Totally Green
Stanford University professor Mark Z. Jacobson wants to spend $73 trillion for the world to go totally green. Not only that, supposedly it will pay for itself in 7 years.
You can download the 119 page PDF from [One Earth](https://www.cell.com/one-earth/pdfExtended/S2590-3322((19%2930225-8).
The report is called Impacts of Green New Deal Energy Plans on Grid Stability, Costs, Jobs, Health, and Climate in 143 Countries.
Jacobson claims Going 100% Green Will Pay For Itself in Seven Years.
It would cost $73 trillion to revamp power grids, transportation, manufacturing and other systems to run on wind, solar and hydro power, including enough storage capacity to keep the lights on overnight, Mark Jacobson said in a study published Friday in the journal One Earth. But that would be offset by annual savings of almost $11 trillion, the report found.
“There’s really no downside to making this transition,” said Jacobson, who wrote the study with several other researchers. “Most people are afraid it will be too expensive. Hopefully this will allay some of those fears.”
The report published Friday looked at 143 countries that generate more than 99% of the world’s greenhouse emissions. The savings would come from not extracting fossil fuels, using higher-efficiency systems and other benefits of shifting entirely to electricity. It follows a paper Jacobson published in 2015 laying out a state-by-state plan for the U.S. to convert to 100% renewables.
AOC’s Green New Deal
The article notes that Jacobson ‘s work “underpinned” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) Green New Deal.
On February 25, I commented AOC’s Green New Deal Pricetag of $51 to $93 Trillion vs. Cost of Doing Nothing.
AOC’s the Boss
On March 26, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put AOC’s Green New Deal to a vote. Hypocrite Democrat Senators Refuse to Back the New Deal and it failed 57-0.
Doug Jones (Ala.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.), along with Independent senator Angus King (Maine), who caucuses with the Democrats voted against the deal.
At a press conference ,the Senate bill’s primary sponsor Ed Markey (D., Mass.), claimed he stood behind the proposal. “It is the national-security, economic, health-care, and moral issue of our time,” he said.
But he did not vote for it.
PNAS Review of Jacobson’s Plan
A PNAS study (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA) did a Review of Jacobson’s Plan
Jacobson et al. (11) along with additional colleagues in a companion article (12) attempt to show the feasibility of supplying all energy end uses (in the continental United States) with almost exclusively wind, water, and solar (WWS) power (no coal, natural gas, bioenergy, or nuclear power), while meeting all loads, at reasonable cost.
Wind and solar are variable energy sources, and some way must be found to address the issue of how to provide energy if their immediate output cannot continuously meet instantaneous demand. The main options are to (i) curtail load (i.e., modify or fail to satisfy demand) at times when energy is not available, (ii) deploy very large amounts of energy storage, or (iii) provide supplemental energy sources that can be dispatched when needed. It is not yet clear how much it is possible to curtail loads, especially over long durations, without incurring large economic costs. There are no electric storage systems available today that can affordably and dependably store the vast amounts of energy needed over weeks to reliably satisfy demand using expanded wind and solar power generation alone.
We show that refs. 11 and 12 do not meet these criteria and, accordingly, do not show the technical, practical, or economic feasibility of a 100% wind, solar, and hydroelectric energy vision. As we detail below and in SI Appendix, ref. 11 contains modeling errors; incorrect, implausible, and/or inadequately supported assumptions; and the application of methods inappropriate to the task. In short, the analysis performed in ref. 11 does not support the claim that such a system would perform at reasonable cost and provide reliable power.
Implausible Assumptions
The energy storage capacity consists almost entirely of two technologies that remain unproven at any scale. To give an idea of scale, the 100% wind, solar, and hydroelectric power system proposed in ref. 11 envisions UTES systems deployed in nearly every community for nearly every home, business, office building, hospital, school, and factory in the United States, although only a handful exist today.
Although both PCM and UTES are promising resources, neither technology has reached the level of technological maturity to be confidently used as the main underpinning technology in a study aiming to show the technical reliability and feasibility of an energy system. The relative immaturity of these technologies cannot be reconciled with the authors’ assertion that the solutions proposed in ref. 11 and companion papers are ready to be implemented today at scale at low cost and that there are no technological or economic hurdles to the proposed system
Alleged Costs to Go Totally Green
US Contribution to Greenhouse Gasses
If the US spent $7.8 trillion, and it worked perfectly, we would rid the world of 14.75% of the alleged US contribution to global warming.
