The Reason Renewables Can't Power Modern Civilization Is Because They Were Never Meant To

[bone]

I do like the idea of renewable energy. Makes a world of sense to me. For me personally, I'm not a denier but I'm also not entirely convinced that the world is going to end in five years based upon climate change. My personal preference for a power generation mix would be renewables and modern passive nuclear reactors.

Hyperbole aside, the original Forbes article and the Der Spiegel article point out some valuable lessons for mankind: that there are very real limiting physical factors for solar and wind power when it is framed as an absolute replacement for all other means of power generation. And technology won't change those limitations because they're principals of physics.

I can think of no more advanced society than Germany in terms of manufacturing prowess, widespread engineering excellence, and a liberal democracy. So if Germany is confronting strong headwinds to the point that they have REOPENED a COAL MINE - it serves as reminder to the rest of us that balance is important. Germany is also a real beacon of hope - that fact that they are now producing 40 percent of their power with renewables is an extraordinary achievement. What's more impressive is that they did that within the time frame of about a decade.

In 2011, renewables stood at 11% in the US - as of February 2019 that figure stands at a little over 17%. As nuclear plants retire, that percentage has gone from 30% to 19% over the past decade. The biggest changes have been the rapid conversion from coal to natural gas. While still a fossil fuel, natural gas emits about 50-60% less CO2. Of course the driver for that change has been economic.

 

[dozu888]

I'm confused (admittedly not familiar with atmosphere norms etc), if human co2 is only 2% and 2 inches thick, the whole co2 is only 100 inches thick? Also is 2% too small and not significant enough to alter the delicate balance that adds up year after year? I'm genuinely curious.

Thank you for the questions so I can elaborate.

- yes the human co2 is 2 inches thick, the whole co2 is 100 inches... anybody can use the ppm to get to the same numbers. I do this to make it easier for people to understand how big (or tiny) the co2 factor really is.

- delicate balance.. there is none. In sequence of the significance to the earth climate, we have:

--- solar activities. big fire ball in the sky.. solar spots/solar wind that alters the cosmic rays hitting the earth atmosphere... weaker solar activity = more cosmic rays = more clouds = cooler climate;

--- Milankovitch cycles. the 'ovalness' of the earth orbit around the sun, as well as the degree of tilt of it's own spinning axis causes heating/cooling cycles;

--- green house gas: water vapor and methane are more significant... but there is no scam that can be pushed based on them, so they are ignored.. CO2 is the only one that can be taxed, so was chosen for the scam. Also, thru out the earth history there were periods when the CO2 ppm was much higher than today, but the key is, CO2 levels TRAIL the earth temperature, it does NOT LEAD the temperature. Al Gore conveniently flipped the cause/effect relationship, to bring the scam home.

- now observe - typically with a debate like this, when the facts are laid out, this is how the 'alarmists' will counter argue.

--- they will ignore your facts, the solar activities, the 2 inch co2, the earth orbit... because there is no valid come-backs;
--- they will throw muddy water back, tons of weblinks of garbage arguments out there;
--- they will keep saying 97% of scientists agree man made warming... which is a lie. 97% agree there is some human-caused warming, but the key question is - is it significant enough that we need to do anything at all.

- in the 'alarmist' camp there are actually 2 groups
--- the ones in the know - like Al Gore, AOC, IPCC, those scientists... of course they know the co2 is only 2 inch thick... but there are so many $$$ in play, so the scam goes on;
--- then there is the brain-washed crowd... these people typically have a high school education, no scientific background... you can ask these people the thickness question and they will give you answers from 20 meters to 2 miles thick of human co2... but once they see the real answer is 2 inches, their ego is fractured, they realize they have been played like fools and they can never admit they were that stupid.

so there you have it.. in a way the co2 scam has a lot in similar to trading. the public is in general very manipulatable.... all it takes is for someone to repeat the lie (with a good narrative, like saving the planet) many times and the lie becomes 'truth' in the minds of the brain washed.... then you can profit from these people because they are sheep.

 

[Pekelo]

Kenya is 60% bigger with half the population of Germany. I bet their per capita energy need is also much less. Oh yes, they have more sunshine too. Just put solar everywhere...

Also do nuclear the French way.

 

[dozu888]

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weat...vy-snow-slippery-travel-to-minnesota/70008224

don't worry - it's called 'climate change' now... all bases are covered lol... record snow.. but we still need to limit the CO2.

 

[murray t turtle]

I do like the idea of renewable energy. Makes a world of sense to me. For me personally, I'm not a denier but I'm also not entirely convinced that the world is going to end in five years based upon climate change. My personal preference for a power generation mix would be renewables and modern passive nuclear reactors.

