Fossil fuels could be phased out worldwide in a decade, says new study

April 15, 2016 by James Hakner, University of Sussex
Fossil fuels could be phased out worldwide in a decade, says new study
A new study analyses energy transitions throughout history and argues that only looking towards the past can often paint an overly bleak and unnecessary picture. Credit: istock.com/michal-rojek

The worldwide reliance on burning fossil fuels to create energy could be phased out in a decade, according to an article published by a major energy think tank in the UK.

Professor Benjamin Sovacool, Director of the Sussex Energy Group at the University of Sussex, believes that the next great energy revolution could take place in a fraction of the time of major changes in the past.

But it would take a collaborative, interdisciplinary, multi-scalar effort to get there, he warns. And that effort must learn from the trials and tribulations from previous energy systems and technology transitions.

In a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Energy Research & Social Science, Professor Sovacool analyses energy transitions throughout history and argues that only looking towards the past can often paint an overly bleak and unnecessary picture.

Moving from wood to coal in Europe, for example, took between 96 and 160 years, whereas electricity took 47 to 69 years to enter into mainstream use.

But this time the future could be different, he says – the scarcity of resources, the threat of climate change and vastly improved technological learning and innovation could greatly accelerate a global shift to a cleaner energy future.

The study highlights numerous examples of speedier transitions that are often overlooked by analysts. For example, Ontario completed a shift away from coal between 2003 and 2014; a major household energy programme in Indonesia took just three years to move two-thirds of the population from kerosene stoves to LPG stoves; and France's nuclear power programme saw supply rocket from four per cent of the electricity supply market in 1970 to 40 per cent in 1982.

Each of these cases has in common strong government intervention coupled with shifts in consumer behaviour, often driven by incentives and pressure from stakeholders.

Professor Sovacool says: "The mainstream view of energy transitions as long, protracted affairs, often taking decades or centuries to occur, is not always supported by the evidence.

"Moving to a new, cleaner energy system would require significant shifts in technology, political regulations, tariffs and pricing regimes, and the behaviour of users and adopters.

"Left to evolve by itself – as it has largely been in the past – this can indeed take many decades. A lot of stars have to align all at once.

"But we have learnt a sufficient amount from previous transitions that I believe future transformations can happen much more rapidly."

In sum, although the study suggests that the historical record can be instructive in shaping our understanding of macro and micro transitions, it need not be predictive.

Explore further: World Bank to boost funding for climate change projects

More information: Benjamin K. Sovacool. How long will it take? Conceptualizing the temporal dynamics of energy transitions, Energy Research & Social Science (2016). DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.020

Related Stories

World is embracing clean energy, professor says

February 1, 2016

Renewable, energy efficient and flexible electricity sources are being adopted by policy makers and investors across the globe and this is sign of optimism in the battle against climate change, a University of Exeter energy ...

Future of gas in a low carbon U.K. is 'limited'

February 24, 2016

New research highlights the "lack of a clear vision of the future role for gas" in the U.K.'s energy system and cautions that without Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), a second 'dash for gas' could compromise decarbonisation ...

Recommended for you

Researchers find tweeting in cities lower than expected

February 20, 2018

Studying data from Twitter, University of Illinois researchers found that less people tweet per capita from larger cities than in smaller ones, indicating an unexpected trend that has implications in understanding urban pace ...

Augmented reality takes 3-D printing to next level

February 20, 2018

Cornell researchers are taking 3-D printing and 3-D modeling to a new level by using augmented reality (AR) to allow designers to design in physical space while a robotic arm rapidly prints the work.

113 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

KelDude
4.3 / 5 (18) Apr 15, 2016
Entrenched "oil interests" will do anything and everything to stand in the way of their continuing on with business as usual. There are trillions of dollars invested in oil infrastructure etc as well as the "value of the oil in the ground" will drive them to get it all out. If we devalue oil completely by creating better and more useful new electric technologies, we may have a chance to change things. Money is power and today the oil companies have a lot of money. They will drag out the revolution as long as they can. The environment does NOT matter to them, only the money.
mpcraig
2.8 / 5 (20) Apr 15, 2016
I find hard to believe that a paper claiming that within a decade we will not need any fossil fuels actually passed some sort of peer review.

It can be said with almost complete certainty that if this is true, then CO2 emissions will be lower. So, if you believe that, here is an easy $100K. Dr. Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace turned climate skeptic, is willing to wager US$100,000 that global CO2 emissions will be higher in 2025 than they were in 2015.
ForFreeMinds
2.2 / 5 (20) Apr 15, 2016
"Moving to a new, cleaner energy system would require significant shifts in technology, political regulations, tariffs and pricing regimes, and the behaviour of users and adopters."

If political regulations, tariffs and pricing regimes are needed to shift energy use, they will make us poorer and less prosperous, but will benefit those the politicans reward along with politicians who will be deciding what we must use. Free markets help make us prosperous, but don't help politicians get power/riches.
LifeBasedLogic
Apr 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
2 / 5 (24) Apr 15, 2016
We can do it. Look at the nations which are working on it seriously. The rest of you will have to grow up and clean up as well.

I have done my part with solar cells powering my house and automobile. The payback is between four and five years, then free energy for house and transportation.

We all have choices, and sometimes have to do them because they are the right thing to do, not just for money. Our own situation turned out better than planned, but each situation is unique.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (18) Apr 15, 2016
If political regulations, tariffs and pricing regimes are needed to shift energy use, they will make us poorer and less prosperous,

Try thinking ahead a bit. You know what will happen when the climate change damages hit? They will have to be mitigated. With taxes. Every year more of them because the damages will only increase in severity.

So it's your choice:
1) invest a little now and then reap the benefits (energy from renewables is cheaper in the long run because you save on a lot of ancillaries: from financing "wars for oil" to having to combat terrorism (because of those "wars for oil") to a cleaner environment (less healthcare costs) to food security (again less costs))

OR

2) spend an ever increasing amount every year until you run out of money

As they say: An ounce of prevention...

The people who are for a changeover want to SAVE you money and KEEP you prosperous. That's what you don't get.
WillieWard
1.9 / 5 (14) Apr 15, 2016
"Fossil fuels could be phased out worldwide in a decade"
it is true if with carbon-free nuclear power; it is false if with bird-choppers/landscape-destroys backed by coal and other fossil fuels to compensate intermittency.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (20) Apr 15, 2016
They will NOT make us poorer and less prosperous, as my own situation displays. My $12.3K investment in solar PV will pay back in 4 - 5 years, then almost-free transportation and power. It is the EV which pays off the fastest, and the integration of the two technologies give us a synergy.

