Can we get 100 percent of our energy from renewable sources?

May 18, 2018, Lappeenranta University of Technology
Credit: Lappeenranta University of Technology

Is there enough space for all the wind turbines and solar panels to provide all our energy needs? What happens when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow? Won't renewables destabilise the grid and cause blackouts?

In a review paper last year in the high-ranking journal Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, researcher Benjamin Heard and colleagues presented their case against 100 percent renewable electrical systems. They doubted the feasibility of many of the recent scenarios for high shares of renewable energy, questioning everything from whether renewables-based systems can survive with low sun and low wind, to the ability to keep the grid stable with so much variable generation.

Now, scientists have hit back with their response to the points raised by Heard and colleagues. The researchers from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology and collaborators have analysed hundreds of studies to answer each of the apparent issues. They demonstrate that there are no roadblocks to a 100 percent renewable future.

"While several of the issues raised by the Heard paper are important, you have to realise that there are to all the points they raised using today's technology," says the lead author Dr. Tom Brown of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology.

"Furthermore, these solutions are absolutely affordable, especially given the sinking costs of wind and solar power," says Professor Christian Breyer of Lappeenranta University of Technology, who co-authored the response.

Brown cites the worst-case of hydrogen or synthetic gas produced with renewable electricity for times when imports, hydroelectricity, batteries, and other storage solutions fail to bridge the gap during low wind and solar periods during the winter. For maintaining stability, there is a series of technical solutions, from rotating grid stabilisers to newer electronics-based solutions. The scientists have collected examples of best practice by grid operators from across the world, from Denmark to Tasmania.

Furthermore, these solutions are affordable, especially given the sinking costs of and . The response by the scientists has now appeared in the same journal as the original article by Heard and colleagues.

"There are some persistent myths that 100 percent renewable systems are not possible," says Professor Brian Vad Mathiesen of Aalborg University, who is a co-author of the response. Our contribution deals with these myths one-by-one, using all the latest research. Now let's get back to the business of modelling low-cost scenarios to eliminate fossil fuels from our energy system, so we can tackle the climate and health challenges they pose," says Breyer.

Explore further: Renewable electricity by the numbers gets thumbs-up in new study

More information: T.W. Brown et al, Response to 'Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems', Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2018). DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.113

B.P. Heard et al. Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2017). DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.114

Related Stories

Danish wind power whips up record 43% of electricity

January 11, 2018

Wind power generated 43.4 percent of electricity consumed in Denmark last year, a new record for the Nordic nation which aims to rely on renewables for half of its energy needs by 2030, authorities said Thursday.

Diverse causes behind frequency fluctuations in power grids

January 10, 2018

The use of renewables like the sun and wind can cause fluctuations in power grids. But what impact do these fluctuations have on security of supply? To answer this question, scientists from Juelich and Goettingen worked together ...

Recommended for you

Printing microelectrode array sensors on gummi candy

June 22, 2018

Microelectrodes can be used for direct measurement of electrical signals in the brain or heart. These applications require soft materials, however. With existing methods, attaching electrodes to such materials poses significant ...

EU copyright law passes key hurdle

June 20, 2018

A highly disputed European copyright law that could force online platforms such as Google and Facebook to pay for links to news content passed a key hurdle in the European Parliament on Wednesday.

117 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

WillieWard
2 / 5 (12) May 18, 2018
Even in small scale, intermittent renewables(bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers) have failed miserably in every test at reducing emissions and replacing fossil fuels, they are good in ruining natural landscapes, disrupting wildlife habitats and slaughtering millions of birds and other endangered species, and in providing "greenwashing" for coal/oil/gas.
"If Renewables Are So Great for the Environment, Why Do They Keep Destroying It?" - May 17, 2018
"water, sunlight, and wind are so energy dilute, renewable technologies require orders of magnitude more land and materials to produce the same amount of energy..."
https://www.forbe...ying-it/
"100% renewable" is distraction, a farce, a fraud in the fight against Climate Change.
gculpex
4.3 / 5 (6) May 18, 2018
@WW, that Forbes article is an opinion. 'Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.'
Besides, without renewables, you WILL pay a lot more for the energy you use.

There are some persistent myths that 100 percent renewable systems are not possible," says Professor Brian Vad Mathiesen of Aalborg University, who is a co-author of the response.

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp
humy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 18, 2018
I find it ridiculous that the scientists had to go to such lengths to convince the stupid of the obvious;
OF COURSE there are reasonable solutions to the intermittency of renewables!
So OF COURSE it must be possible to go 100% renewable! (although I wouldn't personally object to also going partly nuclear).
I bet the best strategy would generally be to combine several solution that I assert should including;

1, energy storage (probably mainly cheap magnesium sulfur batteries and/or flow batteries)
2, supergrid (eventually)
3, some biofuels (mainly from organic waste rather than crops especially grown for it)
3, some marine current power (which has the huge advantage that it is NOT intermittent but constant but currently it is massively underexploited
see
https://en.wikipe...nt_power
).

humy
not rated yet May 18, 2018
misedit; the last '3' above should be '4'.
MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) May 18, 2018
There are a lot of theoretical solutions to the storage problem but but there are no large scale financially practical solutions to date. Thus the answer to the 100% question has to be no at this time. In the future who knows perhaps fusion will be developed and make renewables less inviting.
gculpex
5 / 5 (2) May 18, 2018
There are a lot of theoretical solutions to the storage problem but but there are no large scale financially practical solutions to date. Thus the answer to the 100% question has to be no at this time. In the future who knows perhaps fusion will be developed and make renewables less inviting.

