IEA hikes green energy forecast after 'turning point' year

October 25, 2016
After a record 2015, global renewable electricity capacity will grow by 825 gigawatts by 2021, a massive 42-percent rise, the IEA said

Government support and lower costs will power stronger-than-expected global growth in renewable energy over the next five years, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said Tuesday.

After a record 2015, global renewable electricity capacity will grow by 825 gigawatts by 2021, a massive 42-percent rise, the IEA said.

The estimate is 13 percent higher than the agency's forecast last year. The IEA has been criticised in some quarters for being over-cautious about renewables.

In 2021, solar, wind and other renewable sources will provide comprise 28 percent of world electricity production compared to 23 percent in 2015, the IEA said.

Last year marked a "turning point" for renewables in terms of investment and use, the IEA declared.

The pick-up is mostly down to "stronger policy backing" in the United States, China, India and Mexico, it said.

Costs are expected to drop by around 25 percent for solar panels, and 15 percent for onshore wind.

"We are witnessing a transformation of global power markets led by renewables and, as is the case with other fields, the centre of gravity for renewable growth is moving to emerging markets," said IEA executive director Fatih Birol in the statement.

It highlighted China as "the undisputable global leader of expansion."

China accounted for 40 percent of all renewable capacity increases last year, a rate that amounted to installing two wind turbines every hour, the agency said.

Worldwide around half a million were installed every day in 2015.

The exceptional growth has led the IEA to be "more optimistic" about the next five-year period, Birol said.

"However, even these higher expectations remain modest compared with the huge untapped potential of renewables," he added.

Generation from renewables is expected by 2021 to equal the total electricity generation of the US and the European Union put together today, the IEA said.

But, it warned, grounds for caution remain.

"Policy uncertainty persists in too many countries, slowing down the pace of investments," it said.

Difficulties in integrating networks in China, South Africa and Japan, and financing conditions that penalise developing countries are other hurdles, said the head of the IEA's renewables energy division, Paolo Frankl, in a telephone conference.

Aside from electricity, he said stubbornly low global oil prices had had a direct impact on renewable heat and biofuels, which were developing very slowly.

Explore further: Renewables posted record growth rate in 2015: IRENA

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Enhancing solar power with diatoms

October 20, 2017

Diatoms, a kind of algae that reproduces prodigiously, have been called "the jewels of the sea" for their ability to manipulate light. Now, researchers hope to harness that property to boost solar technology.

88 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
2.9 / 5 (15) Oct 25, 2016
We are wising up.

Nuke plants are now uneconomical. Coal is a disaster of pollution. Combined cycle gas is a bridge. Renewables are the future.
SiBorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2016
Good to have some good news on the global outlook although I think is an embarrassment to the developed markets that they are lagging behind on this, the UK being a notable case.
WillieWard
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 25, 2016
"Coal is a disaster of pollution. Combined cycle gas is a bridge." It sounds so environmentally hypocritical.
It is more a confession that bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers are now, and will ever be, strongly dependent on natural gas/fracking to compensate intermittencies.
A more correct phrase would be "Renewables+Fracking are the future, goodbye carbon-free nuclear power, farewell natural landscapes, luckless birds and bats."
https://scontent-...58A029F2
https://pbs.twimg...hsqk.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...77cb.jpg
greenonions
4.7 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2016
It is more a confession that bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers are now, and will ever be, strongly dependent on natural gas/fracking to compensate intermittencies

Not true at all. Take a look at this program - http://www.greent...y-System Wow - reasonably priced solar - with battery back up.
If wind and solar are coming in at 1/2 the cost of coal or nukes - https://cleantech...-africa/ That leads a lot of room for storage.
With solar prices falling 40% in 6 months Willie - your hand waving is just showing how far out of touch you are with the real world. https://cleantech...-market/
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2016
Not true at all. Take a look at this program - http://www.greent...y-System Wow - reasonably priced solar - with battery back up.
They should sell it to Germany.
https://scontent-...46_o.jpg
... just showing how far out of touch you are with the real world.
nice greenie propaganda

WillieWard
2 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2016
..wind and solar are coming in at 1/2 the cost of coal or nukes - https://cleantech...-africa/
Except wind and solar need coal power plants as backup.
"Nuclear power stations are the workhorses of the electricity system, relentlessly churning out electricity day and night, year in and year out. Nuclear power provides continuous and reliable electricity production"
"Advanced nuclear plants have uniquely high capacity factors of 90% and above and are the dispatchable sources of energy that can be utilized on demand. Nuclear plants are now expected to operate for 60 years and even longer in the future. This dependability gives nuclear a clear advantage over wind and solar in our national and global goal to cut GHG emissions."
http://www.forbes...t-future

greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2016
Except wind and solar need coal power plants as backup.

Really - wonder how Scotland is doing it. https://thinkprog...q28gxvzz

Guess maybe you are wrong....
gkam
2 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2016
Meanwhile, the alleged ice wall to keep radioactive pollution from draining into the Pacific in Fukushima does not work. Who is going to pay for that set of disasters? All of us.

