So here's the thing: Oil, Coal and Gas are Natural elements of the earth. So it is natural energy

lol, coming from you that is funny

 

They had no alternatives within the system that they had. The system which has now been completely upended. Trump obviously did not mean that without Russia, Germany would not be able to turns lights on ever again. That's a ridiculous suggestion.

Which country do you think that is?

And what energy technology will they use to get to 100%?

7 years? Never gonna happen.

 

"Oil, Coal and Gas are Natural elements of the earth. So it is natural energy"
"Element" may be misleading here, but in any case all these are products of solar input. We could learn to live with totally renewable, primarily directly-solar energy and have safe, clean, peaceful energy.
Of course, oil companies would not be making hundreds of dollars net profit per second, so there is a problem.

 

Finances has a play in everything, but reality is that it doesn't drive decisions made to supply power that is dispatchable. As Governor Brownout discovered, solar and wind do not provide dispatchable power. They don't satisfy demand for power, they produce power when the sun shines or the wind blows. Coal-fired plants and gas turbines are usually built where the fuel is sourced. Example: The Intermountain Project that delivers electricity to LA is located near Salt Lake City where there is a coal mine.

 

So here's the thing: Oil, Coal and Gas are Natural elements of the earth. So it is natural energy

Farting is natural but no one wants you to do it in the elevator they are standing in

 

You're fortunate not to live downwind of the environmental terrorists in California. They've been farting on the rest of the US for years.

 

Those things are finite resources, but the chicken littles of the world have been screaming that we would run out of them since I was in high school in the 1960s and before then. My high school biology teacher said in 1965 that the oil reserves would run out in 50 years The factor that most progressives never consider is innovation. In the 19th century, doomsayers were telling the world that everyone would starve because of over population.

For them government is the answer to all problems, and if government can't solve the problem, no one can in their minds.

 

Tiny Chicken Greta Thunberg recently took down her 2018 post in which she predicted the end of the earth in 2023. Is she trying to qualify for membership in our Democrat Party?

 

She's a part of the Democratic Party's intellectual hierarchy.

 

...and it pollutes the Grand Canyon and environs.

 

holes go dry all the time, demand increases, someday we will run out, no anytime soon, something we pass on to our children

 

LOL @ "completely upended"

Loving your hyperbole.

If they had no alternative sources to rely on when Russian gas was cut, then how were they able to keep the lights on, run the industries, and heat homes in a country of over 84 million people?

You don't live in the US?

Why you asking me? Go ask the German energy commissioner. I'm sure he'll give you a much more thorough answer. They're already getting about half their total energy from renewables. By contrast, the US is only at 20%.

Norway fulfils its energy needs almost entirely from hydropower, which constitutes around 95% of its total energy source in 2018. It is the law in the country for new buildings larger than 500 square metres to be built using energies from a renewable source by at least 60%. Norwegian cities are equipped with green spaces and bike lanes. On top of it, traffic is already little in the country.

Norway is expected to ban the sale of new vehicles with combustion engines in 2025. The country now has a law in place against collecting sales taxes or VAT on electric vehicles.

It doesn't appear Norway has much further to go.

 

Fossil energy, right?

Australia.

Well that is a surprise. Though, I'm guessing that there is something about Norway which makes almost 100% hydro possible and that it's not realistic for other countries. I haven't heard this model proposed for the US. If this model was so realistic, countries would not have invested so heavily in useless exploding wind turbines.

And I'm sure that they have a plan for how to handle the load on the grid for millions of people charging their vehicles at the same time.

 

How can it be fossil fuels if half their energy is supplied by renewables?

Here's an earlier post of mine to ToughTalk with all the details of how Germany now powers their nation since losing Russian gas.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ol-video-tapes.608839/page-36#post-1074090165

Norway has tons of fjords and other bodies of water.

They're not useless at all. Their design just need to be improved. (My preference would be for every home to supply its own power via wind, solar, hydrogen, water, etc.)

Though this number can vary greatly due to factors such as size, wind conditions, repairs, and blade length, a typical wind turbine can power 1000-2000 homes in one year. One megawatt of energy production capacity will power about 1000 homes, and many onshore wind turbines have a 2-3 MW capacity.

There's not a lot of road traffic in Norway to begin with, and never has been. Plus, their population is only 5.5 million.

 

From that post:

"* Coal - Germany has passed a law to bring back oil- and coal-fired power plants into the country's energy mix in case of a critical gas supply situation. This could add 10 gigawatts of reserve capacity on an interim basis in a deal that runs until March 31, 2024. To bring down the use of gas power plants, the country is temporarily reviving coal units that had already been retired, or were earmarked for decommissioning."

So each home would have it's own hydro plant and wind turbine? I've only ever heard of homes having solar!

 

Arguments can get really annoying when people start exaggerating stuff the don't understand fully. Nitwit Gore with "boiling oceans"!

There is no mention of farming in this thread. What about methane from Arctic tundra? Mess with a complicated system that you don't understand and just have FAITH that our technology isn't powerful enough to break it.

No spare planet. This planet won't care if we starve a few billion people. Solve the population problem that isn't a problem.

 

Too bad Democrats back in the 1980's loved coal-fired power plants and hated nuclear power or I wouldn't have had to move to Ohio, choking on smoke from California's national forests. The intermountain plant can be converted to a cleaner plant food producing power plant ,,, but no one will prevent California's 'environmentalists' from stinking up the country with their wildfires.

 

What's your point?