When coupled to the grid, it adds another dimension of operation, and when battery storage is added it becomes more synergistic, something bigger than the sum of its parts.

Alternative Energy Systems are ideally made of integrated components, just like us.
jalmy
2.3 / 5 (12) Apr 15, 2016
Oil and coal = Drill hole in ground. Energy comes out. It is as next to free as energy we will ever get short of star-trek level tech. It is not free to the consumer of course because a few people exploit something that belongs to everyone and extort it back to them. Then leave it to the same consumers to deal with the environmental impact.

When you find another form of energy you can extort profit from people with that is equal. Then maybe you will have something.

gkam
2 / 5 (21) Apr 15, 2016
"When you find another form of energy you can extort profit from people with that is equal. Then maybe you will have something."
-----------------------------------------------

What ignorance-driven prejudice.

Go buy wind or solar systems, power, or stocks. Those of us in the field do not see it as money, but as sustainability, for a long-term sensible, egalitarian, and efficient society.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (21) Apr 15, 2016
"Oil and coal = Drill hole in ground. Energy comes out. It is as next to free as energy we will ever get short of star-trek level tech."
--------------------------------

Really? Tell that to the owner of Arbusto, which had exclusive drilling rights offshore Bahrain, and went bust. Ask the owner of Spectrum 7 and Harken, two other oil companies which went bust in the boom.

Their owner was George Dubya Bush.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (17) Apr 15, 2016
Oil and coal = Drill hole in ground. Energy comes out. It is as next to free as energy we will ever get short of star-trek level tech.

And where does that stuff go after you have extracted the energy for it in your fantasy world? You think waste management (which is what the mitigation of climate damage boils down to) is free?

People like you are scary. They can't think ahead five minutes.
antigoracle
2.2 / 5 (17) Apr 15, 2016
Fossil fuels could be phased out worldwide in a decade

And, how much of the population would be phased out with it?
Shootist
2.3 / 5 (15) Apr 15, 2016
Fossil fuels could be phased out worldwide in a decade


Then what are the elites going to fly to their retreats, all the while complaining about how the common folk choose to spend their wages?
barakn
2.2 / 5 (20) Apr 15, 2016
"Fossil fuels could be phased out worldwide in a decade"
it is true if with carbon-free nuclear power; it is false if with bird-choppers/landscape-destroys backed by coal and other fossil fuels to compensate intermittency. -WillieWard
So they use nuclear-powered vehicles to mine the uranium? The nuclear industry is far more advanced than I thought. And all that concrete in the reactor buildings and cooling towers also made without emitting CO2 - why isn't the nuclear industry sharing this amazing technology with the rest of the concrete industry?
Shootist
2.1 / 5 (15) Apr 15, 2016
Oil and coal = Drill hole in ground. Energy comes out. It is as next to free as energy we will ever get short of star-trek level tech.

And where does that stuff go after you have extracted the energy for it in your fantasy world? You think waste management (which is what the mitigation of climate damage boils down to) is free?

People like you are scary. They can't think ahead five minutes.


All the carbon in the ground, coal, petroleum, methane, ethane, limestone -- was once a gas in the air..

I'm glad the planet has spent the last half billion years burning the place up so we will have something useful to keep us warm and light our way.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (23) Apr 15, 2016
"I'm glad the planet has spent the last half billion years burning the place up so we will have something useful to keep us warm and light our way."
------------------------------------

Yes, but now it is killing us. So we move on to the next most intelligent step.
greenonions
3.8 / 5 (17) Apr 15, 2016
Jalmy
Oil and coal = Drill hole in ground. Energy comes out. It is as next to free as energy we will ever get short of star-trek level tech
Things are a little more complex than that Jalmy. Oil states like Oklahoma are squealing like stuck pigs - because so much of their revenue is dependent on taxes from fossil fuels. Peabody just went bankrupt - http://www.bing.c...ationid= and oil and gas companies are on very shaky ground - http://fortune.co...ankrupt/ The cost of energy from renewables is falling - and will continue to fall. I agree with the prof that a fast change over is possible - we will have to wait and see what really shakes down.
tblakely1357
2.7 / 5 (12) Apr 15, 2016
"The cost of energy from renewables is falling - and will continue to fall"

And ten years from now renewables will still be far more expensive and unreliable than evil fossil fuels.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (15) Apr 15, 2016
Yes, but now it is killing us
which is more dangerous, @liar-kam? flying at 33,000ft or standing within 6 meters of a nuclear reactor?

this should be easy for an engineer "in the field" to figure out

now, for some real science not blown up out of proportion by emotional fears:
lets not forget the universe and earth itself is "radioactive"
Flying on a plane and next to a reactor measured
https://www.youtu...MRkN99aE

more "nuke" science
https://www.youtu...yv9arXqU

https://www.youtu...xY-wOrI8

https://www.youtu...rcdMiIGs

https://www.youtu...Zm8XO7Zc

https://www.youtu...I3ifi_UI

ogg_ogg
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 15, 2016
This wins my vote for funniest PO post of the week! If we unilaterally surrender in the next 2 years to some alien race, and they give us 8 years to demolish all of our coal, oil and gas powered electric supply plants (and replace them with an alternative of our choice) then I'd agree it is "possible". We'd need a mega-Manhattan style project...no, make that giga-Manhattan. Most countries (afaik) have environmental impact study requirements for any new power plant. Getting that, then permits, and finally constuction - while maintaining/getting financing in 10 years for a majority of the COG power plants is not just risible, it is delusional. But, as a hypothetical - which will not happen - it isn't ever going to be subject to falsification. But this is just funny. Phys.org is posting more and more nonsense which I'm finding hysterical!
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (13) Apr 15, 2016
I'll cite Bucky Fuller: he showed that the progress of science and technology is not a linear curve but an exponential one. Note that as the examples in the article of moving from one technology to another get later in history, the time the move takes is less and less. The more we know the faster we can learn.
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 15, 2016
tblakely
And ten years from now renewables will still be far more expensive and unreliable than evil fossil fuels.
Your assertion - can you support it with any links? Here is a link to unsubsidized wind power at $25 Mwh. I think your information is behind - but would be open to looking at your links. http://renewecono...wh-81108
obama_socks
2.4 / 5 (14) Apr 15, 2016
We can do it. Look at the nations which are working on it seriously. The rest of you will have to grow up and clean up as well.

I have done my part with solar cells powering my house and automobile. The payback is between four and five years, then free energy for house and transportation.