'No' isn't that simple. Why would someone invest millions or billions to free the population from monthly energy bills? That's taking away their power over the masses! This is one of the main reasons why it has not transferred into large-scale production. Although, Tesla (both of them) were/are trying just that as a strategy to change the world so we can do more than just work for somebody else's dreams.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (8) May 18, 2018
There are some persistent myths that 100 percent renewable systems are not possible," says Professor Brian Vad Mathiesen of Aalborg University, who is a co-author of the response.
I hope his everyday life is 100% powered by sunshine&breeze unicorn energy, his home, vehicles, i.e. all entirely fossil-free.
greenonions1
4.3 / 5 (6) May 18, 2018
Thus the answer to the 100% question has to be no at this time
Well - this is a complex topic. There are plenty of examples of cities, and countries that are reaching very high levels of renewable penetration. Scotland, Costa Rica and Burlington VT to name just three. The bigger question for me is - why the constant double standard? There are no examples of countries being run purely on any one energy source. The current system has taken over 100 years to develop. Thinking we can just turn off all those legacy plants, and transition overnight to a new system - is of course nuts. We have invested heavily in the current infrastructure - and it is going to take decades to switch over. Shutting off all the current plants would be incredibly expensive - as we would loose all that current investment. Germany paid that price for taking their nukes off line over a very short period. Not saying that was wrong - but it was costly. cont.
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) May 18, 2018
cont. So today's article is more grist for the mill - and lines up with reality - in showing that it is possible to run on 100% renewables. The transition is going to take time. As we move forward - more and more countries will employ higher and higher percentages of renewables - and we will see how the real world evolves. Four states here in the U.S. now get more than 30% of their electricity from wind, and have below average electricity prices. Good news...

This kind of analysis - https://www.green....8C9QpKc suggest that the future is bright for renewables - and they will provide cheap/clean power. Let's watch and see.
In a world where wind and solar resources make up 40 to 50 percent of generation, wholesale energy prices will drop by as much as $16 per megawatt-hour
grandpa
1 / 5 (3) May 18, 2018
Of course, if civilization continues, until the population doubles again, and people's average power usage goes up again.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
100% is not necessary; that it's possible, and economical, is good and means we can do what we must.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
Meanwhile, to argue against using the free power that's falling from the sky is stupid and ridiculous. It's raining soup, grab a cup and step outside.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (7) May 18, 2018
Scotland, Costa Rica and Burlington VT to name just three.
Scotland is integrated to UK fossil-fueled grid to hide intermittencies. Costa Rica is >90% hydro/geothermal. Burlington (Vermont), another wind/solar expensive fiasco.
"When a nuclear power plant in Vermont recently closed, virtually all the generation capacity was replaced by natural gas."
"Carbon emissions increased by 3.1 million metric tons, reversing a long standing trend in New England."
https://uploads.d...d293.jpg
And also expensive electricity rates:
https://www.eia.g...pher.php
https://www.elect...y-state/
renewables ... will provide cheap/clean power...
"Those that believe solar and wind energy are clean, should tour the mining / manufacturing / transportation / installation operations."
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (7) May 18, 2018
Scotland is integrated to UK fossil-fueled grid to hide intermittencies.
As always, another conspiracy theory. What is it with nutjobs and conspiracy theories? They all have one.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (5) May 18, 2018
As always, another conspiracy theory
Actually there is a nugget of truth in pointing out that Scotland is connected to the UK grid - and at times will still be using fossil fuels. That does not alter the fact that last year Scotland generated approx 68% of it's electricity from renewables - https://www.wefor...st-year/ - and is on track to get 100% from renewables by 2020, and they are looking at 50% of their total energy consumption by 2030. Dealing with intermittency involves things like grid interconnections. So as the whole UK moves to more and more renewables (as they are) - we will watch the whole thing evolve.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) May 18, 2018
The point isn't whether Scotland is using UK power, it's whether it's to "hide intermittencies." Don't give these idiots an inch, @greenos.
Parsec
4 / 5 (4) May 19, 2018
The point is that it may be feasible to run the grid on 100% renewables, but it probably isn't practical for a long time to come. But capitalism at its root will drive the push to or against any energy source. Once the price to run a natural gas plant became cheaper than a coal one, coal plants declined. Once the price of renewables decline below the cost of other forms, the push to renewables will be overwhelming.

The fact that renewable energy is essentially free (minus plant maintenance and initial cost of course) means that even tho it is quite dilute at some point the recurring cost for fuel will overwhelm any fixed structural cost of the initial plant.