No more deadly technologies for the sake of Big Business profits!
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2016
wonder how Scotland is doing it. https://thinkprog...q28gxvzz
From your link:
"The energy burden will now fall on the shoulders of nuclear and gas plants.."
"With the closure of Longannet, the only major fossil fuel plant in Scotland is a gas plant at Peterhead, in the northeast."
"In the United States, the Sierra Club also praised the plant's closure." "Scotland is done with coal.."
Sierra Club?
"Sierra Club Admits to Taking $26 Million from Natural Gas Industry to Attack Coal Industry"
http://cnsnews.co...industry
http://thinkprogr...ral-gas/
"The Sierra Club Took Millions From Fracking Industry"
http://www.counte...ndustry/
Renewable&Fracking: Best Friends.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 25, 2016
Read the writing on the containment vessel: Nukes are finished.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2016
Willie
From your link:
And from your comment
Except wind and solar need coal power plants as backup.
Which is clearly false -wind and solar do not need COAL as backup. You do realize the nukes need backup right? What do you think happens when a nuke is taken off line for refueling?
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2016
Hey gkam - you will enjoy this article -
http://www.theene...n-france
The comparison of German and French power prices also shows that Germany has become structurally cheaper in the last four years. Anyone that had predicted this in 2011 would have been called a nutcase. After Germany announced its plans for a quick shutdown of nuclear power plants, everyone expected this to result in higher pricing. The contrary happened.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2016
Midwest utilities are still trying to find ways to save their uneconomic nuke dinosaurs. Now let's see them find ways to store the disgusting nuclear waste they generated, . . . essentially forever in human terms.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-KAM
Nukes are finished
really?
and yet they're still working on fusion...

perhaps you should go back to the other thread and actually answer my question

you will learn a little bit about reality as well as nuclear engineering and it's potential (and drawbacks, and peripheral commercial uses, etc)

for someone who keeps asking the forum to get rid of the emotional sniping and pseudoscience sloganeering you are sure doing a lot of emotional sniping with pseudoscience sloganeering

it's time to talk science

but before we can, you have to actually answer the questions and points i made in the other thread

it's relevant, on topic and specifically about your nuke argument, so feel free to elaborate with your "vast knowledge" in the specialty area

[snicker]
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-KAM cont'd
Midwest utilities are still trying to find ways to save their uneconomic nuke dinosaurs. Now let's see them find ways to store the disgusting nuclear waste they generated, . . . essentially forever in human terms.
is this just more "sarcastic hyperbole"?
i gotta check because your own admission here: http://phys.org/n...ear.html

you said
I suggest we indenture all nuclear workers for the responsibility of cleaning up their messes. They said they knew what they were doing, so let's make them do it. They and their kids can guard that massive disaster-in-waiting.

Then, we go for the investors. It was their greed which put us in the position of having to invent a way for this stuff to not kill us
but then said
try to understand sarcastic hyperbole
when it was quoted back at ya....

so what is it g?

where is the science or my answers?

links/references to valid science please, mrs liar
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2016
wind and solar do not need COAL as backup.
Explain it to Germans (cheap coal). Teach it to Californians (cheap natural gas/fracking).
https://scontent-...58A4A83C
https://uploads.d...1065.jpg
https://uploads.d...e013.jpg
http://d2ouvy59p0...port.pdf
http://energyandc...-deaths/
https://thinkprog...iny7qsbv
https://www.eurac...t-of-eu/

WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2016
The comparison of German and French...
France is a success in terms of decarbonization, while Germany's Energiewende is a fiasco. Fossil fuels are still predominant with no meaningful CO2 reduction while carbon-free nuclear power was phased out to give place to bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers.
http://energytran...5-v2.png
https://scontent-...5860B0DB
https://scontent-...50_o.png
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2016
You do realize the nukes need backup right? What do you think happens when a nuke is taken off line for refueling?


Nothing in particular, considering that the refueling is scheduled for a period of low demand.

wonder how Scotland is doing it.


Scotland is connected to the UK national grid. Scotland is a population of 5.3 million next to the greater population of England with 53 million, which means the Scottish renewable energy production and backup power demand is just a small blip in comparison and they can use the UK grid as a virtual battery - just like Denmark is using the German and Scandinavian grids as their battery.

If everyone tries to do the same, you run out of virtual batteries and have to start buying actual batteries.
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2016
Eikka
Nothing in particular, considering that the refueling is scheduled for a period of low demand.
But you can't guarantee that there will be 2 months of low demand.