Hooray?
No Transmission Modeling
The PNAS review debunked assumptions that Jakobson made regarding capital costs, ability to ramp up hydroelectric power as required, and land constraints for wind turbines.
Moreover, and a PNAS points out, the authors do not perform any modeling or analysis of transmission. As a result, their analysis ignores transmission capacity expansion, power flow, and the logistics of transmission constraints.
Thus, not only would there be insufficient capacity, even if by some magic capacity was adequate, there would be no way to store that power for periods in which wind and solar were insufficient.
To that I would add the environment impacts of damming waterways that harm the environment by silting up, kill fish, etc.
And what about millions of dead birds that would be killed by the wind farms? Are the environmentalists suddenly not concerned about such things?
Lies, the Best Way Forward
Does Mark Z. Jacobson really believe what he says?
Occam’s razor suggests the simplest explanation is the one that is most likely. Thus, when “stupidity” is one of the answers, it’s usually a decent bet.
In this case, however, I believe Jacobson has seen PNAS and other reviews of his previous work and chooses to purposely lie as the best way forward.
After all, he did get activists like AOC to latch on to the idea as her own. He also has the UN on his side.
This came up yesterday in Dave Collum’s Satirical, Comedic, Insulting Year in Review.
Climate Change
- “Nobody on the planet—not one person—knows what will happen to the World’s climate and ecosystem 50 years from now. We are all guessing, some more than others.” Me [David Collum]
- “Vintners in France haven’t seen such a succession of hot weather and dry harvest since the 14th century, during a time called “the Black Death.” Bloomberg news, inadvertently noting it was hot 600 years ago.
- “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right things in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” Tim Wirth, Senator, chair of Clinton-Gore Campaign, and UN official
- “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…” Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC official speaking in November 2010
Please pay attention to quotes 3 and 4.
So, is Mark Z. Jacobson a Stupid Liar (for his faith in global warming nonsense)?
Or is Jacobson Lying Stupidly (by promoting technologies he knows don’t scale if they exist at all)?
Any votes for both?
Global Warming Religion
This article is as likely to change global warming views as the Pope is to announce his belief in Hinduism.
But can we at least stop the blatant lies?
Unfortunately not. It takes fearmongering and lies to spread the Global Warming Religion.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Truth takes no sides. That’s what science is.
My posts keep getting deleted – any reason why?
Realist,
You state your argument very well! I’m glad to see you are one of the few that has studied long term climate cycles. It sounds like your basic argument is that the climate has fluctuated greatly over many thousands of years and that over the last 250 years temperatures have been going up, which climate scientists believe is not natural and only explainable by increased levels of CO2.
CO2 itself is not a strong greenhouse gas, and climate models rely on positive feedback mechanisms to show a catastrophic exponential rise in temperatures. They intentionally ignore negative feedback mechanisms to make their models look dire. The models for the last 20 years have been totally, completely wrong. Should we then trust that they can predict what our climate will be like in 50 or 100 years?
There is only a catastrophe if there is a runaway exponential rise in temperature, which is not happening. Former senior NASA climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says it simply: climate scientists “have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low”. (1)
This came about from a small group of climate scientists that cherry picked data and manipulated mathematical models to make it look like the earth has had a historically stable climate in the last 1,000 years, until the burning of hydrocarbon fuels. This resulted in the birth of the “hockey stick” chart made famous by Michael Mann and others. The eye opening Climategate (2) emails show exactly how this manipulation was performed.
Many people have difficulty believing that so many climate scientists would lie, fake data, and manipulate models. Yet, that is human nature. People at the top lie, and everyone else goes along with it. Those that don’t are shamed and lose their jobs (and their friends).
There is no human caused climate catastrophe awaiting us.
2 .http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/
These guys love to deal with the theoretical ideal instead of the practical. The installed “nameplate capacity” of wind power is growing by leaps and bounds every year. And there are days now and again when wind will produce more electricity than coal. But over time the contribution from wind is very low, still in the single digits. And it’s all backed by gas turbines, some of which are running 24/7 just to be ready to augment as needed. That said, yes, the US power industry has reduced their GHG emissions over the last few years, but only because natural gas is so cheap thanks to fracking.