I wish I had space to draw the equations. The math is quite compelling.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (6) May 19, 2018
Don't give these idiots an inch, @greenos.
smile - I agree Da Schneib - I really was not trying to give Willie an inch - just really trying to emphasize that screaming about how Scotland is still using a little fossil fuels - is not in any way a negation of their transition to renewables. It may take a hundred years to close the last fossil fuel plant - but we should not make the perfect, the enemy of the good. Parsec is right - it is not practical to make a sudden transition to 100% renewables. It would not be practical to do that with nukes. The really big question for me - is when will we have a come to Jesus moment over climate change - and get really serious about stopping burning carbon?
MR166
2.6 / 5 (5) May 19, 2018
Renewables will never be "Cheap" until the intermittency problem is solved. If one needs to have one MW of backup gas power in order to produce 1 MW of 24/7 renewable power you are paying twice for the same power. Yes the cost of the gas that was not used is a saving but you are still paying for two sources of power and all of the labor involved. When energy storage is added into the renewable equation the costs go up higher than fossil.
MR166
4.5 / 5 (4) May 19, 2018
Hydro storage is a great idea as an add on to an existing dam but there are not a lot of sites that support this. During rainy parts of the year this will not work because a lot of the water is discharged without producing power.
WillieWard
2.7 / 5 (7) May 19, 2018
Don't give these idiots an inch
Interesting that there are lots and lots of installed-capacity of intermittent energy around the world at cost of trillions of dollars and ecological impacts where it can be seen clearly that wind and solar have failed miserably at reducing emissions and replacing fossil fuels and caused electricity prices to skyrocket, e.g. Germany, Denmark, South Australia, California, Minnesota, Vermont, etc.
Renewable cultists have only small countries/cities >90%hydro/geothermal or connected to regional fossil-fueled grids as showcase to claim their "imaginary success".
https://www.elect...map.org/
"Solar and Wind Lock-In Fossil Fuels -- And That Makes Saving the Climate Harder & More Expensive"
https://www.forbe...pensive/
rrwillsj
3 / 5 (4) May 19, 2018
Ain't no such thing as a free lunch is a truism. However, there is a concerted effort to make energy consumption more expensive. And thus more profitable for the cartels gaming the economic system for their own, personal enrichment.

A multitude of competing and complimentary technologies for producing and distributing energy? Enrage the altright fairytails. They preach 'free enterprise' but practice centralized statist control of energy by directing public investment into nuclear energy.

These stooges of fascism preach 'conservatism'. While deliberately sabotaging efforts to develop technologies that conserve energy usage and consumption of expensive resources.

They slavishly obey their Saudi and Russian masters to artificially drive up the prices for petroleum products. Even willing to traitorously deliver America into endless wars to feed their avarice for wealth and power.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) May 19, 2018
MR
Renewables will never be "Cheap" until the intermittency problem is solved
Then how come the 4 states with the most wind in the U.S. - have below average electricity costs? Here in Oklahoma - we have the lowest commercial electricity in the country - and are at about 32% from wind. On this thread alone - we have presented multiple sources - validating that electricity prices are being kept low - due to cheap gas, and cheap renewables. Just making statements does not make them true MR.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) May 19, 2018
Can we get 100 percent of our energy from renewable sources?

With people already having built net negative energy houses (with solar/wind and battery storage) that are completely off-grid...why are we even debating this?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) May 19, 2018
"Can we get 100 percent of our energy from renewable sources?"

-Sure. Just reduce the worlds pop by about 80% and give up most of our industrial base. These measures will do far more to save the environment than trying to switch to renewals. In fact they are the only things that can save this sick planet from total collapse.

This need not be as drastic as it seems. Tech advances will replace much of todays wasteful industries and most everyone alive today will be dead in 60 years anyway. The trick is to keep them from being replaced.

But in order to accomplish THIS, the religionist cultures that thrrive on forcing growth will need to be destroyed, and this cannot be accomplished without force.

So ok I guess pretty drastic. But it has been done successfully in the west, and most of these cultures reside in regions which will be unlivable due to climate change in 60 years, so we'll have to wait and see how it plays out (planned, prearranged, already done).
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) May 19, 2018
One more caveat - it took 2 world wars to end religionist domination of western culture. So again - pretty drastic. Oil-based economies warm the atmosphere and depopulate regions that are both the source of oil and of religion-fueled overgrowth.

God does work in mysterious ways.
mrburns
2.3 / 5 (6) May 19, 2018
Did the article deal with the interesting fact that no known form of renewable energy is economically feasible without subsidies? How is that addressed by technology? Faster printing presses?
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) May 19, 2018
Did the article deal with the interesting fact that no known form of renewable energy is economically feasible without subsidies?

It didn't because that is no loger the case (as opposed to fossil fuels and nuclear - which still require loads of - partially hidden partially overt - subsidies)
Eikka
4.2 / 5 (5) May 19, 2018
The answer is categorically: yes.

Regardless of what happens, the future will be renewable - whether we are able to maintain our current living standards or not. Fossil fuels will run out or become otherwise unsustainable. Period.

But my main objection to the opinions presented is that they suggest things like load management or batteries, or fantastic contraptions like huge flywheels, are the "best option". Their worst case scenario of producing synthetic hydrocarbons (syngas) is actually the most feasible and cheapest option available. The rest are either a resolute failure to maintain current living standards, require massive changes in the social order for the worse (central tyranny and energy rationing), or pies-in-sky fantasy technology.
Eikka
3.8 / 5 (5) May 19, 2018
Did the article deal with the interesting fact that no known form of renewable energy is economically feasible without subsidies?

