked at the curriculum, take out the wishy washy green feel good courses and there is nothing that isn't already in the regular CE and ME engineering programs.

Energy companies don't hire people with obscure degrees in things like "sustainability", they hire people with solid degrees in engineering. It takes many years of experience, plus some brains, to deal with an energy system as a system and be able to improve it. Its not something that a person can learn in college.

Agribusiness has an even tighter budget than the energy sector, agribusiness doesn't hire sustainability (in the sense you mean) either. Agribusiness is interested in sustaining land, water, improving efficiency, etc., but I couldn't find anything to indicate they were hiring people with degrees in "sustainability". Experts in animal science, people who specialize in pasture management, crop rotation, genetic and hybrid seeds, they get hired.

 

I disagree. Solar works and is ready for prime time, and will work in certain situations. The problem is the cost.

I live in FLorida so solar is an obvious option. When we built our house (2003), the original plan was for it to be 100% solar. The cost in equipment alone was over $50,000, so we didn't do it. We could have reduced the cost by making some changes in the big energy consumption devices - air conditioning, heating, clothes dryer - but there were no viable alternatives.

But we do use solar in other areas that are less demanding in power than a house (solar powered deep wells for water, barns, greehouses, lighting for remote fields and arenas). I live on a farm and its much easier and cheaper than having the power company run wires to remote places.

Solar is great because the power generation is installed at the point of use, no distribution grid is needed. That also means its totally in my control, no govt supervision and control, no govt taxation on energy consumption. If I want more energy, I expand the system.

As I said, the problem is the cost. Installation is expensive. Batteries have to be replaced every 5-7 years, and deep cycle batteries are very expensive. Solar panels get damaged in storms from flying debris, wires in panels sometimes break, and panels are expensive. Shipping fragile panels and heavy batteries (200+ lbs a battery, plus batteries are labeled as hazardous cargo) can be a problem.

If Obama and the green freaks really wanted to stimulate solar, they would have given the money to the end user (the people actually installing and using the system) and not to the big manufacturers. There are plenty of sources for solar equipment, we didn't need a solyndra. Once there are enough solar systems installed there will be a natural market, the price will come down and people will voluntarily shift to solar. That doesn't suit Obama's socialist mind set of top down.

 

Wind and solar can be bit players in certain niches, but they cannot supplant fossil fuel.

 

That's a nonsense myth of your fossil fuel industry sponsored cult of AGW denial but it has no connection to reality.

 

Livefree posted:
“That's a nonsense myth of your fossil fuel industry sponsored cult of AGW denial but it has no connection to reality.”

Taxcutter says:
How do you explain the fact that tens of thousands of wind and solar energy units are being closed down worldwide. Further, these facilties are in primo wind locations like Altamont and San Gorgonio Pass in California and a solar plant in Spain (very new and touted as the best in the world) are being abandoned in place?


Dave in FL posted:
“Solar works and is ready for prime time, and will work in certain situations.”

Taxcutter says:
A very limited number of situations.

 

Nobody has to explain anything because your supposed "fact is bogus BS. In reality, tens of thousands of new wind and solar installations are coming online every year and the rate of expansion is increasing.

Renewables 2011 Global Status Report
Press Release - free to reproduce

Continued Global Growth of Renewable Energy in 2010

* Renewable energy supplied an estimated 16% of global final energy consumption
* Solar PV more than doubled thanks to declining costs
* Global Investments in Renewables Up Over 30% to a Record $211 billion
* Emerging and Developing Economies Increase Share of Policies, Investment, Supply and Use
* REN21 launches Renewables Interactive Map

Paris, 12 July 2011: The REN21 Renewables 2011 Global Status Report released today shows that the renewable energy sector continues to perform well despite continuing economic recession, incentive cuts, and low natural-gas prices.

In 2010, renewable energy supplied an estimated 16% of global final energy consumption and delivered close to 20% of global electricity. Renewable capacity now comprises about a quarter of total global power-generating capacity.

The report was commissioned by REN21 and produced in collaboration with a global network of research partners.

“The global performance of renewable energy despite headwinds has been a positive constant in turbulent times”, says Mohamed El-Ashry, Chairman of REN21’s Steering Committee. “Today, more people than ever before derive energy from renewables as capacity continues to grow, prices continue to fall, and shares of global energy from renewable energy continue to increase.”

Global solar PV production and markets more than doubled in comparison with 2009, thanks to government incentive programmes and the continued fall in PV module prices.

Germany installed more PV in 2010 than the entire world added in 2009. PV markets in Japan and the U.S. almost doubled relative to 2009.

Globally, wind power added the most new capacity (followed by hydropower and solar PV), but for the first time ever, Europe added more PV than wind capacity.

