1. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    09 Jun '15 18:281 edit
    This is just the first part of the link:

    http://phys.org/news/2015-06-state-by-state-renewable-energy.html
    "...Engineers develop state-by-state plan to convert US to 100% clean, renewable energy by 2050

    One potential way to combat ongoing climate change, eliminate air pollution mortality, create jobs and stabilize energy prices involves converting the world's entire energy infrastructure to run on clean, renewable energy.

    This is a daunting challenge. But now, in a new study, Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford, and colleagues, including U.C. Berkeley researcher Mark Delucchi, are the first to outline how each of the 50 states can achieve such a transition by 2050. The 50 individual state plans call for aggressive changes to both infrastructure and the ways we currently consume energy, but indicate that the conversion is technically and economically possible through the wide-scale implementation of existing technologies.

    "The main barriers are social, political and getting industries to change. One way to overcome the barriers is to inform people about what is possible," said Jacobson, who is also a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and at the Precourt Institute for Energy. "By showing that it's technologically and economically possible, this study could reduce the barriers to a large scale transformation."
    .."

    Lets just hope the usual incredibly corrupt stupid politics doesn't block this plan.
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    09 Jun '15 19:42
    Originally posted by humy
    This is just the first part of the link:

    http://phys.org/news/2015-06-state-by-state-renewable-energy.html
    "...Engineers develop state-by-state plan to convert US to 100% clean, renewable energy by 2050

    One potential way to combat ongoing climate change, eliminate air pollution mortality, create jobs and stabilize energy prices involves converting the wo ...[text shortened]... n."
    .."

    Lets just hope the usual incredibly corrupt stupid politics doesn't block this plan.
    I'm not sure what they think the percentage of the total comes from solar but paving 19,000 square miles or 13 million acres would provide only about 5 gigawatts of energy. A pretty high sum but I think the US uses something like 17,000 gigawatthours a day or close to a terawatt 24/7. Doesn't sound like 0.005 tw production of solar would go very far. Correct my math if I am wrong.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    10 Jun '15 08:342 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I'm not sure what they think the percentage of the total comes from solar .....
    http://thesolutionsproject.org/

    It varies from about 25-70% depending on state (excluding Alaska).
    They seem to think that commercial installations will far outstrip domestic rooftop production.

    They also have wind providing a sizeable chunk of production.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    10 Jun '15 08:391 edit
    Oddly enough there is no mention of biomass which is one of the largest sources of renewables in European countries that are going green. Admittedly Europe has less sunlight, but still, the US could produce a lot of energy from biomass.
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    10 Jun '15 08:57
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Oddly enough there is no mention of biomass which is one of the largest sources of renewables in European countries that are going green. Admittedly Europe has less sunlight, but still, the US could produce a lot of energy from biomass.
    I thought the idea was to get away from CO2 production, I think biomass is the direct conversion of biomass to Methane which will turn directly to CO2 when burned. Maybe less of other undesirable stuff like NO or NO2 or CO but still, it is emitting greenhouse gasses.
    Doesn't seem like it should be in the 'Green' category.
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    10 Jun '15 10:321 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I thought the idea was to get away from CO2 production, I think biomass is the direct conversion of biomass to Methane which will turn directly to CO2 when burned. Maybe less of other undesirable stuff like NO or NO2 or CO but still, it is emitting greenhouse gasses.
    Doesn't seem like it should be in the 'Green' category.
    Biomass is when you burn rubbish or convert animal manure and other waste into biogass which gets burnt. Because the sources are renewable and not fossil fuels they are largely carbon neutral. Also important is the fact that without burning them, they usually release methane into the atmosphere which is an even worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Also, you can save an awful lot of land from landfills.

    Of course the Americans let politics get in the way and use fossil fuels and vast quantities of water to produce maize which they then turn into fuels to drive their oversized cars. Not green at all. Just a farm subsidies scam.
  7. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    10 Jun '15 13:09
    Mass build nuclear power stations to generate ~60 to ~80% total demand. Do the rest renewables.

    Do it in 20 years, and be green by 2035.

    2050 is to late.
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    10 Jun '15 13:42
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Mass build nuclear power stations to generate ~60 to ~80% total demand. Do the rest renewables.
    Why? Renewables are cheaper, quicker to build and have fewer political hurdles.
  9. Joined
    01 Apr '09
    Moves
    26584
    10 Jun '15 14:04
    I'm sure that by "stupid politics", you are referring to Global Warming Deniers, but that is not the first "stupid politics" involved. Twenty years ago when the US media first jumped on global warming, Al Gore and the Democrats immediately proposed a Cap-n-Trade wealth redistribution plan to "solve" the problem. This led to the predictable circle-the-wagons from the conservatives. If the politicians had waited for the scientists to prove the theory and propose workable solutions like Stanford has here, we would not have wasted 20 years arguing.
  10. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    10 Jun '15 14:11
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Why? Renewables are cheaper, quicker to build and have fewer political hurdles.
    Because renewables are not cheaper, quicker to build, and seem to have about the same political hurdles.