It didn't because that is no loger the case (as opposed to fossil fuels and nuclear - which still require loads of - partially hidden partially overt - subsidies)


The greater amount of hidden subsidies is with renewables - because nobody counts the integration cost against renewables. The main problem is that they're non-dispatchable, so the indirect cost through load following and storage is great.

Nuclear actually pays more than it gets in subsidies - what counts as subsidies is offset by the tax levied from nuclear power for things like waste disposal, which is however squandered by the governments that levy said tax by refusing to actually implement it.
betterexists
3 / 5 (2) May 19, 2018
Of course, if civilization continues, until the population doubles again, and people's average power usage goes up again.

http://faculty.fa...rgy.html The 20th century saw the rise of electricity, and geothermal power was immediately seen as a possible generating source. Prince Piero Ginori Conti tested the first geothermal power generator on 4 July 1904, at the same Larderello dry steam field where geothermal acid extraction began. It was a small generator that lit four light bulbs. Later, in 1911, the world's first geothermal power plant was built there. It was the world's only industrial producer of geothermal electricity until 1958, when New Zealand built a plant of its own.
betterexists
1 / 5 (1) May 19, 2018
WOOD, Then Fossil Fuel Saved Humus for 1.5 Centuries; NOT ANYMORE !
Don't forget Octopus that Surfaced in Miami Beach Parking garage through Storm Drain ; Far more dramatic change is coming in the next few Decades. By 2060, S. Florida's building codes anticipate 2' rise in sea level, maybe more. We're already seeing things we've never seen before: sunny-day flooding, sea water bubbling up from stormwater drains, flood control gates that can't open up because water on the coastal side is higher than inland side, Saltwater intrusion into drinking water wells, Intracoastal Waterway spilling over seawalls, drainage canals lapping at sidewalks, gravity-driven stormwater systems hampered by the rising water table, and people unable to leave homes during autumn's king tides ! LINK ON OTHER COMMENT OF MINE HERE.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) May 20, 2018
Eikka
what counts as subsidies is offset by the tax levied from nuclear power for things like waste disposal, which is however squandered by the governments that levy said tax by refusing to actually implement it.
So we have a power system that generates high level radioactive nuclear waste - that will need storing and monitoring for many thousands of years. We tax the system in order to have money to manage this waste - but the government/industry is not competent enough to develop this storage. So we leave the waste sitting in pools at the nuclear plants all over the country. So what is going to change - if we build hundreds more of these power plants? Seems like Eikka has just made a great case for not going down that route.....
MR166
3 / 5 (4) May 20, 2018
" but the government/industry is not competent enough to develop this storage. "

That is untrue. Fear mongers excite the public to the point that the not in my backyard idiots rule and the system is stalemated.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2018
Regardless of what happens, the future will be renewable - whether we are able to maintain our current living standards or not. Fossil fuels will run out or become otherwise unsustainable. Period
REGARDLESS of what happens, the future will see drastic reductions in pop sizes and industry on the planet's surface, for many reasons that have nothing to do with energy production.

Our soil, air, and water - and the flesh of humans and animals - are becoming critically contaminated with toxins and contagions. Little bits of plastic are everywhere, and will linger for centuries.

There are no longer natural barriers to the proliferation of disease and invasive species. Our world has become a cauldron of filth and disease which will not correct itself for centuries. It will soon be incapable of supporting the populations who live on it. We in the west who live on our little islands of relative abundance are oblivious to the obvious.
Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2018
Global warming can and will correct itself as this all plays out. Industries will move off-world. Colonies beneath the surface of other planets and moons with uninhabitable surfaces will again enjoy the isolation that prevents contamination and pandemic.

Their food will be grown in soil free of contaminants. Their energy will be produced in distant nuclear facilities on the surface where they will present no danger. Their industries will be entirely robotic and completely separated from habitable space. Epidemics will be contained and eradicated before they can infect significant numbers.

The isolation that life on earth depended upon for eons will be restored when, and only when, we begin moving into space.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) May 20, 2018
Actually, at least in Western nations, the birth rate is lower than the replacement rate. Thus governments are in a panic because all of their Ponzi based financing schemes are about to crumble and governments on all levels are about to go bankrupt. Ocean dumping should be banned and each person should be charged individually to dispose of garbage. Plastic that is not economically recyclable should be burnt for energy instead of dumped. Of course, proper emission controls are needed for these plants.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) May 20, 2018
the birth rate is lower than the replacement rate... their Ponzi based financing schemes are about to crumble and governments on all levels are about to go bankrupt
-Except that the influx of excess peoples from religion-dominated cultures which have always thrived on overgrowth will continue to feed capitalust economies which themselves depend on growth for survival.

This madness is obviously not sustainable. These obsolete cultures exist in regions which will soon be uninhabitable due to AGW. The trick will be to convince the refugees who arrive here, to leave their cultures behind.

The west apparently has a successful formula for accomplishing this because it has worked for centuries, in the US at least. Eurabia may be another matter.
MR166
2.7 / 5 (6) May 20, 2018
Plastic bags are an easy target but a bigger problem is all of the plastic packaging that stuff comes in. Stores like Costco sell foods and other items in huge bulky and stiff plastic containers that take up a lot of room when disposed of.