However, when a unit goes down for refueling, the outage lasts an average of about two months
From - http://www.eia.go...?id=1490 And what about maintenance issues that are not predictable. The point being that you must design the system with backup - to cover the times when the plant is down. So it is dishonest for Willie to keep stating that renewables need COAL to back them up - when the truth is that all sources of power need to be backed up - because no one has 100% capacity factor.
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2016
Eikka
If everyone tries to do the same, you run out of virtual batteries and have to start buying actual batteries.
None the less - the point I am making remains valid. Willie is wrong in stating that renewables need COAL to back them up. Britain will be coal free in less than 10 years - http://www.bbc.co...34851718 And Germany is shooting for around 2050. So go ahead and move the goal posts Eikka. Yes - interconnecting is one of the major strategies for dealing with the issue of intermittency with renewables. As the cost of renewables, and storage fall (solar panels dropped 40% in the last 6 months) - https://cleantech...-market/ Interconnection will become less necessary - but we may continue it - as it builds a more robust system.
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2016
So it is dishonest ... stating that renewables need COAL to back them up
If the reality seems dishonest for you, move away to fairyland 100% powered by unicorn fart energy.
https://scontent-...08_o.jpg
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2016
..because no one has 100% capacity factor.
But in terms of capacity factor: renewable ~30% (solar 11% in Germany), carbon-free nuclear above 90%.
Renewables can serve of reliable backup for each other? Even when wind is not blowing, or sun is not shining, or in prolonged droughts(hydro)? NO.
Carbon-free nuclear power plants can serve of reliable backup for each other? YES.
https://pbs.twimg...77cb.jpg
https://scontent-...589BE07C
"Advanced nuclear plants have uniquely high capacity factors of 90% and above and are the dispatchable sources of energy that can be utilized on demand..."
http://www.forbes...t-future
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2016
"and yet they're still working on fusion... "
-----------------------------

Yeah, "still working" on it, with no results. I think they will eventually get it "right", but by then, it will be irrelevant.

Rumpy has a lot of nonsense words, a sign of somebody who does not understand the science.
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2016
Willie
If the reality seems dishonest for you
I proved to you that it was dishonest. Scotland proves to you that renewables do not need COAL. Yes they need backup - so do all power sources - as none has 100% capacity factor. Yes nukes have a high capacity factor - which gives them a clear advantage. BUT - renewables are cheaper, and no radioactive waste. Coal has many disadvantages - like pollution, carbon emissions, cost, environmental damage. Look up Aberfan if you are interested. So net net - renewables are proving the better source - and we don't need to lie - to demonstrate that.
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2016
to fairyland 100% powered by unicorn fart energy.
Yes - Denmark, Costa Rica etc. etc. are powered by unicorn fart energy - and you prove that you don't know what you are talking about.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2016
"and yet they're still working on fusion... "
-----------------------------

Yeah, "still working" on it, with no results. I think they will eventually get it "right", but by then, it will be irrelevant.

More, Clean power is NEVER irrelevant....
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
"still working" on it, with no results
yeah, in the same way they had no results for centuries regarding heavier than air flight

you really need to learn to research before you speak
but by then, it will be irrelevant
how so?

by all means, dazzle us with your "experience" as a radioman and tell everyone why nuclear fusion will be irrelevant in the age of space exploration
[snicker]
a sign of somebody who does not understand the science
no, a sign of someone who "doesn't understand the science" would be utilisation of slogans and emotional content when the science directly contradicts the claims or posting irrelevant historical experience to claim argument from authority:
you know, like your posts!

.

feel free to provide evidence for any "nonsense words" as well... apparently the only nonsense words are the ones you, personally, don't understand due to your inability to actually research (or learn to use the net)
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2016
Sorry, but you cannot accuse me of stolen valor when I have proven my service. Are you are like the other stay-at-home "patriots" who are now embarrassed at their cowardice in the past?

Fusion will be irrelevant because it is too expensive, too delicate, too technical and too costly. Central plants require great security and a police state, like we have with fission nukes. Instead, we will produce our power in distributed systems, as we are now building. No more Nuclear Priesthood.

You folk are SO last century.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2016
Scotland proves to you that renewables do not need COAL..
Scotland is connected to the UK national grid ... they can use the UK grid as a virtual battery..
UK energy mix: 30% coal, 30% gas, 19% carbon-free nuclear.
http://www.carbon...-mix.png
http://www.edie.n...s/29968/
Anti-nuclear/pro-renewable cultists are completely dishonest and out-of-sync with reality. Hydropower has no much margin to growth, it is not available in all countries, and the dams cause huge environmental impacts. So it is coal and natural gas/fracking that is to continue to serve as backup for wind/solar.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
you cannot accuse me of stolen valor when I have proven my service
you haven't proven, per the requirements of the USAF regs OR the UCMJ, that you've been awarded the combat V
Hell, you can't even provide a copy of the award citation (that thing you get when you shake-&-take during the awarding ceremony?)

so why should we believe you?

there are reasons that the MIL uses the regulations and UCMJ to govern themselves... to insure there is a standard met by all MIL members, therefore if you can't prove your award per the requirements of the UCMJ or USAF Regs, then - YES, i can accuse you of stolen valor

if you don't like it, litigate and we will see each other in court
you already threatened that one, so feel free to keep your word
Fusion will be irrelevant because it is too expensive
yeah?
so are we gonna burn coal on mars to "improve" the atmosphere?
or go entirely solar/wind power?

are you illiterate now too?
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2016
You are just proving you rely on wiki , and not doing it right. I sent you to the site for the 353 SOG, which is the group derived from us, - they even kept our BatCat. The history there shows the 553 Reconnaissance Wing earned two Outstanding Unit Awards with Combat "V" device while I was in the unit. In fact, I am an original and founding member of it.

I sent you to several military websites with my name and/or picture on them. Where are yours? Did you serve, or are you too embarrassed to admit you were too scared?