Renewable energy policies continue to be the main driver behind renewable energy growth. By early 2011, at least 119 countries had some type of policy target or renewable support policy at the national level, more than doubling from 55 countries in early 2005. More than half of these countries are in the developing world.

At least 95 countries now have some type of policy to support renewable power generation. Of all the policies employed by governments, feed-in tariffs remain the most common.

Last year, investment reached a record $211 billion in renewables -- about one-third more than the $160 billion invested in 2009, and more than five times the amount invested in 2004.

Money invested in renewable energy companies, and in utility-scale generation and biofuel projects increased to $143 billion, with developing countries surpassing developed economies for the first time, as shown in the GSR’s recently released companion report, UNEP Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2011. China attracted $48.5 billion, or more than a third of the global total, but other developing countries also experienced major developments in terms of policies, investments, market trends, and manufacturing.

Beyond Asia, significant advances are also seen in many Latin American countries, and at least 20 countries in the Middle East, North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa have active renewable energy markets, the report says.

Developed countries still led the way in investment in small-scale power projects and R&D during 2010. Germany, Italy and the US were the top three.

“The increased renewable energy activity in developing countries highlighted in this year’s report is very encouraging, since most of the future growth in energy demand is expected to occur in developing countries,” says Mohamed El-Ashry, Chairman of REN21’s Steering Committee.

“More and more of the world’s people are gaining access to energy services through renewables, not only to meet their basic needs, but also to enable them to develop economically”, says El-Ashry. Renewable energy in even the most remote areas is ensuring that more of the world’s people are gaining access to basic energy services, iincluding lighting and communications, cooking, heating and cooling, and water pumping, while also generating economic growth through services such as motive power.

REN21 is also launching its Renewables Interactive Map - a streamlined tool for gathering and sharing information online about developments related to renewable energy.

 

Livefree’s UN stooges seem to have missed the obvious.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/wind_energys_ghosts_1.html

Kamaoa, Tehachapi, San Gorgonio, Altamont Pass – America’s primo wind resource sites. All filled with abandoned wind turbines. All abandoned – not because of Rush Limbaugh – but because of their own inherent weakness.

Wind turbines are mature technology. Constant speed propellers have been around since the 1920. Gear boxes and alternators since long before that. After 90 years development there isn’t much more scope for improvement, but they can’t economically survive in places with a lot of wind, rich markets for their power, and high costs of competing fossil fuel.

Solar is doing no better.

http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/CA4965/
Even Google’s mega-bucks can’t stop the fact solar is a boondoggle.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1126/Solar-power-Google-pulls-the-plug

Hawaiians note the failure of solar power in sunny Californiia.
http://hawaiifreepress.com/Articles...ed-Solar-Farms-Clutter-California-Desert.aspx

Even the Dutch are giving up on wind power.

http://toryaardvark.com/2011/11/25/wind-and-solar-power-industries-in-global-decline/

Great pic at that link.

Dirty little secret about wind mills. Those huge air foils have to have electric resistance heat built in to resist icing conditions. In winter the wind turbines may consume more power de-icing their prop blades than what they actually produce. Failed de-ice heaters are the major cause of spectacular prop disintegration.


Even Spain is giving up on solar power.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...pains-solar-power-sector-falls-into-the-abyss

Solar power never stood on its own. It always needed a huge government subsidy.

Why does livefree post drivel from phoney UN "experts" who cannot see the obvious?

 

More “sustainable energy” follies.

Here’s one that came unglued because the constant-speed prop governor failed.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o"]Nordtank (Vestas) wind system fail and crashes. - YouTube[/ame]

These are in trouble because of gear box failure.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liNIqYNHRXE"]Lackawanna NY turbine gear failure - YouTube[/ame]

On the other hand there are coal-fired power plants in the US that have boring produced power since the 1930s without incident.

 

Really???
Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill



Bluff collapse at power plant sends dirt, coal ash into lake



Duvha Power Station

Want more???

And why are you ignoring the daily disasters of coal-fired power plant: the pollution they emit. For example, mercury:

arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead.

 

Really??
Google Green

Notice the date. It is later than your article.

I suggest you find more reliable sources for your links; many of them are lies and distortions.

 

Pounds of mercury (almost all of it as salt particles caught by normal baghouses or ESP, and nearly none of it emitted as bioaccumulative methyl mercury) and a few tons of dirt in a stream in no way disqualify coal as a source of electricity, and certainly do not in any way indicate that coal fired power plkants do not work.

Nobody is abandoning coal fired power plants because they don't work - as is the case of wind and solar. The only reason people may be closing coal fired power plants is extremist US regs. In Europe Germany and Italy are in the process restarting mothballed coal-fired plants because of Fukushima hysteria, and the FAILURE of solar energy to meet electricity demand (as I posted in the link).