Besides, water is far too precious to use for power generation as a primary use. Look at the problems with Las Vegas and lake Mead. They want electricity and drinking water (most of which is destined for the Imperial Valley anyway), but they can’t have both. So every year becomes a balancing act of keeping the penstocks open for the turbines and not letting the LV intake get too close to the surface. If we’re on our way to a permadrought we really shouldn’t be wasting water generating electricity.
This is a study of how to go forward on 100% renewable energy. Disagreeing with someone does not make either one a liar. Disagreement is needed and healthy.
Markets
Going 100% Green Will Pay For Itself in Seven Years, Study Finds
By Will Wade
December 20, 2019, 10:00 AM CST
Annual $11 trillion savings offset upfront $73 trillion cost
Some of the author’s past findings have been questioned
I’ll tiptoe a line between you and Mish.
For the rest, well it needs arguing, because any interventionist policy (one way or the other) needs to pass full scrutiny before it can be justified. That scrutiny has to be of economic nature, because we are dealing with resources and their effect on national and individual material wellbeing – this is what the average person measures the feasibility by, if it will make them richer or poorer, not that the weather might be different tomorrow. You can raise questions of environmental consciousness, but in reality for most people, that tends to be “somewhere else”, it isn’t their first concern beyond the initial emotional appeal, which is often a visible manipulation.
So to call so and so a liar, well Mish is just throwing down the gauntlet no ? Macro planners miss the details, I think that is why. Thinking big means big dictate and big corruption are close by, always. A more organic transition would seem sensible to my view, as it would shake out the inevitable practical difficulties and allow for and encourage solutions to those. That means encouraging trend setting initiatives and creating space for them to work in outside of existing monopoly of practice.
Václav Smil:
Germany’s radical initiative to subsidize renewable electricity generation has resulted in higher carbon dioxide emissions and the most expensive electricity in Europe, with the poor disproportionately bearing the burden.
Proponents of the new green wave began to forecast, with great confidence, that the country would get 35 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2020, 50 percent by 2030, and 80 percent by 2050.
According to many Berlin bureaucrats, everything is in perfect order and, if anything, die Wende should accelerate. In contrast, the operators of large fossil fuel-fired power plants face impossible choices: much of their electricity is useless on windy days, but they must keep enough capacity in place to carry the country through the gloomy fall and long winter nights.
These flows create havoc with the grids in neighboring countries by suddenly overloading their transmission capacity, and they undermine economic viability of traditional utilities due to low returns realized on the repeatedly interrupted, but still necessary, fossil fuel-based generation.
And the impacts go far beyond the fate of large utilities. Germany now has the most expensive electricity in Europe.
The levelized cost of German photovoltaic electricity is easily four times that of coal-based generation, even as the subsidies for renewables continue to rise: they reached €16 billion in 2013.
[On March 26, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put AOC’s Green New Deal to a vote. Hypocrite Democrat Senators Refuse to Back the New Deal and it failed 57-0.]
Talking about slanting things. The author put his own spin on this peice of information by exclusion of the whole picture.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer accuses McConnell of putting on a “stunt” vote as he tries to put Democratic senators and 2020 presidential contenders on the record.
[There are no electric storage systems available today that can affordably and dependably store the vast amounts of energy needed over weeks to reliably satisfy demand using expanded wind and solar power generation alone.]
There are a lot of grid storage solutions available to build and use. This is being run now.
If so, then why alternative fuel vehicles run on electrical batteries instead of compressed air?
Let’s see, it there isn’t enough transmission capacity, then we string up more wires. So what is so debastating about this?
While estimates for losses are included in the model, transmission is assumed to be unproblematic. Interestingly, one result of this, and also possibly of the exclusion of (storable) biomass, is that CSP with integral heat storage figures strongly in the list of low-cost balancing options. However, CSP is obviously location specific, and the options for longer distance grid-integration are also location sensitive.
