If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TreeHugger)   To the left: A realistic & economically sound plan to get everything, in every state, fully powered with renewable energy by 2050. To the right: naysayers explaining why this is impossible   (treehugger.com) divider line 319
    More: Obvious, United States, renewable energy, offshore wind, fuel mix disclosure, tree huggers, single source  
•       •       •

7108 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2014 at 2:19 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



319 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-07 03:15:02 PM

Begoggle: StopLurkListen: dj_bigbird: I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.

I'm responding to this, but not to you, you're an aggressive troll who posts this in every thread remotely related to renewable energy. (Show me on the doll where ...)

I'm responding in case anyone doesn't know how shameless and wrong your argument is:

[plainswindeis.anl.gov image 357x500]

This is a bird-safe wind turbine. Birds look for places to land, the only place is at the top, where the relative speed of the fan blades are slow.

[switchboard.nrdc.org image 706x462]

You really care about birds? Then direct your attention to something that will have a bigger effect.

I have him marked as "renewable energy troll" in bright GREEN


Fark rule #48 always proclaim who you have farkied/ignored any chance you possibly get.
 
2014-03-07 03:15:28 PM
Unfortunately, nothing will be done about this until the Atlantic is 15' up the steps of the Capitol building.
 
2014-03-07 03:17:07 PM

dj_bigbird: I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.


Yes, as opposed to the coal- and oil-burning plants that kill lots of birds, fish, mammals, and people with air pollutants.
 
2014-03-07 03:17:59 PM
Hemp can fuel astounding amounts of sh*t, you can make stuff out of it and the sort of rat nasty ditch weed you can grow to do it won't be attractive to stoners who've been huffing goat crippling bud for eons because the THC content has nothing to do with the energy you can extract from it.  So let's not grow that stuff, cause The Stalin Zombie and puppies.
 
2014-03-07 03:18:19 PM
IIRC, even in California there has been significant resistance to building CSP power plants because they would have to cover large areas of the desert with mirrors.
 
2014-03-07 03:18:49 PM

dj_bigbird: places that cook birds.


Cooked birds are tasty. Do you not know this?
 
2014-03-07 03:19:45 PM

FLMountainMan: durbnpoisn: Everyone knows that we humans are killing the environment with our usage of fossil fuels.

What exactly is "killing the environment"?  We aren't killing much of anything, from a grand view.  Changing it, surely.  But we began changing the environment the second we descended from the trees.


For me, that was last week, but I'd been drinking.
 
2014-03-07 03:20:05 PM

MrSteve007: super_grass: I see infographics and grandiose promises (like every proposed project to solve america's ills), but I don't see any specifics or data to back it up.

If you scroll all the way to the bottom of each State's plan, it gives a link to all the data at Stanford.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-50-USStat e- plans.html


They're just percentages and "it would be great if this were the case" 13 page articles.

Fark headline:

we have everything figured out!

Reality:

having a roadmap is not the same as having a strategic plan for deploying more clean energy projects, or answers for who is going to pay for them, or details about which specific renewable energy project will go where, so it's not a magic bullet for clean energy transition

Freggin bait & switch, and so many people keep falling for it too.
 
2014-03-07 03:20:10 PM

Destructor: Hollie Maea: Destructor: Nuclear power & Reprocessing.

Too expensive.

Looking at the levelized cost (most affected by taxes). But looking at the actual cost, transmission distances, land savings in term of power density, and reliability, it becomes hard to beat.

If you really want to leave a tiny ecological foot print, nuclear is the only way to go.


Agreed. The hippy/anti-nuke movement needs to go out of style (maybe it did?) Nuclear power offers a clean, feasible and pragmatic alternative to fossil fuel energy sources.
 
2014-03-07 03:20:24 PM

Robo Beat: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vernonFL: Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.

As long as extractive energy companies are dropping mad cash on their favorite political candidates, the whole plan is an uphill battle.

Sadly, this. Too many people make too much little money, and as a result have too much little influence, with things the way they are for me to reasonably expect any signifiant change.


