1. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    16 Jul '15 18:05
    http://www.sciencealert.com/denmark-just-generated-140-of-its-electricity-demand-from-wind-power

    proof, if only any was needed, that producing 100% of electricity from renewables is feasible.
  2. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13418
    16 Jul '15 18:16
    Originally posted by humy
    http://www.sciencealert.com/denmark-just-generated-140-of-its-electricity-demand-from-wind-power

    proof, if only any was needed, that producing 100% of electricity from renewables is feasible.
    ....for Denmark. Do you seriously believe all countries have that kind of wind potential?
  3. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3081
    16 Jul '15 18:21
    It works moderately well for Denmark although wind does not provide constant power so they still need a backup source of power. Other countries have generated almost all their power renewably for a long time though, Norway and Iceland for example.
  4. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    16 Jul '15 18:35
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    It works moderately well for Denmark although wind does not provide constant power so they still need a backup source of power. Other countries have generated almost all their power renewably for a long time though, Norway and Iceland for example.
    Sweden also uses very little fossil fuels for it's electricity [a few percent].

    And has some of the cheapest electricity in the developed world.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing
  5. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    16 Jul '15 18:4911 edits
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    ....for Denmark. Do you seriously believe all countries have that kind of wind potential?
    I clearly said "renewables", NOT "wind". Why exclude all other renewables other than wind to go 100% renewable?

    Generally, assuming no international supergrid is used, a balanced MIXTURE of different types of renewables will be used in each country go 100% renewable and the details of the proportions of each type will depend on the location and the potential local renewable resources.

    But, with an international supergrid spanning many countries (which would be built to pay for itself in the long run ), there would be much less such reason to have to use such a balanced mixture of renewables in each country, which will make going 100% renewable even easier as this would allow each country to just concentrate on the type of renewables that work best at its location almost ignoring the resulting its variability of its production and then simply import electricity when it is short of its own electric production and export electricity when it produces a surplus. Providing enough counties and large enough expanse is connected to such a supergrid, there will be much less variability in electric production across the supergrid as a whole thus greatly reducing the undesirable need for off-the-grid energy storage because that is currently one of the more expensive options although the cost of off-the-grid will keep going down as the technology improves until it eventually becomes very affordable. But still, even in the meantime, some off-the-grid energy storage could be used so to eliminate the need of any fossil fuels even at times backup is needed.

    I envisage that there will one day be a world wide supergrid that will virtually eliminate need for off-the-grid energy storage and that, only excluding a tiny possible proportion possibly coming from nuclear although we may have no nuclear, all the electricity generated will be 100% renewable.

    Incidentally, it just so happens that the UK is the windiest country in Europe, which means if there is that much wind potential in Denmark, there must be even more of it in the UK.
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    16 Jul '15 20:30
    Zambia is 100% hydroelectric and has been since the 60s. I believe it also has the cheapest electricity in the region.
  7. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13418
    16 Jul '15 21:08
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    It works moderately well for Denmark although wind does not provide constant power so they still need a backup source of power. Other countries have generated almost all their power renewably for a long time though, Norway and Iceland for example.
    Iceland has geothermal from volcanic sources. This too is not something that is available in all countries. This really is a silly thread.
  8. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13418
    16 Jul '15 21:10
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Zambia is 100% hydroelectric and has been since the 60s. I believe it also has the cheapest electricity in the region.
    ...and that cannot be expanded very much even when you have it. What would you suggest for Poland?
  9. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13418
    16 Jul '15 21:12
    Originally posted by humy
    I clearly said "renewables", NOT "wind". Why exclude all other renewables other than wind to go 100% renewable?

    Generally, assuming no international supergrid is used, a balanced MIXTURE of different types of renewables will be used in each country go 100% renewable and the details of the proportions of each type will depend on the location and the potential ...[text shortened]... means if there is that much wind potential in Denmark, there must be even more of it in the UK.
    "(which would be built to pay for itself in the long run )"

    🙄
  10. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    17 Jul '15 02:32
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    "(which would be built to pay for itself in the long run )"

    🙄
    I am really getting tired of your c***.

    We all know you are an ignorant conspiracy nut who shills for big oil.

    We don't need you vomiting your lunacy over every thread that remotely touches on the
    topics of energy or climate.

    We can take it as read that you disagree and don't approve of everything we say, you don't
    have to say it any more.

    Now shut the F up and leave us in peace.
  11. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13418
    17 Jul '15 03:40
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    I am really getting tired of your c***.

    We all know you are an ignorant conspiracy nut who shills for big oil.

    We don't need you vomiting your lunacy over every thread that remotely touches on the
    topics of energy or climate.

    We can take it as read that you disagree and don't approve of everything we say, you don't
    have to say it any more.

    Now shut the F up and leave us in peace.
    You are an idiot that insults without provocation when facts confuse you. You thought electric cars reduced CO2 even though coal is burned to generate that electricity. You have shown your ignorance far too many times. You just want to silence those that know better so you can keep fooling yourself.
    If science is so hard for you to take without the comfort of "group think" from your cohorts of misinformation maybe you don't belong on these forums. Grow a spine!
  12. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    17 Jul '15 06:254 edits
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    "(which would be built to pay for itself in the long run )"

    🙄
    Is there something there in that statement that confuses you or you fail to comprehend?

    Because of the high costs of building a supergrid, a supergrid would almost inevitably be a pretty long term investment i.e. designed and built to pay for itself only in the long run. In fact, I would intuitively guess it is so long term that it wouldn't be built for our personal benefit but built for the benefit for our children's future.
    -Does that mean you will be against it?
  13. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    17 Jul '15 06:293 edits
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    You are an idiot that insults without provocation when facts confuse you. You thought electric cars reduced CO2 even though coal is burned to generate that electricity. You have shown your ignorance far too many times. You just want to silence those that know better so you can keep fooling yourself.
    If science is so hard for you to take without the com ...[text shortened]... think" from your cohorts of misinformation maybe you don't belong on these forums. Grow a spine!
    You thought electric cars reduced CO2 even though coal is burned to generate that electricity.

    why can't renewables be used to generate that electricity?

    Why must coal in particular necessarily be used to generate the electricity that is specifically destined to go to any existing electric cars in particular?

    Is there a reason why coal must start to be used to generate electricity specifically for any new electric cars in parts of the world that currently don't use coal to generate electricity?
    You are an idiot that insults without provocation when facts confuse you.

    that's an excellent description of yourself.
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    17 Jul '15 07:06
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    ...and that cannot be expanded very much even when you have it. What would you suggest for Poland?
    Actually here in Africa there is still lots of potential for more hydroelectric power.
    I don't know much about Poland, but I would guess that a similar mix to Germany would probably work well.
  15. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    17 Jul '15 08:583 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    ...
    I don't know much about Poland, ...
    yes, and neither do I or he. He simply doesn't know what he is talking about.
    Why would he know much about Poland in particular? What a moron.
Back to Top