Vaclav Smil:
Without these subsidies, renewable energy plants other than hydroelectric and geothermal ones can’t yet compete with conventional generators. There are several reasons, starting with relatively low capacity factors—the most electricity a plant can actually produce divided by what it would produce if it could be run full time. The capacity factor of a typical nuclear power plant is more than 90 percent; for a coal-fired generating plant it’s about 65 to 70 percent. A photovoltaic installation can get close to 20 percent—in sunny Spain—and a wind turbine, well placed on dry land, from 25 to 30 percent. Put it offshore and it may even reach 40 percent. To convert to either of the latter two technologies, you must also figure in the need to string entirely new transmission lines to places where sun and wind abound, as well as the need to manage a more variable system load, due to the intermittent nature of the power.
What was the German government thinking in 2004, when it offered a subsidy, known as a feed-in tariff, that guaranteed investors as much as €0.57 per kilowatt-hour for the next two decades of photovoltaic generation? At the time, the average price for electricity from other sources was about €0.20/kWh; by comparison, the average U.S. electricity price in 2004 was 7.6 cents, or about €0.06/kWh. With subsidies like that, it was no wonder that Bavaria Solarpark was just the beginning of a rush to build photovoltaic plants in Germany.
This past March, stung by the news that Germans were paying the second highest electricity rates in Europe, the German parliament voted to cut the various solar subsidies by up to 29 percent.
Both the European Wind Energy Association and the American Wind Energy Association claim that wind turbines already produce cheaper electricity than coal-fired power plants do, while the solar enthusiasts love to take the history of impressively declining prices for photovoltaic cells and project them forward to imply that we’ll soon see installed costs that are amazingly low.
But other analyses refute the claims of cheap wind electricity, and still others take into account the fact that photovoltaic installations require not just cells but also frames, inverters, batteries, and labor.
[In this case, however, I believe Jacobson has seen PNAS and other reviews of his previous work and chooses to purposely lie as the best way forward.
After all, he did get activists like AOC to latch on to the idea as her own. He also has the UN on his side.]
You aren’t even using the right term of lying. Keep in mind that Jacobson’s paper is peer reviewed and this is now a discussion of the way forward on 100% renewable energy.
Medical journals are also peer reviewed and 97% of climate “scientist” endorse gloBull warming. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
[So, is Mark Z. Jacobson a Stupid Liar (for his faith in global warming nonsense)?
Or is Jacobson Lying Stupidly (by promoting technologies he knows don’t scale if they exist at all)?
Any votes for both?]
I’m leaning towards Mike Mish is the liar. Haven’t declared it yet. Jacobsen has put forth a really good paper that has brought to a head a conversation on 100% renewable energy. This is needed.
Why is it needed, and how is it paid for? More importantly, how do 3rd world countries get affordable electricity?
Environmentalism is a religion
Written by Michael Crichton (September 15, 2003)
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists.
[But can we at least stop the blatant lies?
Unfortunately not. It takes fearmongering and lies to spread the Global Warming Religion.]
Either Mike Mish is lying himself or ignorant. The real cultural religion is around fossil fuels. Addiction is when you can’t let go of the destructive behavior. 100% Renewable energy improves health and fits into the climate much much easier than polluting fossil fuels.
It does not take religion to believe in affordable electricity. However, it does require burn-them-at-the-stake religion to believe in unsustainable economic and energy policies that cannot pass the test of free markets.
There is a reason that the poorest countries are also the post polluted. Making countries poorer or keeping them poorer is not how you improve pollution, which BTW has nothing to do with the ever changing climate.
[Vintners in France haven’t seen such a succession of hot weather and dry harvest since the 14th century, during a time called “the Black Death.” Bloomberg news, inadvertently noting it was hot 600 years ago.]
So was that local or global back then. That’s really a cherry picked cheap shot.
[“Nobody on the planet—not one person—knows what will happen to the World’s climate and ecosystem 50 years from now. We are all guessing, some more than others.” Me [David Collum]]
Boy is that statement wrong on its head.
Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming
“How much warming we are having today is pretty much right on where models have predicted,” says the study’s lead author, Zeke Hausfather, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley.
Fifty Years Of Apocalyptic Global Warming Predictions And Why People Believe Them
Nope
WUWT is not a valid science source. LOL.
You quoted a generalist science magazine and you want to pontificate about scientific sources?! Doubt you’ve read a single scientific paper in your entire life.
Do some research and stop reading news articles.
Why exactly are these nut jobs wanting to spend our tax dollars on “renewables”? Pollution has nothing to do with the climate cycles, which will continue even if all fossil fuels or humans where eliminated (which is the goal of the eugenicists-arm of the climate changers.