FTFY
 
2014-03-07 03:20:48 PM

Felgraf: MrSteve007: As I've said on fark many times before - almost everything directly in my life is powered by solar power: house, work, car. If I can do that in perpetually cloudy Seattle, anyone can.

My full return on investment will be July 2017 - a little over three years from now. After that, every watt I generate is money in my pocket. Considering most of the equipment is warrantied for another 22 years - I expect to save a load of cash.

How do you power things during non-daylight hours? What sort of energy storage do you have?


Electricity is a grid. You pay based on net usage. You don't have to store anything.
 
2014-03-07 03:21:18 PM

Cybernetic: IIRC, even in California there has been significant resistance to building CSP power plants because they would have to cover large areas of the desert with mirrors.


If you cover large areas will mirrors, panels or wind turbines, you can't divide that area up into .01 acre lots, plop a box on it and make mad cash.
 
2014-03-07 03:21:20 PM

bunner: Molavian: FTFY

Actually, no.


No?
 
2014-03-07 03:21:24 PM
Yeah, I've seen this report and read a couple similar ones over the last 5-10 years.  It's...optimistic; to say the least.
 
2014-03-07 03:21:41 PM

Dacker: Destructor: Hollie Maea: Destructor: Nuclear power & Reprocessing.

Too expensive.

Looking at the levelized cost (most affected by taxes). But looking at the actual cost, transmission distances, land savings in term of power density, and reliability, it becomes hard to beat.

If you really want to leave a tiny ecological foot print, nuclear is the only way to go.

Agreed. The hippy/anti-nuke movement needs to go out of style (maybe it did?) Nuclear power offers a clean, feasible and pragmatic alternative to fossil fuel energy sources.


Not without massive subsidies it doesn't.  It requires tax payer money.  And lots of it.
 
2014-03-07 03:22:27 PM

super_grass: Reality:

having a roadmap is not the same as having a strategic plan for deploying more clean energy projects, or answers for who is going to pay for them get stinking rich off of them.

 
2014-03-07 03:23:14 PM

super_grass: They're just percentages and "it would be great if this were the case" 13 page articles.


Really? This Washington State plan is 49 pages long, includes geographic siting locations, links to previous studies backing up location specific capacity factors of the renewables, data on load-balancing, etc. It's pretty much a roadmap of exactly how to power everything with renewable energy. What else do you want?

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WashStateWWS. pd f
 
2014-03-07 03:24:38 PM
I like hemp.
 
2014-03-07 03:24:57 PM

Molavian: bunner: Molavian: FTFY

Actually, no.

No?


I think "sheeple" is sort of of played out.  You can never educate people by calling them catchy names, but sarcasm can be effective.
 
2014-03-07 03:25:03 PM

bunner: super_grass: Reality:

having a roadmap is not the same as having a strategic plan for deploying more clean energy projects, or answers for who is going to pay for them get stinking rich off of them.


We already know.

It's the Chinese (who makes most of the PV cells, hardware, and advanced materials), and GE (who get juicy federal contracts and massive tax breaks).
 
2014-03-07 03:25:41 PM

MrSteve007: super_grass: They're just percentages and "it would be great if this were the case" 13 page articles.

Really? This Washington State plan is 49 pages long, includes geographic siting locations, links to previous studies backing up location specific capacity factors of the renewables, data on load-balancing, etc. It's pretty much a roadmap of exactly how to power everything with renewable energy. What else do you want?

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WashStateWWS. pd f


The other 49 49 page papers?
 
2014-03-07 03:26:29 PM
I'm in Minnesota right now, where tidal, hydroelectric, & geothermal aren't feasible.

Nights are long in the winter, so any form of solar isn't an option either for more than half of the day.

That pretty much leaves wind.  What happens on days without wind?
 
2014-03-07 03:27:07 PM

Dacker: Destructor: Hollie Maea: Destructor: Nuclear power & Reprocessing.

Too expensive.

Looking at the levelized cost (most affected by taxes). But looking at the actual cost, transmission distances, land savings in term of power density, and reliability, it becomes hard to beat.