    Nuclear power built right next to large cities has shorter transmission lines leading to more efficient power
    distribution. And unlike most renewables can also provide heating for homes and businesses in that city.
    Increasing efficiency still further.
    Building nuclear power-stations that use current high-level nuclear waste as a fuel is cheaper and safer than
    current options for storing it.
    Building large amounts of nuclear power removes a lot of the need for grid level energy storage that makes
    renewables more expensive, thus making the renewables cheaper.
    Nuclear power takes up vastly less land area making it much less of an eyesore and reduces environmental impact.
    And nuclear power gives us vast amounts of power which improves quality of life.
    And because a mass production of nuclear power stations not only makes nuclear power much cheaper,
    but we can do it in ~10~15 years and go green fast enough to actually make a difference.

    Going green by 2050 is decades too slow.

    Leaving nuclear out of the mix is irrational and moronic.
  11. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    10 Jun '15 14:13
    Originally posted by John Osmar
    I'm sure that by "stupid politics", you are referring to Global Warming Deniers, but that is not the first "stupid politics" involved. Twenty years ago when the US media first jumped on global warming, Al Gore and the Democrats immediately proposed a Cap-n-Trade wealth redistribution plan to "solve" the problem. This led to the predictable circle-the-wago ...[text shortened]... nd propose workable solutions like Stanford has here, we would not have wasted 20 years arguing.
    Global warming was proven beyond reasonable doubt WAY before Al Gore 'discovered' it was a problem.

    Basically what you just said is that republicans are stupid.

    I agree.
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    10 Jun '15 15:36
    Originally posted by John Osmar
    I'm sure that by "stupid politics", you are referring to Global Warming Deniers, but that is not the first "stupid politics" involved.
    Keeping in mind that 'global warming deniers' that count are the fossil fuel industries.

    If the politicians had waited for the scientists to prove the theory ....
    The theory was proven to the satisfaction of most other countries many years before that.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

    ...and propose workable solutions like Stanford has here, we would not have wasted 20 years arguing.
    That is exactly what the cap-and-trade plan was supposed to be. Sadly, the carbon producing industries didn't want it and managed to convince the public that it would cost them money. Its amazing how many global warming deniers I have talked to eventually admit that all they care about is not paying a carbon tax.
  13. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    10 Jun '15 15:45
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Because renewables are not cheaper, quicker to build, and seem to have about the same political hurdles.
    They are cheaper, and quicker to build, that is hardly disputable. The political hurdles depends on what type of nuclear you are talking about. In the US, the regulations for new nuclear technology is enormous, so they would almost certainly have to continue the same old ancient designs.

    Nuclear power built right next to large cities has shorter transmission lines leading to more efficient power
    distribution.

    And solar power can be put right on your roof top.

    And unlike most renewables can also provide heating for homes and businesses in that city.
    Increasing efficiency still further.

    Can you cite examples where this has been done?

    Building nuclear power-stations that use current high-level nuclear waste as a fuel is cheaper and safer than
    current options for storing it.

    But new designs are not going to be approved an build enmasse in 10 years.

    Building large amounts of nuclear power removes a lot of the need for grid level energy storage that makes
    renewables more expensive, thus making the renewables cheaper.

    Grid level storage is a long way away from being needed. Trying to solve a problem that just isn't there is a bad argument for nuclear.

    And nuclear power gives us vast amounts of power which improves quality of life.
    Now that is the most ridiculous argument I have heard from you so far. All power systems produce power and 'improve the quality of life'. Nuclear power is no better at improving life quality than power from any other source.

    Going green by 2050 is decades too slow.
    I agree. But once again, nuclear is not faster to build. The reason for the slow changeover plan is because politics moves slowly, and some fossil fuel power plants have considerable investments and will not get retired immediately.

    Leaving nuclear out of the mix is irrational and moronic.
    Including it for bad reasons is even more irrational, and moronic.
  14. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    10 Jun '15 16:144 edits
    Originally posted by John Osmar
    '...Twenty years ago ...If the politicians had waited for the scientists to prove the theory ....
    the theory was already proven by 20 years ago and even way before then because basic understanding of physics tells us that CO2 should cause global warming and, even back then, it would have been an incredible massive scientific mystery if it didn't! But, predictably, it took a long time before politicians merely accepted let alone responded to the scientific facts of the case.
  15. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13486
    10 Jun '15 17:04
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Global warming was proven beyond reasonable doubt WAY before Al Gore 'discovered' it was a problem.

    Basically what you just said is that republicans are stupid.

    I agree.
    Global warming was proven but the claim that global warming is primarily man made has not been proven.

    the republicans are stupid for different reasons.
Back to Top