Ever since the ecological movement of the 70’s “won”, such that environmentalism is now part of the cultural establishment, peddling a high-brow version of “Nature is good, humans are evil” can be very rewarding to one’s career.
It’s the population, stupid. Ivory towers b.s. professors wouldn’t be where they are if they pointed out the obvious.
What is “it”? If you’re insinuating that climate change is the result of over-population, then it’s NOT the population, stupid. Increased population means increased brainpower and better technology, which has always improved our living standards. Besides, you could eliminate all the earth’s population and the climate cycles that have always existed would still occur – often more volatile than what we’ve experience since the invention of the internal combustion engine.
ah yes Malthusian theory believers
Thank you for your condescending comment. I must say, I hoped for something intelligent.
Green energy sources only survive due government subsidies. If the government provides a subsidy then by definition the “products” are economically unfeasible because otherwise entrepreneurs would already have taken it to market because it was financially advantageous. With subsidies government picks winners and losers. The only green energy that makes sense is where you have no access to the power grid and need electricity. PGE will be raising their prices this year which is in part due to California’s green subsidies and general mismanagement of the maintenance of the distribution system. Gavin Newsome thinks everything is swell because he gets his cut.
If we don’t subsidize RE to an even greater extent than fossil fuels, we all become losers to global warming.
The Iraq War was supposed to pay for itself.
The latest Trumpian tax cut was suppose to pay for itself through economic growth. Empty promises.
Obviously Trump believes in global warming. He wants to position the US for that by acquiring the next hot resort area, Greenland. 😉
In 1964 all I heard was we are going into an ice age, I was in 6th grade, I was scared and wanted to move from North Idaho. Today it’s global warming. What’s next????
One thing I do know is the more ethanol with use the more yellowish haze over earth. I think big money is pushing this whole global warming issue, making it worst pushing ethanol. For example in WY. The coal power plant is the main power feed to the North West, they could every easily change it to natural gas, but O NO, they want to build 2,500 windmills and 1,000 acres of solar. Where will big money make the most $$$$, with trillions of government subsidies money, all new windmills and solar of course. Any guess what’s going to happen????
What would happen is carbon taxes would turn the west into 3rd world countries.
Science based evidence is showing us global warming is alive and well to our detriment. Either Renewable energy or smother ourselves in fossil fuel pollution.
“Science based evidence is showing us global warming is alive and well to our detriment.”
there is no such science, there is money to be made by telling lies
The Empirical Evidence
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.
We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).
Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.
These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.
Totally off the wall. Back to the Middle Ages. Nuclear energy must ofcourse be the next phase of human energy production – ask any physicist – and is not even mentioned.
Vaclav Smil Distinguished Professor Emeritus recommended by Bill Gates
Smil, V. 2019. Energy (r)evolutions take time. World Energy 44:10-14. PDF
Excellent resource. Plenty of common sense without the hysteria. Thank you!!
If the Fed can keep this game going for another 7 years (they probably can) I expect we’ll rack up around $15T in additional debt by then.
People should admit that the current system is already green albeit in a dark way. US life expectancy has been falling since 2014 and while media stokes the anger among us and wars continue unchecked around the world, we could start to see global net population decline in the next decade or two. It’ll be hellish, but we can comfort ourselves with the “greenness” of it all!
So much to say, so little time, but I will give it a shot.
Electrical system size is given in amperes (amps). Per the National Electrical Code (NEC), our building electrical service is sized at 400 amps. The building next to us is sized at 400 amps, too. However, the utility company electrical transformer that feeds both buildings is sized at only 200 amps. In about 30 years, it has failed maybe 3 times, during heatwaves. It failed this year and it was replaced by another 200 amp transformer.
Codes are very conservative, we size electrical services as if all the electrical loads are turned on at the same time. Utility companies can size their loads according to actual demand, so that’s why the transformer outside is only 200 amps as opposed to 800 amps total.
Most of the electrical loads in the world are intermittent, not used in a continuous basis. But EV chargers can be charging for hours at at time, at a considerable load. For the home, the load is calculated at 40 amps, though fast chargers can go up to 80 amps. For a regular size home, the electrical capacity is usually in the range of 125 to 200 amps. And the electrical companies have sized their system according to this demand.