If you really want to leave a tiny ecological foot print, nuclear is the only way to go.

Agreed. The hippy/anti-nuke movement needs to go out of style (maybe it did?) Nuclear power offers a clean, feasible and pragmatic alternative to fossil fuel energy sources.


Nuclear power uses fossil fuel. There's only so much mineable uranium out there. The known uranium reserves are more long-lasting than oil reserves, but it's not the sort of near-infinite fuel source that the sun is. Plus, we still haven't figured out what to do with the waste.
 
2014-03-07 03:27:07 PM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: US Wind Power 2013

A number of states are already getting more than 25% of their total electricity just from wind.


2. 2 states are. By your context, I can correctly say "a number of states are getting near 100% of their total electricity just from wind" since 0 is technically a number. I'm all for renewable energy, just don't spin shiat so it sounds better than what it actually is.
 
2014-03-07 03:27:19 PM

bunner: Molavian: bunner: Molavian: FTFY

Actually, no.

No?

I think "sheeple" is sort of of played out.  You can never educate people by calling them catchy names, but sarcasm can be effective.


i184.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-07 03:27:35 PM

super_grass: We already know.


www.davidbordwell.net
                         "Well, OK then!"
 
2014-03-07 03:30:20 PM
Those folks pushing this plan should stop answering the door, hire food tasters and bodyguards, and get facial plastic surgery.

Also, thorium reactors are a very safe nuclear technology that could get the ball rolling as we bring the more diverse sources online.
 
2014-03-07 03:30:36 PM
To state that this is a realistic, economically feasible plan is ludicrous.

From the article:

Obviously, having a roadmap is not the same as having a strategic plan for deploying more clean energy projects, or answers for who is going to pay for them, or details about which specific renewable energy project will go where, so it's not a magic bullet for clean energy transition, but it does hint at the possibilities for moving forward on this important issue.

All they have is some pretty %s next to some buckets, without any idea of how much it would cost, how long it would take, who would pay, or what the infrastructure impact would be.  They could have just stuck 100% next to solar for each state and called it a day.

It really shouldn't surprise me that there is nothing of any substance here though, since:

In 2011, a scientist, a banker, an actor, and a filmmaker, came together to envision a pathway to 100% renewable energy in the US.

So a bunch of people with no expertise say that the thing they wanted is possible, somehow, with no details?  Wow, sign me up!
 
2014-03-07 03:30:59 PM

dj_bigbird: I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.


Human activities which kill birds.
 
2014-03-07 03:31:02 PM
How about a barrel of reconsideration?

newsroom.aaa.com
 
2014-03-07 03:31:47 PM
If by sound economic plan you mean "we think this may work but we aren't sure how" then sure.

FTA:   Obviously, having a roadmap is not the same as having a strategic plan for deploying more clean energy projects, or answers for who is going to pay for them, or details about which specific renewable energy project will go where
 
2014-03-07 03:32:26 PM

mbillips: Nuclear power uses fossil fuel.


Um, no.

There's only so much mineable uranium out there. The known uranium reserves are more long-lasting than oil reserves, but it's not the sort of near-infinite fuel source that the sun is. Plus, we still haven't figured out what to do with the waste.

This is a better point, but it still doesn't make radioisotopes a fossil fuel.
 
2014-03-07 03:33:07 PM

Random Anonymous Blackmail: The reason we can't?

Eco tree hugging granola eaters, saying we can't affect the migration pattern of the no so rare Arizona sand slug or stupid farking birds who run into wind mills.


That's a goot one...you make me have the laughing.
 
2014-03-07 03:33:37 PM

parkke0108: Human activities which kill birds.


What is "opening a barbecue restaurant", Alex?
 
2014-03-07 03:34:22 PM

justtray: Felgraf: MrSteve007: As I've said on fark many times before - almost everything directly in my life is powered by solar power: house, work, car. If I can do that in perpetually cloudy Seattle, anyone can.