Fusion for Mars? Really? Got a Tokamak for that?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
You are just proving you rely on wiki
really?
by all means, please show where i relied on wiki when i sent you the references to the USAF Regs and UCMJ in this thread: http://phys.org/n...ity.html

again, i used the following
UCMJ ("Title 10 U.S.C., Chapter 45, The Uniform, Department of Defense Instruction
(DoDI) 1334.1, Wearing of the Uniform, and Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 36-29, Military Standards")...
see also AFI 36-2903. AFI 36-2803
not one wiki reference

and that is the difference between you and i WRT evidence

i have enough real experience to know the USAF regs (now called AFI's) whereas you simply make the argument that you were [x] and expect people to believe it because you said so
I sent you to several military websites with my name and/or picture on them
and again, none of that supersedes the UCMJ or AFI's/AFR's
it's the *law* - and you're still lying

2bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
Where are yours?
why is that relevant?
you *did* serve but you don't know sh*t about the REGS or the UCMJ...
and you also know i did serve because you have been sent an unredacted copy of my DD214 (all three of them) plus there is a redacted copy on line ( http://s1027.phot...p;page=1 -PW=VALIDATE)

if you deleted it, that is on you, not i

ask your lawyers that one
[snicker]

again, that's the difference between your *claims* and my evidence

which brings us back to
Fusion for Mars? Really? Got a Tokamak for that?
are you saying we will never have fusion capability?

you do know we've already achieved fusion, right?
http://science.ho...omb6.htm

.

so... are you claiming we will never have fusion?
is that why they're working so hard on it?
so we can ignore it?

let us know, oh educated one
[hyperbole]
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2016
Once again, your link does not work. What does work are the military websites I sent you to, except for the one now taken down - you'll have to get a saved copy.

Hydrogen bombs on Mars? Yeah, that is exactly what we need, . . .

Get over your need to punish folk who have bested you. You can outgrow it, I promise.

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
your link does not work
it worked for everyone else
it is slow at the moment due to a high volume of traffic
learn to internet before spreading yet another false claim
What does work are the military websites
again, that still doesn't supersede nor replace the UCMJ or AFI's (AFR's in your day)

all it does is prove you can put your name on a web-site
that is all it does

unless and until you can provide the minimal requirements per the AFI's and UCMJ, then technically, per the law, you are lying and it's called STOLEN VALOR

that is per the legal definition (which i've linked & referenced already to you)
that aint my opinion, it is factual, validated and proven multiple times
Hydrogen bombs on Mars? Yeah, that is exactly what we need
no, we need independent power sources that will work regardless of conditions like dust storms, distance to light sources or etc

but i don't expect a non-engineer idiot like you to understand that
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2016
Get over your need to punish folk who have bested you
ROTFLMFAO

where?

by all means, show the evidence for this one!

to date, you've made numerous claims that i've proven are blatantly false, with evidence and often with your own words... like your failure to know anything about even radio's?
http://phys.org/n...sed.html

plus i've demonstrated above that, per the law, you're a lair making yet another false claim

that aint my opinion
it is spelled out very clearly in the UCMJ and AFI's

but you claim i've been "bested"??????

ROTFLMFAO

oh... sorry, per your own requirements and requests - reported

no, i will not continue to point out the obvious lies you're making (unless necessary) since i've already proven it above and you still can't provide evidence that is overreaching of the federal law and regs
... but i will argue about the need for fusion

get over your need to lie. you can outgrow it. i promise
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2016
More babble, Trumpy, but no proof of your service. You saw mine, where is yours?

If you have those alleged proofs, email them to me, but not a worthless blurry heavily-redacted form, a real one with proof.

I am AF19839588, did you have a serial number? No?

Get your site to work, so we can check.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2016
Sorry, but you cannot accuse me of stolen valor when I have proven my service. Are you are like the other stay-at-home "patriots" who are now embarrassed at their cowardice in the past?

Fusion will be irrelevant because it is too expensive, too delicate, too technical and too costly. Central plants require great security and a police state, like we have with fission nukes. Instead, we will produce our power in distributed systems, as we are now building. No more Nuclear Priesthood.

You folk are SO last century.

Like I said in another thread - First one will be big. Rapid iterative generations will have it scaled down in no time.
Hello Mr. Fusion... (Back to the Future)
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam who apparently lost the ability to read
no proof of your service. You saw mine, where is yours?
http://s1027.phot...p;page=1

reported for blatant lying in the face of irrefutable evidence
email them to me
already did, NOV 2014
ask your lawyers to request discovery when you litigate so that i can prove this in court
did you have a serial number?
1- the official term is "service number"

2- if you would have read the AFI's that i linked to you (and referenced here) you would know the USAF now uses the SSN as the service number, what you colloquially call the "serial" number (and yes, this is common terminology still used, but that don't mean you're correct. see AFI's, UCMJ reference)