But add a bunch of EV changers in the future, that could be expected to be continuously charging for hours at a time, in most homes, and you will quickly reach beyond capacity.
And changing that capacity means you remove ALL the current infrastructure, down to the wires and all that equipment.
The size of the electrical service is determined by the wire size. Given that the two buildings each have a 400 Amp services, it might be good to upgrade the outside transformer to at least 400 Amps, if not higher. However, they keep replacing with a 200 Amp transformer, even though it it overloaded, and keeps failing. Why? I presume that the wires to the 200 Amp transformer are not large enough to support a bigger transformer. To replace it with a 400 Amp transformer would require them to replace all the wire feeding it, which might be very expensive.
Exactly, if you start adding EV chargers in businesses and homes, you will have to change that primary wire back to the nearest source. That will be very expensive. Times that cost all over the country, and it becomes astronomical.
Not taken into account in the article is the energy savings of a 100% RE system. Most places will reduce energy needs by about 25%. Fossil fuels are very inefficient. I drive electric and have not overloaded by home system. Later on, the utility can reward the electric car used by charging during lower utility load times. Save money and help the utility at the same time.
You say: Fossil fuels are very inefficient.
I say you are moron
Václav Smil:
Without these subsidies, renewable energy plants other than hydroelectric and geothermal ones can’t yet compete with conventional generators. There are several reasons, starting with relatively low capacity factors—the most electricity a plant can actually produce divided by what it would produce if it could be run full time. The capacity factor of a typical nuclear power plant is more than 90 percent; for a coal-fired generating plant it’s about 65 to 70 percent. A photovoltaic installation can get close to 20 percent—in sunny Spain—and a wind turbine, well placed on dry land, from 25 to 30 percent. Put it offshore and it may even reach 40 percent. To convert to either of the latter two technologies, you must also figure in the need to string entirely new transmission lines to places where sun and wind abound, as well as the need to manage a more variable system load, due to the intermittent nature of the power.
Electric cars are 80 to 90 percent efficient straight out of the batteries. The acceleration is instantaneous compared to the lag of the ice (internal combustion engine) car.
THe internal combustion engine is a mere 10 to 20% efficient straight out of the gas tank.
These type of stories irritate me as they’re in the same vein as the “we have a dozen years to save the planet” themed ones. Sensationalism masquerading as science promoted by a hysterical fringe that detract from the sober analysis of global warming done by the mainstream scientific community.
One question which I don’t have the foggiest idea about is what happens to power grids when you have millions of renewable energy inputs. Will new smarter distribution/management systems be the answer? or will girds break down into isolated microgrids? some combination of the two or something else altogether.
I wonder about the environmental concerns of disposing of batteries too.
My belief (and its just that) is that its inevitable that we’ll transition to some mix of nuclear and renewable energy, but that in the sorter term we will have to eventually consider geoengineering projects. We’re already in the middle of conducting one vast geoengineering project so I fail to see the rationale against not conducting small trials of iron fertilisation at sea, stratospheric aerosol injection (Volcanoes already do this for us naturally), cloud seeding and super simple stuff like planting more trees and painting house roofs white.
Batteries can be recycled. It’s already being done with lead acid batteries.
It s better not to pollute in the first place. Easier and cheaper to deal with.
Last time I ran the numbers (admittedly some time ago), there is no payback for most stand-alone renewable systems that have energy storage. Unless one lives in a remote location or on an island where everything is powered by imported diesel, renewable is more expensive than conventional grid power. This will not change unless energy storage becomes much more economical. As of today, it is not there.
Of course, if one is allowed to assign an arbitrarily high costs for environmental damage caused by conventional energy production, and if one ignores the high environmental cost of energy storage, then it is possible to justify almost any alternative.
The problem with solar that almost nobody talks about, is the panels degrade every year. Within 20-25 years their useful life is all but done. At this point the property owner has this entire dead system on their roof that needs to be removed and replaced. Solar may pencil out in some cases, but ALL costs must be considered including removal and replacement within 20-25 years. (I haven’t even mentioned the environmental impact of how to dispose of old panels.)
In other words, more recycling issues. To wit, even today and now the normal US recycling programs are no longer working.
“Within 20-25 years their useful life is all but done. “
Panels live well beyond their warrenteed life. 50 years life will be common. Then it is still useful.