A big problem if fear mongering. AGW is a prime example of this. There are whole branches of so called science that obtain funding by claiming man is about to kill himself. Yet lifespans continue to increase as long as people do not kill themselves from opioid abuse. Just because we can now measure in parts per trillion is does not mean that every trace of poison is actually harmful. Many people drink water with traces of poisons but the cost of removing them would cause more deaths than it saves.

greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) May 20, 2018
MR
That is untrue
So as reported by Eikka - a tax was levied on electricity - to establish a fund - for the expressed purpose of setting up a disposal solution. The government/industry - had control of these funds - and yet failed to establish said solution. In Eikka's words
squandered by the governments that levy said tax by refusing to actually implement it
And then MR comes along and says "that is untrue." What part is untrue MR? Where is said solution? Please enlighten us.
MR166
2 / 5 (4) May 20, 2018
"-Except that the influx of excess peoples from religion-dominated cultures which have always thrived on overgrowth will continue to feed capitalust economies which themselves depend on growth for survival."

Yes all of the short term "Thinkers" in government are trying to boost their economies with new poor. Importing the socially needy just makes the problem worse. BTW this is not a capitalist non-solution it is a non-socialist solution.

Look up the writings of Cloward–Piven and you will see the whole plan.
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) May 20, 2018
Then how come the 4 states with the most wind in the U.S. - have below average electricity costs?...due to cheap gas...
Simply electricity is still cheap "due to cheap gas".
"Oklahoma is one of the top natural gas-producing states in the nation, accounting for 7.6% of U.S. gross production and 8.7% of marketed production in 2016"
"Together, coal- and natural gas-fired power plants produce almost three-fourths of the electric power generated in the state."
Iowa: "coal is still the state's largest source of net electricity generation" >50%
Kansas: "Coal is the largest single fuel source for electricity generation in Kansas" closely followed by gas.
South Dakota: "hydroelectric power provided more than two-fifths of South Dakota's net electricity generation", natural gas is one of major source.
"Renewables are a scam: they run on GAS."
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) May 20, 2018
With people already having built net negative energy houses (with solar/wind and battery storage) that are completely off-grid...why are we even debating this?
"FAREWELL Solar Power… WE'RE GOING ON GRID!" - Fev 22, 2018
https://www.youtu...C650s69I

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) May 20, 2018
Yes all of the short term "Thinkers" in government are trying to boost their economies with new poor. Importing the socially needy just makes the problem worse
It has always worked this way. Always. Refugees come here, move into chinatowns or little havanas or little italys, take cheap jobs, and work their way into the suburbs.

You need to go into a Walmart in the US and see all the obvious imports spending their new $$ on goods made in the countries they just left.
BTW this is not a capitalist non-solution it is a non-socialist solution
Sorry too many double and triple negatives to make sense of this.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (4) May 20, 2018

In plain English this is a socialist plan to destabilize the West.
Look up the writings of Cloward–Piven and you will see the whole plan.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) May 20, 2018
"Renewables are a scam: they run on GAS."
Hey did you know that methane is also a renewable resource?

"...scientists have found that ethane and heavier hydrocarbons can be synthesized under the pressure-temperature conditions of the upper mantle... The transformations suggest heavier hydrocarbons could exist deep down. The reversibility implies that the synthesis of saturated hydrocarbons is thermodynamically controlled and does not require organic matter."

-which only makes sense given the fact that hydrocarbons are found throughout the solar system. Much of our deposits could well have arrived here like our other resources did; comets, meteors, etc.
In plain English this is a socialist plan to destabilize the West
In plainer English this country's a melting pot. Look up the writings of whoever invented the term 'melting pot'.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) May 20, 2018
The people who are able to make it to the US by and large have the gumption and the resolve to work themselves out of poverty and become dependable consumers. They are fleeing decrepit socialist and despotic regimes in search of better lives. They come here because they want the freedom to decide how they want to live.

Coming here is never easy. Only those with enough courage, ambition, pragmatism, and ingenuity will attempt the trip. And these people or their children are the easiest to convince to shed their old cultures and adopt ours.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) May 20, 2018
"In plainer English this country's a melting pot. Look up the writings of whoever invented the term 'melting pot'."

But "They" are not pushing the melting pot ideology are they. They are pushing for retention of the individual cultures and languages. Melting pot implies that the new adopt much of the customs and language of the host country. The push to make Sharia Law part of the US legal system is unacceptable. Also if an educated European wants to enter the US legally we make it a long and expensive process. Yet people want to support poor and uneducated people entering unchecked.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) May 20, 2018
Actually Otto the immigration is worse than "unchecked". Under Obama our government actually transported unaccompanied and undocumented minors into the US . Some of these minors went on to become MS13 gang members since they had no adult supervision and the gangs became their guardians.
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (6) May 20, 2018
Questions no one asks.
Among other things, the energy that is expected to be harnessed for 100 percent of uses, that is energy that, currently, is not being put to work. It's either doing something else or leaving. To put it to work means it stays here longer than before, possibly even building up. If there was a balance at work before, with energy that, previously, wasn't being put to work being related to energy that does stay around longer, then this could disrupt that. Getting energy from sources that used to simply shed energy and heat could cause a build up of heat greater than what is claimed now from "fossil fuels".
zz5555
5 / 5 (4) May 20, 2018
Questions no one asks.