3- Privacy Act of 1974, moron

posting your service number is irrelevant and OT, it also proves nothing as you can't validate your claims WRT your combat V

reported
greenonions
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2016
Willie - Scotland exports power to England - it does not use England as a battery. Here read - http://euanmearns...ansfers/
◾The transfers are almost exclusively Scotland to England
But - that is not the real point - How do you think Costa Rica does it? How will Scotland do it in 2050 - when they are 100% renewable? How will Scotland do it 10 years from now - when England has closed it's last coal plant? The bottom line is that you are wrong - renewables do not NEED COAL.
greenonions
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2016
gkam
Yeah, "still working" on it, with no results. I think they will eventually get it "right", but by then, it will be irrelevant.
Maybe - but none of us can see the future. I found this article very interesting. https://www.scien...is-here/ Water is clearly going to be one of our biggest challenges going forward - and fusion - hooked up alongside desalination plants - may be a good way to go. A lot of global conflict will be averted - if we can solve the water issue.
WillieWard
2.5 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2016
Scotland exports power to England
Scotland is not 100% renewable. Intermittent oversupply? So let GB electricity system to smooth fluctuations with their coal and gas power plants. Germany also has intermittent oversupply but the neighbors have no enough fossil plants to hide it.
http://www.scotti...2015.jpg
"Scotland is already fundamentally integrated into the GB electricity system"
https://www.strat...cotland/
http://inhabitat....in-2015/
http://www.scienc...newables
renewables do not NEED COAL.
but require energy storage(expensive), or hydropower(limited), or biomass(eco-hypocritical), or natural gas/fracking(cheap and available).
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2016
"A lot of global conflict will be averted - if we can solve the water issue."
-------------------------------------

That means we cannot use combustion or nuclear power, since all need gross volumes of water. It looks like we can be saved by wind, solar and other renewables which do not use combustion.

Of all of them, nuclear power is the worst, because the temperatures are limited, and therefore the efficiency. They dump about three Btu of heat into the environment for every one put into the powerlines.
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2016
if gskam earned a cent for every crap he writes, he'd be rich.
greenonions
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2016
Willie
Scotland is not 100% renewable.
Never said it was. They COULD be there by 2030. Read my posts again. Renewables do not need COAL as back up. You are wrong. Every energy system needs back up - as none have 100% capacity factor. The story is unfolding as we speak - and renewables have a very valuable part to play in the future of our carbon neutral power system. I hope nukes do too - but let's let it shake down. One thing is for sure - we must wean ourselves off fossil fuels. It sounds very much like you are paid by the ff industry to sell lies. Scotland could be fossil fuel free by 2030 - https://www.thegu...s-report What is your need to spread lies about?
howhot3
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2016
I really hate to weigh in on stuff, but I'm going to side with @Gkam on this. He says
Midwest utilities are still trying to find ways to save their uneconomic nuke dinosaurs. Now let's see them find ways to store the disgusting nuclear waste they generated, . . . essentially forever in human terms.
Basically true. We have seen 6 reactors go critical, Chernobyl, 4 in Fukushima, and the USA one. Chernobyl and Fukushima made vast areas un-inhabitable for 1000s of years. Even the best safety records didn't help in these events. If a tornado hits a solar plant, it's not going to wipe out an area the size of Texas!

There are a better and cheaper ways of producing energy. In an age of solar and renewables, I don't see how expensive nuclear plants can survive.

Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2016
We have seen 6 reactors go critical, Chernobyl, 4 in Fukushima, and the USA one
@howhot
well, i am personally indifferent to nuclear, but i am anti-liar-kam and his fearmongering emotional arguments from ignorance and blatant stupidity

so i will also point out that 6 "criticals" out of the global list ( https://en.wikipe...reactors ) is actually pretty safe, considering

plus, i know from experience that we can't convert to green energy right now (solar/geo/wind/wave) to meet the personal and commercial needs of the US alone

now, you can run completely off-grid on solar with wind (generator backup) - but that also means living a different lifestyle because people generally don't understand batteries, charging, or that you need to account for your electrics (fans, heating elements, compressors in A/C and much more)

for the uninitiated, read this: http://realgoods....-edition

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2016
@howhot cont'd
There are a better and cheaper ways of producing energy
true, but they can't meet the current need at this time
they can meet the personal use needs... but it means changing a lot for people, knowledge and attitudes

not to mention infrastructure changes
In an age of solar and renewables, I don't see how expensive nuclear plants can survive
well, for starters, it produces far less CO2, and it's a good band-aid till we get better tech and abilities

more to the point, though... we will need it for space exploration and large energy needs (commercial, etc)

there really is no way around it, IMHO... when we take to the stars, we will need massive amounts of power, and i don't see solar being capable of meeting that need

but i am also willing to follow the evidence, unlike the idiot liar-kam above, so... i don't consider my mind "made up" on that

WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2016
...carbon neutral power system.
China, one of major manufacturer and exporter of components for wind/solar, is investing heavily in carbon-free nuclear power. They apparently learned a lesson from Germany's Energiewende experiment: no nukes = more coal/natural gas/fracking.
No way renewables. Renewable is just an political/ideological flag to lure taxpayers to waste their money. Carbon-free nuclear power is the only way to stop global warming.
"China to overtake US nuclear capacity" - 26 Oct 2016
https://www.rt.co...apacity/
"Opposition to nuclear power has already killed millions of people, and will continue to kill millions more."
"Fossil fuel, not nuclear, is killing millions yearly, according to scientists."
"Anti-science activism and statistics-illiterate fear-mongering are killing millions of people."
http://mobile.bus...r-2015-6
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2016
The result of closing so many carbon-free nuclear power plants around the world and replacing them by bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers and fossil fuels power plants to compensate intermittencies:
"Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere Has Passed a Worrying Threshold" - October 25, 2016
https://www.techn...reshold/
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2016
We have seen 6 reactors go critical, Chernobyl, 4 in Fukushima, and the USA one.