Coal works. Wind and solar are (at most) bit players with dubious reliability.

BTW coal has no problem of intermittency. wind and solar are by their nature intermittent.

 

I find that it is better not to take advice from brainwashed dupes who are being manipulated by braindead rightwingnut corporate economic propaganda.

Your sources are lame, ridiculous, and full of BS.

Let's look at the lies in just one of them, a rightwingnut blog out of Hawaii.

Quoting from the article:
"Solar One/Solar Two – Daggett, California, USA

Solar One was the first test of a large-scale thermal solar power tower plant in the world. In 1995 Solar One was converted into Solar Two, by adding another ring of mirrors surrounding the tower. Solar One/Two is located in Daggett, CA, about 10 miles east of Barstow. Solar Two was decommissioned in 1999, and was converted by the University of California, Davis, into a telescope. Solar One/Two and other nearby solar projects are plainly visible via satellite imaging software at 34°52′18″N 116°50′03″W

Carrizo Plain Solar Power Plant – Southern, California, USA

At its prime, the Carrizo Plain was by far the largest photovoltaic array in the world, with 100,000 1′x 4′ photovoltaic arrays generating 5.2 megawatts at its peak. The plant was originally constructed by ARCO in 1983 and was dismantled in the late 1990s. The used panels are still being resold throughout the world."

....versus the actual facts....

The Solar Project
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Solar One

Solar One was a pilot solar-thermal project built in the Mojave Desert just east of Barstow, CA, USA. It was the first test of a large-scale thermal solar power tower plant. Solar One was designed by the Department of Energy (DOE), Southern California Edison, LA Dept of Water and Power, and California Energy Commission. It was located in Daggett, CA, about 10 miles (16 km) east of Barstow.

Solar One's method of collecting energy was based on concentrating the sun's energy onto a common focal point to produce heat to run a steam turbine generator. It had hundreds of large mirror assemblies, or heliostats, that track the sun, reflecting the solar energy onto a tower where a black receiver absorbed the heat. High-temperature heat transfer fluid was used to carry the energy to a boiler on the ground where the steam was used to spin a series of turbines, much like a traditional power plant.

In the late 1970s, a competition was held by DoE to obtain the best heliostat design for the project. Several promising designs were selected and prototypes were built and shipped to the area for testing. Trade-offs involved simplicity of construction to minimize costs for high-volume manufacturing versus the need for a reliable, bi-directional tracking system that could maintain focus on the tower. Rigidity of the structure was a major concern in terms of wind load resistance and durability, but shading of the mirrors by support structures was to be avoided.

The project produced 10 MW of electricity using 1,818 mirrors, each 40 m² (430 ft²) with a total area of 72,650 m² (782,000 ft²). Solar One was completed in 1981 and was operational from 1982 to 1986.

Solar Two

In 1995 Solar One was converted into Solar Two, by adding a second ring of 108 larger 95 m² (1,000 ft²) heliostats around the existing Solar One, totaling 1926 heliostats with a total area of 82,750 m² (891,000 ft²). This gave Solar Two the ability to produce 10 megawatts. Solar Two used molten salt, a combination of 60% sodium nitrate and 40% potassium nitrate, as an energy storage medium instead of oil or water as with Solar One. This helped in energy storage during brief interruptions in sunlight due to clouds. The molten salt also allowed the energy to be stored in large tanks for future use such as night time - Solar Two had sufficient capacity to continue running for up to three hours after the sun had set. Solar Two was decommissioned in 1999, and was converted by the University of California, Davis, into an Air Cherenkov Telescope in 2001, measuring gamma rays hitting the atmosphere. Its name is now C.A.C.T.U.S..[2] Solar Two's 3 primary participants were Southern California Edison (SCE), the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

"We're proud of Solar Two's success as it marks a significant milestone in the development of large-scale solar energy projects," said then U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson.
"This technology has been successfully demonstrated and is ready for commercialization. From 1994 to 1999, the Solar Two project demonstrated the ability of solar molten salt technology to provide long-term, cost effective thermal energy storage for electricity generation.", Boeing

On November 25, 2009 the Solar Two tower was demolished[3] The mothballed site was levelled and returned to vacant land by Southern California Edison. All heliostats and other hardware were removed.

Solar Tres

Due to the success of Solar Two, a commercial power plant, called Solar Tres Power Tower, is being built in Spain by Torresol Energy using Solar One and Solar Two's technology for commercial electrical production of 15 MW.[4] Solar Tres will be three times larger than Solar Two with 2,493 heliostats, each with a reflective surface of 96 m². The total reflective area will be 240,000 m² (2.6 million ft²). They will be made of a highly reflective glass with metal back to cut costs by about 45%. A larger molten nitrate salt storage tank will be used giving the plant the ability to store 600 MWh, allowing the plant to run 24x7 during the summer.