We all have choices, and sometimes have to do them because they are the right thing to do, not just for money. Our own situation turned out better than planned, but each situation is unique.

- gkam
I will not spend good money for an electric car UNTIL such a car is NOT dependent on the grid whatsoever to recharge its batteries, but only on Sun and Wind power, or some other renewable resource.
Your car has to extract power from the grid, which means that your claim to complete independence from the electric company is false.
When you can drive 1000 miles day & night without having to stop at a dual-power station to recharge, then you can have bragging rights
Going
3.9 / 5 (14) Apr 15, 2016
Renewables are inherently democratic and redistributive of wealth. They can be collected anywhere by anyone and free the collector from monopoly suppliers or the strategic warlike machinations of the state. They will not only save the planet from our pollution they will usher in an era of peace and democracy simply by the logic that each individual will control his/her own supply of energy.
obama_socks
2.4 / 5 (14) Apr 15, 2016
Fossil fuels could be phased out worldwide in a decade


Then what are the elites going to fly to their retreats, all the while complaining about how the common folk choose to spend their wages?
- Shootist
Of course, they, as elites, have already claimed their status as our "betters" and it is well understood that as our "betters", their own uses of "fossil fuels" are of no great consequence, as long as "they" have the ability to get to their IPCC meetings as quickly as possible, whether by air or fast boat with a good supply of fossil fuels to arrive at their destination in a timely manner.
Why, these elites won't even have to stand in line at the airport, what with a Learjet waiting to take off with them on board.
Also, Obama and his family (including his mother-in-law) flying on AirForce One and Marine One, with a full complement of other elites and reporters, etc. will always look down on the hoi polloi of the world and expect us to know our place.
LMAO
obama_socks
2.2 / 5 (17) Apr 15, 2016
Fossil fuels could be phased out worldwide in a decade

And, how much of the population would be phased out with it?
- antigoracle
Well, as you know, the Margaret Sanger method of Eugenics is an ongoing process. In addition to removing fossil fuels from the energy lexicon, there will no doubt be a major push for an increased quota of abortions, especially in the third trimester, since Eugenecists regard the births of live, healthy babies as one more nail in the coffin of the survival of the Elites. Room must be made for elitist politicians and their families; and bankers such as George Soros and the Rothschilds are expected to make available all the moneys that will provide the elites with every imaginable comfort that the common working folk will not be able to afford.
This is the big part of the plan; the other part is to ensure that "commoners" will have to pay big bucks for the privilege of staying warm in winter after fossil fuels are eliminated.
Xiansheng
3.8 / 5 (17) Apr 15, 2016
To add a little practical reality to this discussion, three years ago I installed 5 kWp solar power to my home, In two years it will be paid for. I avoid about 9 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, and I charge my Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV (SUV) with it. It costs me about $1.30 to charge it from solar and about $2.50 to charge it from the grid. Mostly I charge it from solar. A charge equates to about 44 kilometres of driving, however its regenerative braking recharges the battery to some extent. Recently with a full battery I drive 360 kilometres and on-board data told me 40% of the journey was on electric - not petrol. Since I bought the SUV last year, I have filled the 45 L petrol tank nine times, during which period I have covered about 13,300 kilometres. I estimate this vehicle which cost A$45,000, will avoid about $30,000 in petrol costs over ten years, based on current fuel prices and distance expected to be traveled.
kochevnik
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 15, 2016
Fossil fuels could be phased out worldwide in a decade

And, how much of the population would be phased out with it?
6 billion
obama_socks
2.8 / 5 (16) Apr 15, 2016
Fossil fuels could be phased out worldwide in a decade

And, how much of the population would be phased out with it?
6 billion
- lochevnik
Yes, that is about right. Make way for a planet without borders, where the land runs with milk and honey, where the Elites can pull the reins in when all "the others" get out of line. Workers will lose most of their earnings to higher taxes to support the Elites and their fine living. In the meantime, the commoners will get to ride on special buses and trains with shackles on their way to detention centers...for the sake of the planet, of course.

jyro
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 16, 2016
And pigs could fly.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (16) Apr 16, 2016
And pigs could fly.
with enough thrust, they sure can
HeloMenelo
2.4 / 5 (20) Apr 16, 2016
Fossil fuels could be phased out worldwide in a decade

And, how much of the population would be phased out with it?


paid troll antisciencegorilla thought he said something clever, only to confirm his dumb remark made by his sockpuppet right below his first comment shootist the potty miss.
HeloMenelo
2.3 / 5 (21) Apr 16, 2016
Oil and coal = Drill hole in ground. Energy comes out. It is as next to free as energy we will ever get short of star-trek level tech.

And where does that stuff go after you have extracted the energy for it in your fantasy world? You think waste management (which is what the mitigation of climate damage boils down to) is free?

People like you are scary. They can't think ahead five minutes.


All the carbon in the ground, coal, petroleum, methane, ethane, limestone -- was once a gas in the air..

I'm glad the planet has spent the last half billion years burning the place up so we will have something useful to keep us warm and light our way.


and shooti shoots another one into his sockpuppets face with this dumb reply, he clearly have absolutely no understanding that life in those very distant past conditions he is mentioning was non existant because of the inhospitable conditions back then, well he does keep us smiling doesn't he :)
HeloMenelo
2.4 / 5 (20) Apr 16, 2016
"The cost of energy from renewables is falling - and will continue to fall"

And ten years from now renewables will still be far more expensive and unreliable than evil fossil fuels.


No it won't and thank goodness for renewables greasy oil monkeys like you will be phased out and the earth will be able to breath again
HeloMenelo
2.3 / 5 (19) Apr 16, 2016
This wins my vote for funniest PO post of the week! If we unilaterally surrender in the next 2 years to some alien race, and they give us 8 years to demolish all of our coal, oil and gas powered electric supply plants (and replace them with an alternative of our choice) then I'd agree it is "possible". We'd need a mega-Manhattan style project...no, make that giga-Manhattan. Most countries (afaik) have ..pen - it isn't ever going to be subject to falsification. But this is just funny. Phys.org is posting more and more nonsense which I'm finding hysterical!


hysterical for those for whom renewables does not make sense because of their lack of vision, their relentless greed for filthy oil money, lack of consiousness for caring about the planet and in turn having absolutely zero regard for those who live on earth, but then again clowns usually post hysterical replies, so keep at it (we know you will :) ), as always we like to expose stupidity ;)
HeloMenelo
2.4 / 5 (20) Apr 16, 2016
To add a little pr....CO2 into the atmosphere every year, and I charge my Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV (SUV) with it. It costs me about $1.30 to charge it from solar and about $2.50 to charge it from the grid. Mostly I charge it from solar. A charge equates to about 44 kilometres of driving, however its regenerative braking recharges the battery to some extent. Recently with a full battery I drive 360 kilometres and on-board data told me 40% of the journey was on electric - not petrol. Since I bought the SUV last year, I have filled the 45 L petrol tank nine times, during which period I have covered about 13,300 kilometres. I estimate this vehicle which cost A$45,000, will avoid about $30,000 in petrol costs over ten years, based on current fuel prices and distance expected to be traveled.