Not a reactor problem but a good one for how widespread such accidents can get: Mayak
https://en.wikipe...ki/Mayak

Then there was Lucens...and Europe got REALLY lucky on that one because it was housed in a cavern.
The full list of meltdown events is pretty scary
https://en.wikipe...n_events
(many of which weren't widely publicised...for military or economic reasons)

In an age of solar and renewables, I don't see how expensive nuclear plants can survive.
we will need it for space exploration

I think we should distinguish fusion from fission in this. Fusion will have a part in space exploration. Fission (hopefully) not so much.
Fusion energy could even be sensible on Earth (e.g. for underwater habitats where solar/wind aren't an option) as there is no chance of widespread damage - even in a worst case scenario.
gkam
2 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2016
AA, poor Rumpy is lost in hate.

Yes, there are hopes for fusion, including me, not for the grand Tokamaks, which are way too big, too technical, too costly, too finicky, too dependent upon a Nuclear Priesthood. Like others I had big hopes for cold fusion, but it looks like we are not up to it, if it is possible.

Fission was borne out of the hopes for converting our nasty people-killer into something good, so we could assuage our consciences. It was a terrible mistake, and one continued by massive governmental and corporate investments into the costly and dangerous systems.

What do we do with the waste? I know many here disregard that problem, but it is real and immediate - we cannot just leave these exothermic and deadly piles of high-level waste around for others to find in a few years, or a hundred, or a thousand years.

Green power can save us, and we had better stop arguing and start renewing our systems now.
imfromcanada
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2016
The result of closing so many carbon-free nuclear power plants around the world and replacing them by bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers and fossil fuels power plants to compensate intermittencies


I'm sorry, but when you use words like bird-choppers you immediately leave the concerned citizen bracket and enter the unintelligent fool bracket.
First, there's also solar. Pretty sure they don't chop birds. Second, if you really care about birds, do you recommend we stop all flights? They sometimes kill birds too. What about other animals? Trains, vehicles? animal killers. Ships? They kill dolphins and whales!
And landscape destroyer? I was just in Germany this summer. I found the windmills quite stunning. They were located in places that weren't being used otherwise, so leave it empty? Or use it for the betterment of the people?
To be fair, I agree with you on nuclear over FF, but to refuse windmills because "bird-choppers"?
That's Trump level witticism.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2016
All current forms of energy production will be left in the past if someone find out a way to convert gskam's fibs and his fearmongering speeches into electricity, it will power the entire world forever uninterruptedly 24/7/365.
Green power can save us...
How is this Green?
https://scontent-...5860B0DB
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2016
Tell Willie they need help and money at Fukushima. It is bleeding intensely-radioactive pollution into the Pacific Ocean, . . . still.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2016
I think we should distinguish fusion from fission in this. Fusion will have a part in space exploration. Fission (hopefully) not so much
@AA_P
absolutely
i should have made that more clear. apologies
Fusion energy could even be sensible on Earth
and of course your reasons are exactly why i keep an open mind about it, unlike certain idiots above

considering we know very little about the oceans and underseas, and it's wide open for exploration as well as potential living habitat, i can't wait to see it progress

.

.

PS

i would argue counter points to the idiot liar's post as well, but they're all emotional sloganeering and no real content

more to the point - he ASSumes that the lack of current knowledge is somehow proof that the technology is "too big, too technical, too costly, too finicky" etc... i mean, that is the reason they're researching it, and you would think even a pretend engineer would know that one
LOL
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2016
..Fukushima ..into the Pacific Ocean..
"..dissolving all of the fuel of all three operating reactors, plus the entire contents of all of the spent fuel pools at Fukushima into the waters of the northern Pacific would still give a person swimming in the ocean off Hawaii, Alaska, or California about one billionth the amount of radiation dose needed to cause any harm."
"..radioactivity of the cesium was lower than the radioactivity content of the natural potassium in the fish."
http://www.popula...s-later/
Fearmongers and sensacionalist mass media induced more deaths than radiation.
http://www.snopes...hima.asp
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2016
Invest in fusion, if you are so smart and sure about it. I invested in PV and an EV, to put my money where my mouth is. I did not have to do it because I was hiding in the woods, I did it because it was the right thing to do in this society, and we could finally afford it.