(continued in next post)

 

(continued from previous post)

And the other "failed" solar project they mention....the Carrizo Plain Solar Power Plant....was built in 1983, using solar technology that is primitive by today's standards....so it was dismantled for economic reasons and is currently being replaced by more modern solar plants....I wonder why the nutjob writing that article failed to mention that....maybe because it wouldn't support the propaganda he was pushing.

GE Increases Stake in eSolar, New Brightsource Solar Thermal Includes Energy Storage
SustainableBusiness.com News
08/10/2011
(excerpts)

Earlier this week, we reported on two massive solar projects that are approved to move forward in California's Carrizo Plain in San Luis Obispo County, California: SunPower's 250 megawatt (MW) California Valley Solar Ranch and First Solar's 550 MW Topaz Solar Farm. The combined 800 MW solar plants will turn the Carrizo Plain into a major renewable energy hub, exceeding all of California's distributed solar.

BrightSource Adds Energy Storage to Solar Thermal Designs

Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) company BrightSource Energy has launched a utility-scale power-plant design that includes energy storage. Called SolarPLUS, the design combines BrightSource's power tower solar thermal technology with two-tank molten-salt storage.

The tower system uses a field of software-controlled heliostats to reflect the sun's energy to a boiler atop a tower to produce high-temperature and high-pressure steam that's used to turn a conventional steam turbine to produce electricity.

In the SolarPLUS plant, the steam is directed to a heat exchanger, where molten salts are further heated to higher temperatures. Later, when the energy is needed, the heat stored in the molten salts is used to generate more steam to run the turbine.

The combination of technologies allows for electricity to be produced after the sun sets. BrightSource says the design offers better efficiencies to utility companies who can shift electricity production to meet changing customer demands.

BrightSource isn't the first company to use molten salt as a heat storage medium. Solar Reserve is developing a 110 MW CSP project with molten salt energy storage in Nevada.

GE Increases Investment in eSolar

General Electric is investing an additional $40 million in solar thermal company eSolar.

As part of the agreement, GE will gain exclusive worldwide rights (excluding China and India) to eSolar's modular technology for building hybrid, combined-cycle power plants.

GE first announced plans to invest an undisclosed amount in eSolar in June. eSolar's technology fills a crucial gap in GE's energy portfolio, allowing it to sell power plants that run on solar during the day and natural gas at night.

GE and eSolar are targeting sales to Europe, Africa, the Middle East and the U.S., and they are working on a 530 MW project in Turkey with investor and developer MetCap Energy.

© 2012 Sustainable Business.com. All Rights Reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

You do, actually. In order to reduce greenhouse gasses to 1970's levels, you'd have to shut down a lot of stuff, because any time you make something, you have to burn some fuel source to provide the energy. No smokestack can prevent all gasses and pollution from escaping, thus we really are talking about a radical deindustrialization of the planet. It's gonna be a lot more than 2%.

 

So your plan is what, trust corporations not to pollute our air, water and land?

 

Utterly, completely, totally, false.

Things that make energy without burning anything:
1. Nuclear power plant.
2. Wind farm.
3. Photovoltaic array.
4. Hydroelectric dam.
5. Concentrating solar power plant.
6. Tidal power plant.

Things you can burn for energy that aren't fossil fuel:
1. Biofuel.
2. Wood.

So ... we have the uninformed, uneducated, and unsourced guess of some guy sitting in his basement on one hand ... and a 700 page peer-reviewed study from a world respected economist on the other hand.

I wonder which one is more credible?

 

Nuclear power is checkmated by Fukushima hysteria.

All the good hydro sites have been developed and enviro-squirrels want to tear down existing dams.

Wind farms and solar thermal are too maintenance-intensive.

Tidal power? Have you forgotten the Back Bay project? It made Boston Harbor into a sewer that took decades to clean up.

None of these will ever be anything but bit players - clinging to specialized niches.

Wood? The fact that energy demands had denuded the forests of Europe in the seventeenth century is the reason that people started using fossil fuel in the first place.

Biofuel? Ethanol hurts the consumer and taxpayer. the only biofuel that can work is that which does not use food crops or land/water that could be used for food crops. Maybe, just maybe algal biofuel could be competitive, but to grow algae at an industrial rate, you need lots of CO2. also an algal biofuel plant would need the same New source Review (40 CFR 52.21) permit as a oil refinery so the investors have to wait at least a decade and a half just o get the federal permit.


As a result, there is no workable non-fossil fuel source of the horizon.

 

Provide a link to any scientists that wants to reduce GHGs to 1970s level! The goal is to limit temperature increase to 2.0 c above pre-industrial levels. We are currently about .8C above pre-industrial levels.