Brilliant ! nothing like real life experience flattening all the airhead comments from the same puppets.
HeloMenelo
2.3 / 5 (19) Apr 16, 2016
Fossil fuels could be phased out worldwide in a decade

And, how much of the population would be phased out with it?
6 billion
- lochevnik
Yes, that is about right. Make way for a planet without borders, where the land runs with milk and honey, where the Elites can pull the reins in when all "the others" get out of line. Workers will lose most of their earnings to higher taxes to support the Elites and their fine living. In the meantime, the commoners will get to ride on special buses and trains with shackles on their way to detention centers...for the sake of the planet, of course.



That is the making of their own selfishness ! If big fat filthy stinky oil had a consiousness, it would embrace the future that is coming, invest trillions into renewables already so it's people would be implemented into renewables slowly but surely over time.
HeloMenelo
2.4 / 5 (20) Apr 16, 2016
It's not too late to change old ways, the question is can and will they
Edenlegaia
2.4 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2016
Hehehe.....HAHAHA! Seriously? In a decade? Don't expect it. Probably a little more, at best! People won't sell their organ for an electric car. They are other problems, those you would probably qualify as "futile". Nonetheless, saving the world from the fossil fuels and the Big Boss Band is far from their preoccupations.
I tend to not play prophet. Also, the article says it "could". But i think it won't. Let's talk about it again in two decades. There will be progress. It'll probably won't be enough though.
Eikka
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 16, 2016
Moving from wood to coal in Europe, for example, took between 96 and 160 years, whereas electricity took 47 to 69 years to enter into mainstream use.


That's a completely stupid comparison.

Coal replaced wood as an energy source. Electricity did not replace coal as an energy source. In fact most of electricity worldwide is made with coal. Trying to spin that into some sort of an accelerating returns argument is just silly.

Eikka
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 16, 2016
A charge equates to about 44 kilometres of driving, however its regenerative braking recharges the battery to some extent. Recently with a full battery I drive 360 kilometres and on-board data told me 40% of the journey was on electric - not petrol.


That doesn't add up.

You have 44 km range in the battery and the computer says you did 144 km on electricity. Somehow your car charged the battery up over two times during the trip.

Regenerative braking returns about 15% in optimal conditions, which is a maximum of 54 km of your trip, which still leaves about 46 km of unexplained charge in the batteries, which can only come from the engine. In other words, the engine charges up the battery while it's running on petrol, converting fuel to electricity, and then shuts down the engine and turns on the electric motor to clock more electric kilometers on the meter.

The computer is lying to you.

Eikka
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2016
Here for example http://www1.coe.n...tion.pdf

The theoretical maximum energy return for a city bus under regenerative braking is 54% and with real world mechanical/electrical efficiency considered it tops out at about 33% with a range of values from 14% to 34% under a standard European driving cycle.

That's a best-case scenario because busses are very heavy, move slowly, and stop often which means they lose relatively little energy in air resistance and use most of their fuel in accelerations. For smaller vehicles the energy returns are significantly smaller because they stop less frequently and generally drive faster, losing more energy to air resistance.
yoatmon
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2016
Phase-out of Fossils
is a nice dream and nothing more than that. In the past, nobody was sufficiently morally convinced not to participate in any one of the two world wars. The world war that humanity is presently waging against nature will result in a disastrous defeat for that two-legged critter. Most humans are motivated by brawn and greed and less by brain.
Protoplasmix
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 16, 2016
Moving from wood to coal in Europe, for example, took between 96 and 160 years, whereas electricity took 47 to 69 years to enter into mainstream use.
That's a completely stupid comparison.
No it isn't – they're comparing the rate of implementation. For electric to go from "no houses have it" to "all houses have it" took ~ 58 years. Where the electric comes from is not germane to how much time it took to implement the new technology for "mainstream use."
dogbert
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 16, 2016
Fossil fuels could be phased out worldwide in a decade, says new study


Not even remotely possible. Simple propaganda.

Electric and hybrid cars are built with fossil fuel energy and are, for the most part, charged from the burning of fossil fuel. Solar panels and wind turbines are constructed with fossil fuel energy and the energy they produce is absorbed by the grid by law, which causes much more inefficient generation of energy by the traditional sources. It actually costs the traditional energy sources more to accommodate solar and wind energy which amounts to a supplementation of those energy sources by everyone on the grid.

We do need to develop alternate energy resources, but neither pie in the sky fantasy nor end of the world apocalyptic hysteria is conducive to that goal.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2016
@dogbert It actually costs the traditional energy sources more to accommodate solar and wind energy which amounts to a supplementation of those energy sources by everyone on the grid.
Any AC motor becomes a generator when overspun. Yet the grid remains intact. You clearly do not understand what you wrote about
Protoplasmix
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 16, 2016
The computer is lying to you …
Depends on who's doing the typing, doesn't it?
That's a best-case scenario because busses are very heavy, move slowly, and stop often which means they lose relatively little energy in air resistance and use most of their fuel in accelerations.
Actually, that's yet another example of people looking backward, instead of forward just 5 minutes into the future, as Antialias aptly pointed out.