“Don’t know about the 7 year payback. I do know that Coal is not able to compete with Solar and Wind at this point and the cost for solar and wind keep dropping.”
If coal cannot compete with solar and wind, I believe China would have figured this out. Instead it is building mammoth numbers of coal-fired plants
Mish,
I wrote a blog on this very topic. You can find it at retiredrocketdoc.com
Dana Andrews
Rooftop solar is not going to happen in Chicago – Nor is Hydro or wind.
Assume solar happens in Phoenix. How do you get that stored and sent to Chicago?
And, that’s one of the main problems with trying to force a massive government solution. Instead, let the free market cherry pick the most profitable conversions, and as the costs of solar and wind drop, the number of places it can be profitably adopted will increase. The conversion will be rapid, and profitable. By contrast, a government mandated solution will drive up costs, which, in turn, will slow the process.
There already is rooftop solar in Chicago. LOL
It’s a free country. If Jacobsen thinks that the average payback is 7 years, that would imply that he thinks there are many projects with a payback much faster. He needs to set up a company, raise capital, and start building out the fast payback projects immediately. He could become a billionaire. Maybe.
$73 trillion, surly the Fed could just print it. Problem solved. 😀
Professors.
When it comes to professors and business reality … the class room scene from Back to School comes to mind … where Dangerfield schools the widget professor … as someone who went to business school I saw some of this nonsense first hand.
But let’s say it did work, would it pay for itself in 7 years? I spend an average $5,000/year on electricity and gas. Could I spend $35,000 on solar panels, batteries, and an electric vehicle lease and drop that to $0? Might be more like $60k.
Solar panels will never become dominant. This isn’t even the first time that solar as a solution has been proposed. It happened in the late 90s, and there is a reason why none of those systems currently exist.
Not to mention that solar power by its very nature is unreliable, and you need to somehow store that energy someplace for when you need it. And if you’re answer is batteries, it’s not even doable.
We’ve had more that one person ask that question here at work, since we engineer solar and electrical systems.
It is simple science based on proven theories and easily observable facts. Hating the people who accept it like Greta isn’t a scientific position, but it is a better explanation than the wing nut alternatives the deniers dream up. “solar flares” for Pete’s sake.
Are you really so impressed by the opinions of a teenage girl? That’s funny.
Realist,
Five years ago I was so depressed about global warming, that I spent many months thoroughly researching the data. I was shocked to discover that the global warming narrative is based on speculation by overzealous climate scientists. Sadly, it is pure BS. As an avid environmentalist and former engineer, this was very disturbing for me to learn, but I am more interested in knowing the truth – even when it is painful.
Here is an excellent article written by environmentalist Jim Steele that shows the truth about climate change just by looking at the trees.
Solar flares? Ridiculous! Everyone knows global warming is caused by Fire Gnomes from the Earth’s Core! Want proof? They’re in Australia now… and its on fire! Fire gnomes…. Fire…. get it? And you want to know the worst part? Greta Thunburg is a Fire Gnome! She’s not resting, she’s down there in Austrailia, setting cute little Koala bears on fire with that angry look of hers!
Al Gore summoned the fire gnomes with a disgusting ritual in which he sacrificed a Christmas Themed Starbucks cup to their fell ruler, Beelzebubba himself. Even now, Al Gore is traveling the world in his coal powered rocket chair, replacing true American incandescent light bulbs with commie LEDs that make everyone look orange and morbidly obese.
Only Donald Trump can save the world, but only if we BELIEVE. We must accept Donald Trump as our lord and savior, or perish from the very earth! GOD BLESS DONALD J TRUMP!
“Realist” is just a left-wing propagandist.
Kary Mullis Winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry
Kary Mullis on global warming and the ozone layer: all pseudo-scientific criers of doom ‘could take a lesson from Sir Robert’. You have to understand that ‘science is a method whereby a notion proffered by anyone must be supported by experimental data.’ But there just aren’t any convincing data to support predictions of environmental disaster. It’s all conjectural, and even if environmental change is on the cards, ‘What’s the trouble with something being out of balance if the natural state of that thing is change?’ So-called scientific advisers and media mavens cry up imminent disaster because it’s easier to get funding that way. Watch out: these people are manipulating you. And some of the worst of the gloom merchants aren’t even proper scientists: ‘They are parasites with degrees in economics or sociology who couldn’t get a good job in the legitimate advertising industry.’