Go ahead, put your money in fusion. Quick returns.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2016
Renewables do not need COAL as back up. You are wrong.
"Ministers say there's little chance of Europe's top economy switching off its coal plants for next two decades, despite raft of green policies"
"German economy minister sees no brown coal exit before 2040" - Oct 26, 2016
http://www.reuter...CN12Q1IN
"The country is famed for its "Energiewende" programme to boost the use of renewables, but a rapid phase-out of nuclear power since 2011 has seen it continue to burn coal."
http://www.climat...e-2040s/

"Our Irrational Fear Of Radiation Is Costing Us -- And The Planet" - Oct 27, 2016
http://www.forbes...-not-be/
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam the superNSAspy
Go ahead, put your money in fusion
i do
I did not have to do it because I was hiding in the woods
wow - neither did i

i did it because i wanted to make a difference & i wanted to be self-sufficient and self-sustaining

i moved to the woods for the same reason

it's hard to farm, hunt and live that way in a condo or suburban gated/planned community

i had to rely on things like: facts, science, real engineers and common sense logic (like this book: http://realgoods....-edition )

which also proved how you lied about so much other crap & led to these sources from your own power company which validated that you lied
http://www.pge.co...options/

http://www.pge.co...S_EV.pdf

http://www.seia.o...reements
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2016
Silly boy, not having been in industry, you assume how it works. I was hired as an Energy Services Engineer, teaching industrial processes to our engineers and doing technical audits and putting together Energy Management Teams in colleges and universities as part of our Energy Conservation and Management programs from 1980 to 1982.

Then I was promoted to Senior Energy Services Engineer in Technical Services, as a technical resource for the company and our customers. I left to do Power Quality in late 1987, then becoming a hot topic for the utility industry in the US, and taught it and troubleshot problems for about 20 years.

Were you still in diapers then?
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2016
Silly boy .. I was hired as an Energy Services Engineer, teaching industrial processes to our engineers and doing technical audits and putting together Energy Management Teams in colleges and universities as part of our Energy Conservation and Management programs .. I was promoted to Senior Energy Services Engineer in Technical Services, as a technical resource for the company and our customers .. then becoming a hot topic for the utility industry in the US, and taught it and troubleshot problems..
"Identifying a Narcissistic Sociopath"
"1. Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates accomplishments, talents, skills, contacts, and personality traits to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements);"
"4. Pathological lying." Fear-mongering
http://lovelifeom...ciopath/

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2016
@STOLEN VALIR LIAR-kam
not having been in industry, you assume how it works
1- i assume nothing

2- i didn't ask about your history that still can't be validated or proven b/c it's irrelevant, OT, and you can't actually prove anything (and, of course, we've already gotten you to admit you lied - see: http://phys.org/n...oad.html )

3- i know how it works better than you, having actually had far, far more experience in not only solar, but wind and green energy period

that is why you are attempting to distract away from your failure here: so that people don't know how stupid you really are WRT solar/green options - or even nuclear technology, which you abjectly fail to demonstrate any knowledge of
LOL

so... per your own requests... well, you get the idea
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2016
"i know how it works better than you, having actually had far, far more experience in not only solar, but wind and green energy period"

------------------------------------------

You sound more like Trump every post.
greenonions
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2016
Willie - your links do nothing to support your lie - that renewables need COAL to back them up. England is on track to close all of it's coal plants. You sound like Mr. Trump - and his 1000 years of clean coal. Maybe you two work together. http://www.theene...xplained
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2016
..1000 years of clean coal..
clean coal can serve as backup for green renewable, both not clean nor green.
https://scontent-...5860B0DB
https://scontent-...17_o.jpg
https://d267cvn3r...p;ch=801
https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3185/9926/original.jpg
http://assets.det...lant.jpg
http://electrical...68-2.jpg
https://stopthese...0726.jpg
https://stopthese...bine.png
only carbon-free nuclear power is clean and green:
http://www.breaki...tion.jpg
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2016
your links do nothing to support your lie - that renewables need COAL to back them up
Ok, renewables do not need COAL to back them up if cheap natural gas/fracking is available.
England is on track to close all of it's coal plants..
and will replace all by natural gas/fracking; or alternatively, England can shrink its economy to Scotland level, or become third world as Costa Rica running 100% on intermittent renewables.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2016
...lie - that renewables need COAL to back them up...
Germany(Oct 25, 2016): 40GW of solar at 2.7% capacity factor, 48GW wind at 4.6%. Blessed coal.
https://pbs.twimg...ysTb.jpg
https://scontent-...589BE07C
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2016
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2016
gskam drives a clean EV car, he is proud of his solar PV, but he stays connected to the grid.
https://scontent-...36_o.jpg
https://scontent-...5891BD0D
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2016
I can't see Willie's posts, but think they are just the same old, some old.

Those of us who cleaned up their acts laugh at the ones who keep on polluting but cursing those who are cleaning up our nation. If Willie loves coal and nukes, many are for sale now. I'll bet they want to GIVE AWAY many of the facilities just to dodge the environmental damage and the cost of decommissioning.

I invested in my preferred and clean systems, Willie, why don't you invest in your idea of power sources?
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2016
I can't see Willie's posts, but think they are just the same old, some old.

Those of us who cleaned up their acts laugh at the ones who keep on polluting but cursing those who are cleaning up our nation. If Willie loves coal and nukes, many are for sale now. I'll bet they want to GIVE AWAY many of the facilities just to dodge the environmental damage and the cost of decommissioning.

I invested in my preferred and clean systems, Willie, why don't you invest in your idea of power sources?


glam-Skippy, why are you carrying on the conversation with somebody you can't see? I don't care what kind of engineer you are not, that is just plain weird.
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2016
Ira-Chere, what's it to you?