As if personal transportation for the masses will always be by big heavy buses. You don't have to look even 5 minutes into the future to see what's available already: Drone Capable of Carrying a Human at 100 km/hr Unveiled
Osiris1
5 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2016
Author is kind of full of it, but that author DID give out data that indicate such a changeover possible to a reasonable individual within say 25 years. This given progressive declining times to do this in advent of past technologies' times of adoption by cohesive majorities of people.
antigoracle
2.5 / 5 (13) Apr 16, 2016
As if personal transportation for the masses will always be by big heavy buses. You don't have to look even 5 minutes into the future to see what's available already: http://www.iflsci...veiled-0

Wow!! PERSONAL transportation for the MASSES. Then you follow up with a $300,000 drone, which will only take you 23 miles on a 2 hour charge. That's the kind of stupid that takes a lot of practice. No wonder the rest of the Chicken Little idiots gave you 5s for that. The best is, you believe you will save the world.
greenonions
4 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2016
Some extra thoughts - Solar is still expensive in the U.S. compared to other countries - http://energytran...germany/ Yet the pay back on Solar is around 8 - 9 years. http://www.greent...n-the-US That is a good deal in itself - but what happens when the price continues down - and the political environment shifts in favor of solar? Kurzweil is predicting that solar will become the dominant technology - within 12 years - http://cleantechn...nential/ There are some good reasons why he is probably a little optimistic there - but the ball is definitely rolling down the hill, and picking up speed.
Zzzzzzzz
2.5 / 5 (21) Apr 16, 2016
Just like religious belief systems, climate change denial and clean power detraction are rooted in self delusion. Is is humanity's capacity for self delusion that would be the greatest obstacle in eliminating fossil fuels as the article suggests.
Zzzzzzzz
2.1 / 5 (18) Apr 16, 2016
Just like religious belief systems, climate change denial and clean power detraction are rooted in self delusion. Is is humanity's capacity for self delusion that would be the greatest obstacle in eliminating fossil fuels as the article suggests.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (18) Apr 16, 2016
I have done my part with solar cells powering my house and automobile. The payback is between four and five years, then free energy for house and transportation
-But not all of us are willing to piss away our wife's future by spending all her hard-earned money on gadgets and toys.

How many extended care facilities in your area are carbon neutral george?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2016
And pigs could fly.
with enough thrust, they sure can
You could get arrested for proving it unless your interlocutor were willing to stipulate that the fact a dead pig can fly shows a live one could. Or that putting the live pig on an airplane is sufficient.

;)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2016
Moving from wood to coal in Europe, for example, took between 96 and 160 years, whereas electricity took 47 to 69 years to enter into mainstream use.


That's a completely stupid comparison.

Coal replaced wood as an energy source. Electricity did not replace coal as an energy source. In fact most of electricity worldwide is made with coal. Trying to spin that into some sort of an accelerating returns argument is just silly.
So is trying to make up a story about what was said. Specifically the article was regarding movement between energy technology levels; what electricity is generated with is well aside from the thesis that we can (and we are and will) do so faster than in the past. Whether it will be in ten years or not remains to be seen and I'd give no better than even odds (50/50) that it will be accomplished in that time. But accomplished it will be, and the quicker the better.

I gave you a 5 though; your argument made sense given your premises.
HeloMenelo
2.3 / 5 (19) Apr 16, 2016
As if personal transportation for the masses will always be by big heavy buses. You don't have to look even 5 minutes into the future to see what's available already: http://www.iflsci...veiled-0

Wow!! PERSONAL transportation for the MASSES. Then you follow up with a $300,000 drone, which will only take you 23 miles on a 2 hour charge. That's the kind of stupid that takes a lot of practice. No wonder the rest of the Chicken Little idiots gave you 5s for that. The best is, you believe you will save the world.


as can be seen, to antisciencegorillas this stupidity comes natural, no practice needed at all ;)
bonobo monkey antisciencegorilla and all his sockpuppets is also a natural in attracting 1 out of 5s for his monkey nut comments... but hey.... he's getting paid to be himself on physorg, and we're having a blast adding the shine to his stupidity...everytime :D here monkey monkey... ;)
abecedarian
5 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2016
Any AC motor becomes a generator when overspun. Yet the grid remains intact. You clearly do not understand what you wrote about

Actually, the claim any AC motor overspun becomes a generator is false.

Magnetic fields are required to be such a generator and many AC motors use electric field windings to generate said magnetic fields. So being as such, they cannot generator any power unless the field windings are energized. And though they can approach levels close to self-excitation, they cannot generate an excess of power without substantial energy input, from like you mentioned "being overspun."

This is also why regenerative braking is not highly efficient- a significant amount of current generated this way is consumed exciting the field windings.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 16, 2016
Just like religious belief systems, climate change denial and clean power detraction are rooted in self delusion. Is is humanity's capacity for self delusion that would be the greatest obstacle in eliminating fossil fuels as the article suggests.
I would suggest that not having a bunch of rich people who are afraid their stocks are going to go down interfering in the science and in the transmission of the results of the science to the public would help. Captain Stumpy has links handy showing that this is the case, and it needs to stop. They know in the end it won't work; it didn't work for leaded gasoline, and it didn't work for cigarettes, but it delayed things by a lot more than was wise, according to violence statistics (lead) and heart disease and cancer statistics (cigarettes). We're only now emerging from the lead problems, and the cigarette problems are ongoing.
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 16, 2016
heloMenelo
as can be seen, to antisciencegorillas this stupidity comes natural,
or perhaps it takes a lot of practice. Here is anti - disputing all the research on the navigation system of the Monarch butterfly - to assert that it is 'just following the milkweed'. Science by pull ideas out your ass I guess. http://phys.org/n...nal.html
Protoplasmix
4.7 / 5 (15) Apr 16, 2016
Wow!! PERSONAL transportation for the MASSES. Then you follow up with a $300,000 drone, which will only take you 23 miles on a 2 hour charge.
Pull your head out of the past, other than to cite another example of the rapid implementation of new technologies (plural!), in this case the transition from horse and buggy to automobiles, using a new assembly line technology [to produce *personal* transportation for the *masses*], because your statement is yet *another* failure to see what's already available (and what else soon will be) in regard to local manufacturing technologies, not the least of which is 3d printing (or "additive manufacturing") with its revolutionary ease in rapidly producing virtually any new designs imaginable. You sorely missed the point of the article.
kochevnik
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2016
Any AC motor becomes a generator when overspun.

Actually, the claim any AC motor overspun becomes a generator is false.

Magnetic fields are required to be such a generator and many AC motors use electric field windings to generate said magnetic fields. So being as such, they cannot generator any power unless the field windings are energized. And though they can approach levels close to self-excitation, they cannot generate an excess of power without substantial energy input, from like you mentioned "being overspun."

This is also why regenerative braking is not highly efficient- a significant amount of current generated this way is consumed exciting the field windings.
I suspect you just debunked your own post. Your description completely agrees with what I stated. Obviously a field will be present when connected to the mains
KBK
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2016
The way to make it happen fastest, is to turn and face the problem squarely:

Point at and loudly threaten, for all to hear.... the interfering crypto-fascist oligarchy with drowning, to the last man, if they don't stand aside.

Put your shoulder into it, or it will never happen.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (20) Apr 17, 2016
We have to also do what we can ourselves. The real secret is it PAYS OFF! In money!