These questions have already been answered.
Getting energy from sources that used to simply shed energy and heat could cause a build up of heat greater than what is claimed now from "fossil fuels".

That seems exceedingly unlikely. Electric motors are much more efficient than ICEs, meaning less energy is needed and less energy is converted to waste heat. Additionally, the albedo from solar panels is about that same as that of earth, so you're not getting any increase there. Regardless, waste heat from fossil fuels is a tiny percentage compared to heat addition due to the GHGs.
MR166
3 / 5 (4) May 20, 2018
"And then MR comes along and says "that is untrue." What part is untrue MR? Where is said solution? Please enlighten us."

Onions do a search for Yucca Mountain and see all of the NIMBY crap that surrounded it. How can you spend collected money on waste storage when no one will let you put the stuff anywhere.

Locals and out of towners ended the effort. It is a prime example of the green movement wanting to make sure that the problem is never solved.
Eikka
4.5 / 5 (4) May 20, 2018
but the government/industry is not competent enough to develop this storage. So we leave the waste sitting in pools at the nuclear plants all over the country.


Dry casks, actually. They're above-ground armored concrete silos that hold the dry nuclear waste in wait for disposal or recycling.

The main problem is all the people who are blocking any action from taking place. Yucca Mountain was dug, then defunded because of NIMBY. The deep borehole disposal -trial- site in Arizona was blocked by picketing protesters even though there was never going to be any nuclear waste in the hole. Reprocessing nuclear fuel and reducing the waste by 96% is illegal by nuclear proliferation fearmongerers etc. etc.

It's the will that is lacking, not the means.

So what is going to change


What's going to have to change is a) allow nuclear waste reprocessing, b) have the government buy a large-enough plot of land and simply shove out all the NIMBYs.
Eikka
3 / 5 (5) May 20, 2018
The common tactic used by anti-nuclear factions is to deny that any solution to the nuclear waste issue exists by actively impeding any solution from taking place, then claiming that no solution can be found (since they are preventing it). Therefore nuclear power must be banned.

People do things like chain themselves to railroad tracks to protest that transporting nuclear waste by rail is unsafe, to demonstrate that people may sabotage the tracks and cause accidents - but the argument is circular because they're only able to do that because we allow them their protest.
rrwillsj
3.7 / 5 (3) May 20, 2018
Don;t sweat it Eikka. When Trumplestiltskin is through, that embarrassing old First Amendment will be gone. And those protesting your good opinion of your importance will be outlawed.

Cause. how dare anyone disagree with your good opinion of your decision that poisoning everybody else is none of our business? We should just meekly submit to your magnificence.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) May 20, 2018
" Trumplestiltskin is through, that embarrassing old First Amendment will be gone."

RR your assessment of the dangers to the First Amendment just highlights your total lack of reasoning ability. If your are really concerned, worry about Google, Facebook and Twitter censoring content. Unelected corporate workers are deciding what they want you to know.
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) May 20, 2018
Eikka
Dry casks, actually.
Both actually - but not relevant to the point of currently not having a long term solution to the waste issue - https://www.ucsus...kp0gvyM8

What's going to have to change is
Well get on with it Eikka - make it happen. Point still remains - that based on your explanation of how the government is currently unable to establish a long term solution to the waste problem - it would be reckless to go down the road of opening more nukes. Renewables are cheaper and better anyway...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) May 20, 2018
They are pushing for retention of the individual cultures and languages
And who do you mean by 'they'? Catholic Hispanics seem to be integrating nicely, by and large. Asian Indians are getting elected to public office. Chinese and Japanese are excelling in higher education.

If you're talking about muslims, then you should consider the enormous trouble Irish and Italian Catholic immigrants had when they got here. Their popish religion was vilified even more. They were accused of allegiance to a foreign power and trying to outreproduce the protestants.

Perhaps some of this was true. Germans had their Bund as well. But there are people already here who seek to grow without limit; haredi and hasidic Jews, mormons, even the amish, all of whom will double their numbers in 16 years or less.

Which may well be the reason for this new flood of prolific Catholics and muslims... warfare of the cradle, as teddy roosevelt called it.

But they (their kids) will all adapt.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 20, 2018
The waste for nuclear has to go somewhere, and some NIMBYs are gonna get hosed. Maybe Wyoming or Nevada or one of those places with no people living in it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) May 20, 2018
Some of these minors went on to become MS13 gang members since they had no adult supervision and the gangs became their guardians
You do know that MS13 is a guatamalan gang? These adolescent immigrants are already members when they get here. You know, the ones trump rightly called 'animals' last week.