Hyperbole aside, the original Forbes article and the Der Spiegel article point out some valuable lessons for mankind: that there are very real limiting physical factors for solar and wind power when it is framed as an absolute replacement for all other means of power generation. And technology won't change those limitations because they're principals of physics.

I can think of no more advanced society than Germany in terms of manufacturing prowess, widespread engineering excellence, and a liberal democracy. So if Germany is confronting strong headwinds to the point that they have REOPENED a COAL MINE - it serves as reminder to the rest of us that balance is important. Germany is also a real beacon of hope - that fact that they are now producing 40 percent of their power with renewables is an extraordinary achievement. What's more impressive is that they did that within the time frame of about a decade.

In 2011, renewables stood at 11% in the US - as of February 2019 that figure stands at a little over 17%. As nuclear plants retire, that percentage has gone from 30% to 19% over the past decade. The biggest changes have been the rapid conversion from coal to natural gas. While still a fossil fuel, natural gas emits about 50-60% less CO2. Of course the driver for that change has been economic.

%% Exactly;
i love my solar powered porch lite. NOT likely i ever buy a TSLA= bad customer service also.

 

[Sig]

Earth atmosphere is 5000 meters thick. of which CO2 is about 25meters thick. Man made CO2 is 2%. Which is 5 centimeters or 2 inches. If the sun is the size of a house. The earth would be the size of a ping pong ball. Earth orbital Milanovich cycles; solar activity cycles.. FAR FAR FAR bigger factors than some trace gas on the earth, of which human contribution is a minimal 2% anyway.

The general population has no perspective so they get brain washed easily. With global warming and feel-good stories like renewables

Truth is non of this is about saving the planet; it's all about

- politicians all of a sudden become climate experts - Gore, AOC etc; Gore made $300m;
- carbon taxes, cap n trade, carbon credit exchanges; mega mega dollars changing hands;
- global carbon control = global control;
- industry scam artists like Elon Musk, grabbing all the federal dollars - Solar City, Tesla, both are major scams;
- research 'scientists' selling their soul to the dark side to get grants;

Stuff like this, can make you feel sick, and disappointed about the human race; amongst all the heart warming stories that give you hope, there is this kind of shit going on in such wide scale; democracy is decision making with 100 IQ... 100 is pretty stupid, to be honest.

sometimes the easiest way to deal with this shit is just to forget about it lol. Trading does not help either to appreciate the general population's intelligence lol.

What an utterly facile argument on so many levels.
By the way, IQ is a measure designed so that by definition 50% of the population is below and 50% above 100. Your statement on IQ either says that you believe democracy should exclude half the population or you know as much about IQ as you appear to know about climate change. Its so very meta when someone who's IQ is too low to comprehend the concept of IQ starts pontificating on IQ.

 

[Overnight]

There are many valid points here, but I think the title of the thread's article is inaccurate, which the OP alluded to in his replies. The jist of it is...

Renewables can't power modern civilization because we consume way more energy than renewables can supply.

You simply cannot, and will never, be able to totally replace legacy energy sources with renewables at our current rate of consumption. The physics/logistics do not allow it.

In my mind, the biggest two drags on this are the need for plastics, and electricity. Which is basically everything we consume.

Fossil fuels will be a prevalent part of our lives for many generations to come. Fusion or ZPE (if they can ever come to fruition) is the only way.

Sorry tree-huggers, the co2 will stay. And the earth will keep warming. And it will keep cooling. Like it has been for billions of years, in cycles.

And there is NOTHING we puny humans can do about it.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...mate-cooling-trend-thanks-to-low-sun-activity

 

[bone]

 

[bone]

 

[dozu888]

What an utterly facile argument on so many levels.
By the way, IQ is a measure designed so that by definition 50% of the population is below and 50% above 100. Your statement on IQ either says that you believe democracy should exclude half the population or you know as much about IQ as you appear to know about climate change. Its so very meta when someone who's IQ is too low to comprehend the concept of IQ starts pontificating on IQ.

as I predicted, the counter argument will
- ignore the facts laid out;
- throwing muddy water;
- good that you didn't touch the 97% scientists thing.

regarding IQ, you are close... what I am saying is that the society should be run by the brightest of the brightest... the problem is then some politician will stand out and say 'you dumb fuxx with IQ below 100 pls vote for me and I will ensure your rights to vote'... and also it's impossible to define the IQ test.

my vision is actually someday AI with its infinite wisdom will be able to run everything for us, with the utmost efficiency and unlimited abundance for the humans.

Now, whether AI will figure out in this scenario humans are just dead weight and should all be dead.... that is another issue. lol.