Our EV and PV system are saving us enough to eventually buy a newer EV.

Once folk drive them, there is no going back, unless you are an adolescent, who needs to be noticed by the noise of a powerful engine. These are clean and quiet, and cheaper to operate.
HeloMenelo
2.2 / 5 (17) Apr 17, 2016
heloMenelo
as can be seen, to antisciencegorillas this stupidity comes natural,
or perhaps it takes a lot of practice. Here is anti - disputing all the research on the navigation system of the Monarch butterfly - to assert that it is 'just following the milkweed'. Science by pull ideas out your ass I guess. http://phys.org/n...nal.html


good point
Porgie
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 17, 2016
What a left wing crock! This is second rate BS from the distant out of touch effeminate left. All you have to do is give up AC, toaster ovens, use your microwave between midnight and 3AM. NO lights on before 8PM in winter and 10PM in summer. Sure these people that say this are idiots. I worked in the energy industry for 13 years in management the last 8 and this is pie in the sky BS. What fools.
Pumastar
1.8 / 5 (15) Apr 17, 2016
What a good article my eyes have been opened wide, especially in the comments section, and i see now how the global energy market has been devestating the earth by people with double standards and hidden agendas, Hail Renewables !
gkam
1.4 / 5 (19) Apr 17, 2016
" I worked in the energy industry for 13 years in management the last 8 , . . "
---------------------------------------

Yes, . . . management.

I worked in real stuff, not "management". The managers are just impediments to progress, having their big ignorant egos in the way. Many do not fully understand their fields or the specifics of their worker's endeavors, but just plow through with statements and "policies".

Perhaps you should have stayed with the newer technologies in hands-on, if you wanted to know what is happening.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (21) Apr 17, 2016
I worked in real stuff, not "management". The managers are just impediments to progress, having their big ignorant egos in the way. Many do not fully understand their fields or the specifics of their worker's endeavors, but just plow through with statements
Yeah and they're the ones who inevitably fired you from your 12++ jobs for incompetence aren't they?

Of course you look down on them. They failed to recognize your genius but at the same time they were jealous of it.

Whichever.

But then they invented HR depts and now psychopaths like George kamburoff aren't around any more to reduce their self-esteem.

Too bad for them eh george?
PeterPiker
3.8 / 5 (13) Apr 17, 2016
To replace fossil fuels in 10 years, the faster growing renewables (solar, wind and biomass) would need to increase their composite annual growth rate from about 20% to 50%, which would correspond to an increase in the 10-year growth rate from 6 to 58. These renewables currently represent about 2% of the global energy pie; so, they need an annual growth rate of almost 50% to achieve 100% renewable energy in 10 years. (The other major renewables (nukes and hydro) should remain fairly constant at a combined 11% of global energy consumption.)

The recent annual growth rate for solar, wind and biomass is 26%, 17% and 20%, respectively. An increase in any of these numbers to 50%, let alone a composite of them, is very optimistic.
howhot2
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2016
To replace fossil fuels in 10 years, the faster growing renewables (solar, wind and biomass) would need to increase their composite annual growth rate from about 20% to 50%, which would correspond to an increase in the 10-year growth rate from 6 to 58. These renewables currently represent about 2% of the global energy pie; so, they need an annual growth rate of almost 50% to achieve 100% renewable energy in 10 years. (The other major renewables (nukes and hydro) should remain fairly constant at a combined 11% of global energy consumption.)

The recent annual growth rate for solar, wind and biomass is 26%, 17% and 20%, respectively. An increase in any of these numbers to 50%, let alone a composite of them, is very optimistic.

A hell of an investment opportunity? No?
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2016

The recent annual growth rate for solar, wind and biomass is 26%, 17% and 20%, respectively. An increase in any of these numbers to 50%, let alone a composite of them, is very optimistic.

He does say "could". And he does say that it would take "collaborative, interdisciplinary, multi-scalar effort "...I.e. well beyond the smallish, local incentives currently in place in a very few select regions of the world.
The effort would be huge and would need a substantial part of the GDP of each nation.
Arguably it'd be an up-front investment that would reap huge benefits afterwards for all involved.

I see the paper more as an 'is it feasible' as opposed to a 'will it be done'. It's a paper that shows all the nay-sayers that their "impossible to do" argument isn't as solid as they think it is.

And as he notes the 'pressure from stakeholders' is key. The countries where a changeover is happening have seen such pressure.
gblaze41
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2016
If political regulations, tariffs and pricing regimes are needed to shift energy use, they will make us poorer and less prosperous,

Try thinking ahead a bit. You know what will happen when the climate change damages hit? They will have to be mitigated. With taxes. Every year more of them because the damages will only increase in severity.


To be honest there is no evidence as yet if there will be any problems from global warming. Sure there are plenty of "Doom and Gloom' studies that are highly suspect, seem to support an agenda, because as they all say 'could' or 'maybe' in the title. They are all at most projected possibilities, and at least confirmation bias since the studies who state that there may not be any climate problems are overlooked.
dgxt002
3 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2016
Switching energy production off fossil fuels is great and much needed, but it also will pail in comparison to the length of time and struggle that will come from switching transportation off of fossil fuels.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (18) Apr 18, 2016
Transportation is the hardest target of all, because of the energy density of liquid fuels.

It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.
Pumastar
2 / 5 (16) Apr 18, 2016
If political regulations, tariffs and pricing regimes are needed to shift energy use, they will make us poorer and less prosperous,
Try thinking ahead a bit. You know what will happen when the climate change damages hit? They will have to be mitigated. With taxes. Every year more of them because the damages will only increase in severity.

To be honest there is no evidence as yet if there will be any problems from global warming. Sure there are plenty of "Doom and Gloom' studies that are highly suspect, seem to support an agenda, because as they all say


antisciencegorilla sock eh... don't believe what you thumbsuck out of your own head, the science people knows what they are talking about, the doom and gloom will materialize hands down, imagining otherwise won't change reality, try pop out of that cloud in your head, but i fear the corn has already popped into popcorn so it's all a hazy mixed up reality in that head of yours
Pumastar
2.5 / 5 (16) Apr 18, 2016
Switching energy production off fossil fuels is great and much needed, but it also will pail in comparison to the length of time and struggle that will come from switching transportation off of fossil fuels.


not if everyone will see what is coming and be will to make the change sooner rather than later, because cry all you want, that future is coming and renewables is the future !
PeterPiker
3 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2016
The conversion of the world's transportation to renewables in ten years would imply junking the current fleet of cars, trucks, airplanes, locomotives, ships, etc., or at least retrofitting all their engines – an unlikely event when gas and other petroleum products are dirt cheap due to a glut of oil.
redraidr89
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2016
"Just like religious belief systems, climate change denial and clean power detraction are rooted in self delusion. Is is humanity's capacity for self delusion that would be the greatest obstacle in eliminating fossil fuels as the article suggests."