This thread regards alternative energy. We have done what we can to make our society cleaner, and invested in those technologies by employing them. Go back to your 9,000 horsepower diesel boat, Mister Environmentalist, and complain about what the gas and oil folk are doing to your land.

What is weird is how you confuse this forum with Twitter.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2016
I'll take that as meaning: "Well Ira-Skippy, you have caught me saying something really stupid again, maybe you right, I should not puff the pot before I write stuffs for the physorg, it makes me look like I am a goober."
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2016
Yeah, all that diesel smoke and pollution will do that to you.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2016
We have done what we can to make our society cleaner, and invested in those technologies by employing them.


https://www.youtu...a8QgGGkc
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2016
I do not watch your youtube recommendations, but here is an article actually on the topic of the thread.

http://www.bloomb...trategy?
greenonions
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2016
Willie
Ok, renewables do not need COAL to back them up if cheap natural gas/fracking is available.
Thank you for that admission that you don't know what you are talking about. Solar panels have fallen around 40% in the past 6 months - and are now cheaper than coal, nukes and gas. Look at the pretty colored picture on this article - https://cleantech...-africa/ Guess you are wrong about gas being 'cheap' too. Let's see if you can find us any 2016 figures on the cost of new build gas.
greenonions
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2016
And it's the new technologies and the plunging costs that bring this together and make renewables a more affordable, more reliable alternative to dirty and expensive centralised fossil fuel power generation.
From - http://renewecono...e-88819/

A lot of people think that the U.S. represents the world. it is just one small part - and does not seem aware of things that are going on in other parts. Sweden supplies 57% of its electricity with renewables - and is shooting for 100% in 24 years. https://cleantech...reuters/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2016
Ok, renewables do not need COAL to back them up if cheap natural gas/fracking is available.
Thank you for that admission..
Renewable cultists are so divorced from reality, in their mind COAL is fossil fuel but natural gas/fracking is not.
"..the fluctuations in variable wind and solar PV are balanced by flexible renewable energy sources that are dispatchable..These are...Open Cycle Gas Turbines (OCGTs)..."
"Peak-load power stations are hydro-electric ... and open-cycle gas turbines (OCGTs), essentially jet engines .. They can respond to variations in demand and supply on timescales of minutes."
"For several periods the whole state system has operated reliably on a combination of renewables and gas.."
http://renewecono...6973.png
http://renewecono...5389.png
http://renewecono...er-94486
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2016
Thanks for the links Willie - I already read that article - but it is pretty interesting.
Second, drawing on diverse renewable energy sources, with different statistical properties, provides reliability. This means relying on multiple technologies and spreading out wind and solar PV farms geographically to reduce fluctuations in their total output. This further reduces the already small contribution from gas turbines to just a few percent of annual electricity generation.
So how do you think countries around the world are going to be able to run on 100% renewables? (which they definitely are). The problem you have Willie - is not understanding that the past is not necessarily the future.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2016
...spreading out wind and solar PV farms geographically to reduce fluctuations in their total output...to be able to run on 100% renewables...
Farewell natural landscapes, luckless birds and bats, mother earth cries of so huge environmental hypocrisies.
https://scontent-...79_o.png
https://scontent-...58883DDB
https://scontent-...589DCF9A
https://scontent-...588E8E68

gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2016
If Willie likes nukes, he can probably have one for free. The Midwest utilities are saddled with loser nukes, which they are trying to save by making their customers pay for their poor decisions.

With the disgusting radioactivity and the environmental damage, they would probably like to dodge those issues.

Go get one, Willie! Show us up!
greenonions
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2016
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2016
Renewable cultists live in a fairyland, they believe only rooftop PV are being installed, huge solar farms does not exist, and it is not necessary neither batteries nor backup from fossil fuels, and all components for renewable are being manufactured in wind/solar-powered factories, and all wind/solar waste is being recycled by someone in somewhere maybe by Santa Claus, Easter bunny, Elf, Gnomes, or Unicorns.
And worse, they believe wind/solar is replacing nuclear power and fossil fuels.
https://scontent-...08_o.jpg
http://electrical...68-2.jpg
http://www.thebla...6-PM.png
https://scontent-...58A42811
https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3185/9926/original.jpg
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2016
Pretty pictures there Willie. Have you seen these.
http://www.reuter...20130812
http://www.nairal...ctures/1

read this article https://saferenvi...llution/
Coal-fired power plants are the single largest stationary source of pollution in any country. The toxins these coal fired power plants produce severely damage both human health and the environment and contribute to a reduced quality of life.
You think you are funny - but our world will be much better off when we grow beyond your pathology. Why don't you read about Aberfan? Here - a link for you - http://news.bbc.c...5335.stm
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2016
Hey there little monkey
I do not watch your youtube recommendations, but here is an article actually on the topic of the thread
They make you angry dont they?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2016
Sorry, but you cannot accuse me of stolen valor when I have proven my service
Typical ploy of professional liars; tell a lie, get found out, wait awhile, tell the lie again, repeat ad infinitum.

1000 little monkey liars typing at 1000 typewriters for 1000 years... will their lies ever become true?

Naw.

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.