My full return on investment will be July 2017 - a little over three years from now. After that, every watt I generate is money in my pocket. Considering most of the equipment is warrantied for another 22 years - I expect to save a load of cash.

How do you power things during non-daylight hours? What sort of energy storage do you have?

Electricity is a grid. You pay based on net usage. You don't have to store anything.


Right, that's what I meant. So, for some people (like, say, large apartments where there are MANY people over a small surface area), thinks like grid-connectivity and base-line power loads will still be necessary: It'snot going to be *entirely* solar. His initial comment made it sound like "No one should need power utilities."
 
2014-03-07 03:34:34 PM

jshine: I'm in Minnesota right now, where tidal, hydroelectric, & geothermal aren't feasible.

Nights are long in the winter, so any form of solar isn't an option either for more than half of the day.

That pretty much leaves wind.  What happens on days without wind?


You burn wood to stay warm and cook your food.    You can't watch TV or use the internet so you take up knitting and handi-crafts for fun.
 
2014-03-07 03:35:32 PM

CruJones: If by sound economic plan you mean "we think this may work but we aren't sure how" then sure.

FTA:   Obviously, having a roadmap is not the same as having a strategic plan for deploying more clean energy projects, or answers for who is going to pay for them, or details about which specific renewable energy project will go where


I have no idea how feasible (either technologically or politically) any of their ideas are (and they may not really have any idea about that themselves), but I have to give them some credit for actually proposing a solution, instead of just making more noise about the problem. At the very least, it provides a starting point for a discussion.
 
2014-03-07 03:35:35 PM
 
2014-03-07 03:35:54 PM

Anayalator: How about a barrel of reconsideration?

[newsroom.aaa.com image 610x333]


People say that we can stop using fossil fuels and stop using oil altogether, but most don't realize that we still need oil for the asphalt, plastics, fertilizers, and advanced materials to build all that capital and infrastructure in the first place.
 
2014-03-07 03:36:06 PM

bigsteve3OOO: Not without massive subsidies it doesn't. It requires tax payer money. And lots of it.

They're all expensive.


Wind and Solar have the Blessings of the powers-that-be, so they're subsidized 9 different ways from Sunday. You have to look at all power generation modes in terms of power density over time. It also doesn't help that the regulatory risk (as in government dragging their feet) of building a nuclear plant drives off commercial investors.
 
2014-03-07 03:36:15 PM

mbillips: Nuclear power uses fossil fuel. There's only so much mineable uranium out there. The known uranium reserves are more long-lasting than oil reserves, but it's not the sort of near-infinite fuel source that the sun is. Plus, we still haven't figured out what to do with the waste.


We know exactly what to do with the waste. There are three great options. None are politically feasible for reasons of NIMBY and military nonsense.

Somehow, you think solar, wind, and other renewables will be free from those same obstacles, despite all evidence to the contrary.
 
2014-03-07 03:37:22 PM
Pretty stupid. I looked at Idaho for instance...

"Plan pays for itself in as little as 17 years from air pollution and climate cost savings alone"

So Idaho currently is paying tens of billions of dollars in air pollution and climate costs?

Morons.
 
2014-03-07 03:38:31 PM
Here's the facts -

If you shut off the grid, it. 1630.  Period.  Electricity  - ~IS~ -  the modern world.

The greedy bastards making money off of boiling old dinosaurs and burning black rocks are going to make sure that they are legislated to operate at disgusting profits all the way to "we're out of that sh*t" and the grid goes *honk*.

When that happens, they're just as screwed as we are.  Your move, umptillionaires.
 
2014-03-07 03:40:24 PM
The IEA estimates that the world needs to invest $36 trillion into the clean economy between now and 2050 in order to keep the planet below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2oC). So $1 trillion per year. Which sounds like a lot. But this $36T investment would result in $100T in fuel savings over the same time frame. That's a very good investment.
 
2014-03-07 03:40:50 PM

FLMountainMan: durbnpoisn: Everyone knows that we humans are killing the environment with our usage of fossil fuels.