Wind turbines come in all sizes. You can install them in your yard and/or your rooftop.

https://www.google.com/search?q=hom...HUAYAlMQ_AUoAnoECAEQBA&biw=1338&bih=596&dpr=1

Water turbines can be used in rivers, creeks, and streams if one exists by or near your property.

https://www.google.com/search?q=hom...g&ei=B1EVZM-dIJ7wkPIPif2uoAs&bih=596&biw=1338

 

There are alternatives. Hemp plastics for example.

https://www.autoserviceworld.com/how-the-automotive-industry-is-betting-on-hemp/
Google Henry Ford and hemp cars. The tech has been there nearly a century.

There are commercial planes using Jatropha as fuel.
Technology advances with need.

 

That’s a great idea. Why not make it more profitable for farmers to grow hemp than food. How could that possibly go wrong? Wow

 

How many bird species extinctions from your wind turbines will be your goal in saving the planet?

 

No one knows the exact number of birds killed each year by wind turbines. But whether it's ten or a hundred thousand killed each year, even a few is too many for me.

I've never been a fan (no pun intended) of the type of wind turbines that are typically used because (1) they're an eyesore, (2) they produce vibrations that are annoying/uncomfortable to those living nearby, (3) they're expensive & are high maintenance, and (4) they kill birds.

I believe wind turbines are a great way of generating power, but the giant ones (if they are to be used) should be re-designed without the giant exposed blades. If you look at the many different designs for smaller turbines you'll see there are some that would not endanger birds. These could be scaled up to provide power to whole communities. However, we'd still have to deal with the eyesore, cost & maintenance problem.

That's why I prefer home-based wind turbines.

 

Neither wind turbines nor solar cells provide dispatchable power. The power they produce doesn't follow demand, it follows the wind or sun. So, without battery technology that doesn't exist today, a dispatchable power source is required to provide 1 kw for dirty power for 1 kw of renewable power. If you want to distribute renewable power to a community, you need transmission lines, either strung on new steel towers where steel towers already exist or under asphalt roads that will need to be replaced by petroleum products.

When determining if a renewable power project saves any GHG release, be sure to include the capacity factor in the capacity calculation and not just the nameplate capacity. Steel plants are not the cleanest, nor are the modes of transporting steel. Copper? Asphalt?

Does the power delivered to houses in a community by renewable sources justify the filth created? Does it justify the cost? If it did, proponents wouldn't be cooking the numbers to make renewable projects appear to produce "free energy".

 

I was thinking the problem with dispatchable power is that much of it is wasted rather than used to charge battery banks in homes. Every home receives constant power, but none of it is being used to trickle-charge some form of battery bank or energy storage system - eg, conventional batteries, compressed air/gas, hydrogen storage for generators & fuel cells, gravity energy storage systems, lift renewal energy, etc.

Additionally, if homes could be better built with passive heating/cooling, that would already save up to 90% in energy needs.

As far as home-based renewables, the newer wind turbines don't require much wind at all and can operate day and night. Solar panels are improving each year, and can even supply power (though reduced) in overcast conditions. Fuel cells, hydrogen powered generators, compressed air/gas, and other sources of energy can be added to these. Couldn't these sources provide the remainder of a home's energy needs that passive heating/cooling already saves? Of course I'm not aware of all the innovations that current exist or are in development at the moment, but I can imagine there are a lot.

Since we already have power plants in place, I think each home should be retrofitted with whatever renewable energy they can supply on their own coupled with passive heating/cooling, and use municipal power only for trickle charging the home's battery bank/energy storage system to ensure a ready supply of charging power while each home uses energy directly from its battery bank.

Perhaps communities can be sectioned off (in existing cities/towns) in which each community is served by a single large re-designed wind turbine (not the open bladed kind) or other renewable source, which could then supply trickle charging power to each home's energy storage system.

Appliances are also becoming more energy efficient/saving. So this will reduce energy needs further. Water heating can be performed with tankless water heaters. These provide on-demand hot water and save a lot of energy.

Passive refrigeration can even be supplied with underground refrigeration units & Zeer pots. See for example HERE and HERE.

As far as wind turbines, I was thinking that a Tesla turbine might be a great way to generate a lot of power with very little wind. The Tesla turbine has no blades at all and is an enclosed system. I wonder if anyone out there is developing something like this.

The following youtube channel Just Have A Think is a good place to review all the different & wonderful ideas and innovations in renewables that are in development. I believe we already have what we need, and that the issue is more a problem with integrating & implementing it all. It's not an easy task when there is politics and powerful special interests involved.

Well, look at the financial, health, environmental, and geopolitical costs of extracting, producing/refining, transporting, storing, burning, and cleaning up fossil fuels. Which one is ultimately better? I haven't done a comparison, but it's something to think about. Plus, the fossil fuel industry receives over $5 trillion (yes TRILLION) in subsidies annually. Is this worth it?

Here is a simple example of how we're setting ourselves up for catastrophic failure by not taking renewables more seriously. Look at the effects of climate change on hydroelectric plants - eg, Hoover Dam. Lake Meade water (the largest reservoir in the US) is critically low and Hoover Dam will be shut down if the water level in the lake falls below the "dead pool elevation" of 895 feet (above sea level). Currently the level is at 1046 ft, which is 182.95 ft. below the full pool of 1,229 ft., and has been declining since 2000. (A drop in only 151 ft. more and the dam will be shut down.) Lake Meade also provides water for drinking & irrigation, which further diminishes water levels on top of the climate change-induced megadroughts. Low water levels also affects the structural integrity of the dam. Despite water levels increasing recently in the wake of massive rainfalls, they are still much lower than they were this time last year.

 

Yes it is. It's refined natural energy.