Dems defined 'adolescent' to include 25yo and placed them in our high schools to rape and victimize.
betterexists
4 / 5 (4) May 21, 2018
YES. Geothermal energy is the heat from the Earth. It's clean and sustainable. Resources of geothermal energy range from shallow ground to hot water and hot rock found few miles beneath Earth's surface, and down even deeper to extremely high temp. of molten rock, Magma. Earth's heat-called geothermal energy-escapes as steam at a hot springs in Nevada !
https://www.renew...ech.html
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 21, 2018
So, @Blotto, when do you figure to meat (that is not a typo) some MS13 gangsters?
betterexists
1 / 5 (1) May 21, 2018
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) May 21, 2018
Renewables are cheaper...
If renewables are cheaper, why are they making the electricity prices to skyrocket everywhere? Because "batteries not included", neither coal/gas-fired backup plants nor integration costs. It's only cheap for while in "the 4 states" due to abundant supply of cheap coal and gas/fracking that need intermittent renewables to be "greenwashed".
https://pbs.twimg...4Pce.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...C7px.jpg
...solution to the waste problem...
"Experts forecast hundreds of thousands of tons of old wind turbine blades, batteries, and solar modules will need to be disposed of or recycled in the next decade—and millions of tons by 2050."
https://cen.acs.o...s/96/i15
Arsenides and chemical carcinogens in solar panels.
"Waste From Solar Panels: 300 Times That of Nuclear Power"
https://wattsupwi...r-power/
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) May 21, 2018
The waste for nuclear has to go somewhere
Put it in my backyard. It's safer than mercury(teratogen) in coal ashes and arsenide and other chemical carcinogens present in solar panels that never lose their toxicity with time. It emits less radiation than a bunch of bananas. People are exposed to more radiation during a flight than standing around a waste cask.
YIMBY
https://pbs.twimg...XC-4.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...NTAV.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...jmtY.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...zrxW.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...N5us.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...mI__.jpg
"The more you know about renewables, the less you like them. The more you know about nuclear, the more you like it. The only thing holding us back is ignorance, superstition and fear of the unknown."
https://www.nei.o...r-Plants
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (6) May 21, 2018
YES. Geothermal energy is the heat from the Earth. It's clean and sustainable.
"Why do the sort of people who exclude nuclear energy for its radiation embrace geothermal?"
https://pbs.twimg..._6l_.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...ORn-.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...ZaVq.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...0NRJ.jpg
barakn
4.2 / 5 (5) May 21, 2018

Yes all of the short term "Thinkers" in government are trying to boost their economies with new poor. Importing the socially needy just makes the problem worse. BTW this is not a capitalist non-solution it is a non-socialist solution. -MR166

Such short-tem thinking on the part of the U.S. in the 1800s led to millions of poor immigrants whose cheap labor built the railroads, telegraph system, and the first version of a modern navy. Their effort led to the U.S. becoming the strongest nation on the planet. You yourself are likely descended from these immigrants. Oh, if only MR166's ancestors hadn't immigrated, we'd be so much better off.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) May 21, 2018
Barakn the 1800s were a far different times than now. We were not a welfare society then. We are now. These people were LEGAL immigrants and did not sneak over the border to collect government aid for their children.
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (3) May 21, 2018
Sorry to burst your fairy tale bubble MR666. But it was my greats who accepted the bribes from your greats, to let them sneak into this country.

It is amusing that among the present generations of my father's kinfolk, that the general consensus is? None of you altright fairytails are white enough or American enough, by their standards, to avoid being deported.

Go back to the old country and take back your grandpa's place in the harness pulling the plow across the fields for your divinely appointed lords & masters.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) May 21, 2018
Renewables are cheaper...
Thanks to "cheap" solar/wind, decorative facade ("greenwashing") for coal/oil/gas:
"Anti-nuclear policies increased global carbon by 18% and added 9.5 million air pollution deaths" - May 19, 2018
https://www.nextb...ths.html
"Renewable Energy Use In Europe Didn't Stop Carbon Emissions From Rising"
http://dailycalle...issions/
"Bad news for green energy lovers: US oil & gas are booming" - May 17, 2018
https://nypost.co...booming/
"EU takes Germany to court over air pollution" - May 17, 2018
http://www.dw.com...42351552
"The coal boom in Germany is a result of Greenpeace's political success." - Ian Plimer
"solar, and wind power are nothing more than coal-natgas-oil derivatives"
howhot3
4.2 / 5 (5) May 21, 2018
You know, I'm always just blown away by the complete and utter BS that comes from the climate denier goon squad. They must have a factory that dedicates all it resources to making up shit. They must really absolutely despise kids (and every living thing) because all they seem to want to do is rip them off of any future that even resembled anything good (and that is being kind). As best as I can tell they have a mental disease of pushing a dystopian future plans on everyone with zero empathetic thinking about man's (and earth's) survival and it's general welfare!

If you read the article, it clearly says that "YES! It is 100% possible to base ALL of Mankind's energy production from renewables." That is pretty clear isn't it? So all of these little douchebag AGW denier goon's are just blowing you to gain your favor to feed there typical rightwing jolly storm.
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) May 21, 2018
Thanks howhot. And they have no problem in spreading misinformation - to support their lies. For example - you see above that Ward points out that C02 emissions in Europe have gone up. Source of course is Daily Caller. Well if you look harder at the numbers you will see that the C02 rates from electricity generating sector are going down. Here is a look at big bad Germany - that Ward loves to beat up on. You see that there C02 from electricity generation is now the lowest in nearly thirty years. - https://www.clean...QSNCl8EF

So misinformation becomes their stock and trade. We are in transition - it is painfully slow - but not at all fair to blame wind and solar - for a political system run by the oil and gas industry. Little by little it is changing.
betterexists
2 / 5 (4) May 21, 2018
You know, I'm always just blown away by the complete and utter BS that comes from the climate denier goon squad. They must have a factory that dedicates all it resources to making up shit. They must really absolutely despise kids (and every living thing) because all they seem to want to do is rip them off of any future that even resembled anything good (and that is being kind). As best as I can tell they have a mental disease of pushing a dystopian future plans on everyone with zero empathetic thinking about man's (and earth's) survival and it's general welfare!