What exactly is "killing the environment"?  We aren't killing much of anything, from a grand view.  Changing it, surely.  But we began changing the environment the second we descended from the trees.


I can provide my reasoning for that as follows...

The long term carbon cycle is being disrupted.

Carbon, in it's gas form, is necessary to keep the atmosphere stable, and the earth warm enough for us to enjoy life.  But too much of it will cause a greenhouse effect.  Not as catastrophic as Venus, say.  But bad enough to change the environment into something quite unlike what we can survive in.

Ever since life has existed on the planet, the plants and animals keep that carbon locked up and safe from getting too much into the atmosphere.  When those living things die, the are compressed into limestone, coal, oil beds, etc...  At some later point in time, the carbon ends up feeding volcanoes and gets thrown back into the atmosphere, starting the cycle over again.

This balance is rather delicate, and works fine most of the time.  Once in a while, the system overbalances, and we get that runaway greenhouse effect.  The last time it happened, it took like 65,000 years to stabalize again.

We are currently overbalancing that cycle.  By digging up the carbon, and burning it into the atmosphere WAY before the cycle is ready for it.

I'm sure there are some smart folks out there that could explain that better than I just did.  But that's the basic jist of it.
 
2014-03-07 03:40:50 PM

super_grass: Anayalator: How about a barrel of reconsideration?

[newsroom.aaa.com image 610x333]

People say that we can stop using fossil fuels and stop using oil altogether, but most don't realize that we still need oil for the asphalt, plastics, fertilizers, and advanced materials to build all that capital and infrastructure in the first place.


We got enough scrap plastic to pave Utah.  And that's just in the Pacific garbage patch.  Ceramics, anyone?
 
2014-03-07 03:41:52 PM

Destructor: bigsteve3OOO: Not without massive subsidies it doesn't. It requires tax payer money. And lots of it.

They're all expensive.

Wind and Solar have the Blessings of the powers-that-be, so they're subsidized 9 different ways from Sunday. You have to look at all power generation modes in terms of power density over time. It also doesn't help that the regulatory risk (as in government dragging their feet) of building a nuclear plant drives off commercial investors.


Uh, so are Oil and Coal. They are HEAVILY subsidized.
Especially in the whole"Not really paying nearly as much for their external costs" bit.
 
2014-03-07 03:42:59 PM

Cybernetic: mbillips: Nuclear power uses fossil fuel.

Um, no.

There's only so much mineable uranium out there. The known uranium reserves are more long-lasting than oil reserves, but it's not the sort of near-infinite fuel source that the sun is. Plus, we still haven't figured out what to do with the waste.

This is a better point, but it still doesn't make radioisotopes a fossil fuel.


I believe the point was mining, transportation, and possibly refinement requires fossil fuels.  Could be wrong
 
2014-03-07 03:43:16 PM

Dacker: Agreed. The hippy/anti-nuke movement needs to go out of style (maybe it did?) Nuclear power offers a clean, feasible and pragmatic alternative to fossil fuel energy sources.


http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-and-our-energy-cho ic es/nuclear-power-costs/

Expensive as all hell and completely impractical for the long term? Sign me up!
 
2014-03-07 03:43:52 PM
It's all just wishful thinking. I can only talk about my own state West Virginia. They have 2/3 of our energy coming from solar. We have 200 cloudy days a year and incredibly mountainous terrain making most ground unsuitable for solar. I'm looking out my window right  now on a bright sunny day at 3:30 local time and easily 2/3 of the landscape is in shadow. Unless they are proposing some serious mountain top leveling, the terrain just doesn't allow it. I've actually looked up solar panels and gotten estimates on what I would produce and it's essentially negligible. I am even one of those fortunate few with a south facing home and due to the mountains on either side I lose sun by about 3 oclock in the summer, though I usually do get partially shaded sun fairly early around 830 or so, but it is filtered through trees. For direct non-filtered sun, my house gets about 5 hours a day in the summer and as I said, I'm a south facing home. My old house was on the north side of a mountain and literally never got direct sunlight.
 
Displayed 50 of 319 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report