Like a religious belief, the lefts truth denial is rooted in self delusion and also being gullible because the truth is the whole claim of that you and I are causing global warming is completely and wholly made up. The creators of the idea admit as much:

"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
redraidr89
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2016
"the science people knows what they are talking about"

The "science people" are talking about what they are being paid with government money to talk about doom and gloom.

Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: "Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful."

Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: "No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality i
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2016
The "science people" are talking about what they are being paid with government money to
@redr
this is called conspiracist ideation
http://journals.p....0075637
antigoracle
2.2 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2016
Quote by Phil Jones, Research Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will KEEP THEM OUT somehow — even if we have to REDEFINE what the PEER-REVIEW literature is!"
antigoracle
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2016
Quote by Phil Jones: "Bottom line: the 'no upward trend' has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get WORRIED."

The High Priest of of the AGW Cult, while he publicly preaches to the ignorant Chicken Littles about their false prophesies, is privately worried that their much wanted doom and gloom is not happening.
WillieWard
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2016
The same climatologists who are not capable of predicting tomorrow's weather with accuracy, are the same that are said to be able to foretell the weather decades ahead.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2016
To replace fossil fuels in 10 years, the faster growing renewables (solar, wind and biomass) would need to increase their composite annual growth rate from about 20% to 50%, which would correspond to an increase in the 10-year growth rate from 6 to 58. These renewables currently represent about 2% of the global energy pie; so, they need an annual growth rate of almost 50% to achieve 100% renewable energy in 10 years. (The other major renewables (nukes and hydro) should remain fairly constant at a combined 11% of global energy consumption.)

The recent annual growth rate for solar, wind and biomass is 26%, 17% and 20%, respectively. An increase in any of these numbers to 50%, let alone a composite of them, is very optimistic.

A hell of an investment opportunity? No?
For a risk-tolerant investor.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (19) Apr 18, 2016
Somehow I think redraidr is from an oil state.

You're going to lose.

My PV and EV setup takes me out of gas stations. It pays for my house power.

When even you drive an EV you will want one, and will not want another ICE unless you are an adolescent needing a Big Noise.

Snicker now, pay later. Just like in the last oil boom/bust.
gkam
1 / 5 (17) Apr 19, 2016
If we are to do this, then WE have to do it, not just "they".

I got many "one" ratings above from folk who drive stinking, oily, smoking diesels. One rides a boat with a 9,000 hp diesel engine, and the guy thinks he is an environmentalist!
gkam
1 / 5 (19) Apr 19, 2016
Happiness is getting "one" rating from the guy on the 9,000 hp diesel boat!
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (19) Apr 19, 2016
"the science people knows what they are talking about"

The "science people" are talking about what they are being paid with government money to talk about doom and gloom.

Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: "Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful."

Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."

y i


No they are being paid to do research and the results does not lie,there wil on the other hand, thumbsucked opinions made out of hot air is all conartists and paid oil trolls such as yourself to fuel fake "science" campagins, they are always exposed in the end and make big oil look like idiots.
HeloMenelo
2.6 / 5 (18) Apr 19, 2016
Let me rub it in some for you since you kindly asked for it ;)

http://phys.org/n...ate.html
HeloMenelo
2.3 / 5 (18) Apr 19, 2016
Quote by Phil Jones: "Bottom line: the 'no upward trend' has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get WORRIED."

The High Priest of of the AGW Cult, while he publicly preaches to the ignorant Chicken Littles about their false prophesies, is privately worried that their much wanted doom and gloom is not happening.


Little monkey, let me feed that you some more bannanas, no bother getting you to understand science, that head is full of popcorn already...remember ? ;)
on another note, for everyone that can read, which would be the majority,
See how oil does business
http://phys.org/n...ate.html
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (13) Apr 19, 2016
Happiness is getting "one" rating from the guy on the 9,000 hp diesel boat!
this coming from a guy who worked in the power industry and is personally responsible for the dumping of millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere for the generation of electricity????

hypocrisy at it's worst!

but truly, astoundingly funny when you think about it!

ROTFLMFAO

if you were truly concerned, you would be taking steps to make electricity cleaner, like Thermodynamics

an important note:
special thanks to people like Thermo who are actually trying to make this world a better place without resorting to delusional self-promotion and blatant lies like certain other geriatric dementia psychopathic commando-engineers
HeloMenelo
2.3 / 5 (18) Apr 19, 2016
HeloMenelo
2.3 / 5 (18) Apr 19, 2016
Happiness is getting "one" rating from the guy on the 9,000 hp diesel boat!
this coming from a guy who worked in the power industry and is personally responsible for the dumping of millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere for the generation of electricity????

hypocrisy at it's worst!

but truly, astoundingly funny when you think about it!

ROTFLMFAO

if you were truly concerned, you would be taking steps to make electricity cleaner, like Thermodynamics

an important note:
special thanks to people like Thermo who are actually trying to make this world a better place without resorting to delusional self-promotion and blatant lies like certain other geriatric dementia psychopathic commando-engineers


Yet another good one Captain
gkam
1.2 / 5 (19) Apr 20, 2016
":personally responsible for the dumping of millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere for the generation of electricity??"
----------------------------------

Once again, you LOSE. My profession was not in generation, but in making our customers more efficient, hence the Senior ENERGY SERVICES Engineer title. They hired me specifically to let our customers use LESS power.

I helped folk SAVE power, you fool. Look up out record-breaking efforts to make California more efficient in the 1980's. My on-site visits to our customers with problems led to the formation of the Power Quality Group at PG&E.

Ignorance and Wiki are a terrible combination.

Yeah, . . another good one, Sgt.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (14) Apr 20, 2016
My profession was not in generation
@couyon-Liar-kam
so you claim... but you also claimed to work for PG&E, which makes you responsible by association and default...

just because you decide to drive a getaway car and not shoot a person in a robbery doesn't mean you get to say you weren't part of the crime...

same thing... you worked for a seriously polluting power company, and therefore, by default, are complicit in it's crimes from association

sorry liar-girl... that is how it works
I helped folk SAVE power
so you're responsible for a what? .02% decrease on overall CO2?
tell us... how much CO2 did you actually prevent?

did the power company reduce production?
NOPE!