Realist,
You state your argument very well! I’m glad to see you are one of the few that has studied long term climate cycles. It sounds like your basic argument is that the climate has fluctuated greatly over many thousands of years and that over the last 250 years temperatures have been going up, which climate scientists believe is not natural and only explainable by increased levels of CO2.
CO2 itself is not a strong greenhouse gas, and climate models rely on positive feedback mechanisms to show a catastrophic exponential rise in temperatures. They intentionally ignore negative feedback mechanisms to make their models look dire. The models for the last 20 years have been totally, completely wrong. Should we then trust that they can predict what our climate will be like in 50 or 100 years?
There is only a catastrophe if there is a runaway exponential rise in temperature, which is not happening. Former senior NASA climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says it simply: climate scientists “have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low”. (1)
This came about from a small group of climate scientists that cherry picked data and manipulated mathematical models to make it look like the earth has had a historically stable climate in the last 1,000 years, until the burning of hydrocarbon fuels. This resulted in the birth of the “hockey stick” chart made famous by Michael Mann and others. It is a matter of public record (2) exactly how this manipulation was performed.
Many people have difficulty believing that so many climate scientists would lie and fake data. Yet, that is human nature. People at the top lie, and everyone else goes along with it. Those that don’t are shamed and lose their jobs (and their friends).
There is no human caused climate catastrophe awaiting us.
2 .http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/
Realist,
You state your argument very well! I’m glad to see you are one of the few that has studied long term climate cycles. It sounds like your basic argument is that the climate has fluctuated greatly over many thousands of years and that over the last 250 years temperatures have been going up, which climate scientists believe is not natural and only explainable by increased levels of CO2.
CO2 itself is not a strong greenhouse gas, and climate models rely on positive feedback mechanisms to show a catastrophic exponential rise in temperatures. They intentionally ignore negative feedback mechanisms to make their models look dire. The models for the last 20 years have been totally, completely wrong. Should we then trust that they can predict what our climate will be like in 50 or 100 years?
There is only a catastrophe if there is a runaway exponential rise in temperature, which is not happening. Former senior NASA climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says it simply: climate scientists “have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low”. (1)
This came about from a small group of climate scientists that cherry picked data and manipulated mathematical models to make it look like the earth has had a historically stable climate in the last 1,000 years, until the burning of hydrocarbon fuels. This resulted in the birth of the “hockey stick” chart made famous by Michael Mann and others. The eye opening Climategate (2) emails show exactly how this manipulation was performed.
Many people have difficulty believing that so many climate scientists would lie, fake data, and manipulate models. Yet, that is human nature. People at the top lie, and everyone else goes along with it. Those that don’t are shamed and lose their jobs (and their friends).
There is no human caused climate catastrophe awaiting us.
2 .http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/
Realist,
You state your argument very well! I’m glad to see you are one of the few that has studied long term climate cycles. It sounds like your basic argument is that the climate has fluctuated greatly over many thousands of years and that over the last 250 years temperatures have been going up, which climate scientists believe is not natural and only explainable by increased levels of CO2.
CO2 itself is not a strong greenhouse gas, and climate models rely on positive feedback mechanisms to show a catastrophic exponential rise in temperatures. They intentionally ignore negative feedback mechanisms to make their models look dire. The models for the last 20 years have been totally, completely wrong. Should we then trust that they can predict what our climate will be like in 50 or 100 years?
There is only a catastrophe if there is a runaway exponential rise in temperature, which is not happening. Former senior NASA climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says it simply: climate scientists “have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low”. (1)
This came about from a small group of climate scientists that cherry picked data and manipulated mathematical models to make it look like the earth has had a historically stable climate in the last 1,000 years, until the burning of hydrocarbon fuels. This resulted in the birth of the “hockey stick” chart made famous by Michael Mann and others. The eye opening Climategate (2) emails show exactly how this manipulation was performed.
Many people have difficulty believing that so many climate scientists would lie, fake data, and manipulate models. Yet, that is human nature. People at the top lie, and everyone else goes along with it. Those that don’t are shamed and lose their jobs (and their friends).
There is no human caused climate catastrophe awaiting us.
2 .http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/
0