ROTFLMFAO

nice try, climate killer!
you're electric car and solar panel guilt proves your complicity in the crime!

Yeah, . . another good one commando-engineer

epic logic fail
compose
Apr 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
1 / 5 (18) Apr 20, 2016
Your silly need to disparage me is obvious, but will not work.

"you're electric car and solar panel "
---------------------------------

No, I am not.

I have them, and you do not, Mister Polluter.

Is that Biog Truck you ride in a stinking Diesel?

Thought so, . . .
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2016
Compose - you are not aware that the largest coal company in the world just went bankrupt? That the oil/gas majors are hemorrhaging money - and investment capital is pouring in to renewables - as the cost of power for renewables continues to fall? The times they are a changing.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 20, 2016
Is that Biog Truck you ride in a stinking Diesel?
@Couyon-liar-kam
1- spellcheck is free
2- i don't own a Biog truck
3- Diesel is fine for towing, but tends to be a mite heavy for 4WD
4- you've seen pics of my f*cking 4WD, moron! (ROTFLMFAO)
5- you're guilt is the only reason you have solar panels and electric car - as proven above

most importantly:
you're proven, by your own words, to be complicit in the AGW crime you so heatedly post about even though you don't have the knowledge you claim to have, as demonstrated by DaSchneib here: http://phys.org/n...age.html

IOW- you keep proving me correct every time you post your nonsensical emotional outbursts about engineering, nukes, and your car/solar/whatever you claim to have, though you can't prove it

and i don't have to disparage you... you do enough of that yourself
especially when you lie about science, like THz, Radio, engineering, etc
Lord_jag
4.1 / 5 (14) Apr 21, 2016

and i don't have to disparage you... you do enough of that yourself
especially when you lie about science, like THz, Radio, engineering, etc


And that, right there, is the main reason people don't believe you, gkam.

You aren't winning anyone over by declaring you're an expert in a field you clearly have no involvement in.

Stick to what you do know and leave alone what you clearly don't. Because of your lies anything anecdotal from your history is immediately down voted because we know you can't be trusted. If you ever worked in a power plant your duties were never more than as a janitor at most. Stop pretending to be something you're not.
LifeBasedLogic
Apr 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
WillieWard
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2016
Once again, you LOSE.
"Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs."
"They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity."
https://s-media-c...f006.jpg
greenonions
3.2 / 5 (11) Apr 22, 2016
They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.
Did you look in the mirror this morning Willie?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2016
..web of lies..
A lie can be debunked, but a truth persists.
Electricity in Germany(a country heavily committed with renewables):
2009
- Lignite: 145.6 TWh
- Hard coal: 107.9 TWh
2015
- Lignite: 155.0 TWh
- Hard coal: 117 TWh
Source: Statistisches Bundesamt
https://www.desta...ion.html
http://www.energy...rk-side/

gkam
1 / 5 (15) Apr 22, 2016

I helped folk SAVE power, you fool.

"That's a lie. Don't fall into their game. Live your life completely by knowing yourself and doing the choice you choose."
-----------------------------------

It is not a lie. We had no new generation to supply the growth in California back then, and we got it by reducing the inefficiencies in the facilities of our customers, from industrial to commercial to residential to agricultural.

I suggest you choose your words more carefully.

And "lord" Jaggy, you are wrong, not me. Do you really doubt I had those positions those responsibilities, those accomplishments? Would I lie while using my real name? Perhaps you can think it out before badgering others.
LifeBasedLogic
Apr 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (8) Jun 10, 2016
Captain Stumpy claims re gkam
... but you also claimed to work for PG&E, which makes you responsible by association and default...
1. Circumstantial & anecdotal evidence at least confirm George has worked for PG&E, specific documentary evidence can be obtained fairly easily :-)

Rather than more bullying Captain Stumpy, take the trouble to check - have you ?

That would be the intelligent thing to do & George, despite that fact you are long retired its likely you can have old pay slips or health insurance payment slips or equivalent docs re PG&E or IRS extract etc

2. Captain Stumpy, George isnt responsible in any way just because he worked for a large conglomerate, its like claiming a guy who installed ovens for MacDonalds is responsible for the vice presidents decision to add fructose to buns, pretty dumb !

IOW: Captain Stumpy, your logic fails again, if you've any doubt, check with a legal professional, saying that in court you'd be laughed out pronto !
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2016
Mike, This guy has a problem, and none of us can solve it. He knows I am real, in fact, he has my personal performance reviews from the service, which he posted online. He must have done it before he read them. I like the parts where the Avionics Office called me the "perfect airman", and the Commander insisted I get promoted at the earliest opportunity.

He also saw my MS degree and other stuff. It is just that I pissed him off somehow, and now he has spent months trying to "get even". It is Trollism in its early form. That is why these folk are stuck here, where they can say what they want without consequence.

So they scream across the playground.
WillieWard
5 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2016
my MS degree and other stuff
"Sociopaths invent outrageous lies about their experiences."
http://www.natura...nce.html
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2016
take the trouble to check - have you ?
better than you, pachinko-brain, because i am literate enough to comprehend basic english and can tell the difference between a bought-degree from a diploma mill and a real one
George isnt responsible in any way just because he worked for a large conglomerate
apparently you are still unable to read: if i am a mass murderer for serving in the military in the gulf war per Georges claims then he is culpable for exacerbating the AGW problem working for a large conglomerate

logic isn't just applicable in math, pachinko-brain mike, so if the former claim from the idiot liar-kam is true per his argument from authority and education/experience then the latter is also true for the same reasons

learn to read or STFU
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2016
one last post about this @pachinko-brain mike
IOW: Captain Stumpy, your logic fails again, if you've any doubt, check with a legal professional, saying that in court you'd be laughed out pronto !
given that the idiot couyon-liar-kam already threatened legal action as well as worse in e-mails and here on PO i already contacted legal representation about his stupidity

i am nothing if not thorough - especially when CYOA is a requirement
it's a military thing... liar-kam doesn't know about that one, apparently (perhaps you should wonder why?)

and the point still stands as it is not only relevant to the arguments from his stupidity, but it is also the exact same point and claim liar-kam is making here on PO that you continually get sucked into believing

technically speaking, that makes you the bully which is quite funny when you consider your claims all over PO

- LMFAO

PS- you always have the option to join his litigation... take me on in person!
LOL
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2016
I helped folk SAVE power, you fool
In your mind you mean. You pretended to be an expert and recommended they use their swimming pool to cool their house because it was the common thing to do.

Luckily nobody believes your bullshit for long.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.