99.99% of users that have written comments here....I can't read them....Because, I have ALREADY Ignored them long ago !
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 22, 2018
"YES! It is 100% possible to base ALL of Mankind's energy production from renewables."
Welcome to new Lala Land:
"New York's governor touts turbines while closing a nuclear plant. To fill the gap? Natural gas."
https://www.wsj.c...26679929
https://pbs.twimg...BIf8.jpg
....I can't read them....Because, I have ALREADY Ignored them long ago !
Renewables Cultists are impressively resistant to facts. There are several reliable sources supporting the facts while they only cite CleanTechnica TheEcologist and other biased sources.
Their last refugee is simply ignore the facts, or call liar who exposes the facts.
"Wind and Solar Power Advance, but Carbon Refuses to Retreat" - Nov 7, 2017
https://www.nytim...les.html
"Germany's Green Energy Meltdown"
https://www.wsj.c...10848988
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 22, 2018
You see that there C02 from electricity generation is now the lowest in nearly thirty years. - https://www.clean...QSNCl8EF
Most of CO₂ reduction is related to replacement of old coal plants by new ones, partial replacement of coal by Russian gas, substitution of incandescent bulbs by led, etc. Wind and solar are just decorative facades to continue to burn coal/oil/gas while closing carbon-free nuclear power plants.
"Germany Is Addicted to Russian Gas"
https://www.bloom...backyard
"Despite the Energiewende, Germany remains still heavily dependent on imports of fossil fuels"
https://www.clean...il-fuels
"Germany has permitted the demolition of old forests ... villages in order to mine and burn coal."
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 22, 2018
According to Eco-nuts, "cheap" wind/solar is replacing coal.
"The rise of renewable sources of energy and their gallant victories over fossil fuels — particularly coal — is now legendary."
"Despite the surge in renewables, emission levels almost unchanged" - May 10, 2018
https://www.thehi...1109.ece
"Germany to complete yet another coal plant"
https://energytra...l-plant/
"Renewables are failing in Europe despite getting cheaper, because they cannot be controlled. If you try to add too much wind/solar, you harm your system, forcing you to stick with fossil fuel. Only nuclear can reduce co2 by 100%."
https://pbs.twimg...GbC6.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...N4g7.jpg
"Offshore wind? Wind off? Sure."
betterexists
1 / 5 (1) May 22, 2018
What is Volcano Heat ? "The heat from the concentrated sunlight is absorbed by either a liquid, gas or solid and stored or used immediately in a heat exchanger to generate electricity. This type of energy, called concentrating solar power, is appealing because it can supply renewable energy -- even when the sun is not shining -- without using batteries for storage". https://www.eurek...2118.php
betterexists
1 / 5 (1) May 22, 2018
What is Volcano Heat ? "The heat from the concentrated sunlight is absorbed by either a liquid, gas or solid and stored or used immediately in a heat exchanger to generate electricity. This type of energy, called concentrating solar power, is appealing because it can supply renewable energy -- even when the sun is not shining -- without using batteries for storage". https://www.eurek...2118.php

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? 1 is Available. The other Makes jobs available...I mean profits available for Investors ?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2018
Sorry BE. I missed your comments cuz I have you on ignore...:-)
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) May 22, 2018
Arguing with liars like Ward - who are totally comfortable manipulating information to support their own private religion is pointless. However it is good to watch the process sometimes - and show the complete idiocy that someone like Ward can engage in.

So to argue that renewables are terrible and evil - Ward uses this article https://www.bloom...backyard

Now first point is that Ward attacks people for linking to information from a site like Cleantechnica - but then himself links to Bloomberg - and at other times Wattsupwiththat, or Daily Caller.

But just to pull a couple of quotes from the Bloomberg article
Germany's journey toward a renewable energy system began almost two decades ago.
Gas demand for power production may peak in 2025 before being replaced with wind and solar
Cont.
greenonions1
4 / 5 (4) May 22, 2018
cont.
The country aims to produce as much as 80 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2050
So as with many countries - Germany is playing the long game. The experts are showing that they understand that the smart move is a transition off fossil fuels - and into renewables. This is what is happening. One step at a time....
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) May 22, 2018
Here is a neat article - discussing the proposed draw down of coal power in Netherlands, Germany, UK, Italy, France, Finland and Portugal.
https://cleantech...by-2024/

The tide is turning. Interestingly - RWE the operator of the 2 plants in the Netherlands to be shuttered - are understandably upset - as the plants are new - and were built at the request of the government. Legal action may result. But here is a neat quote regarding RWE -
it is only RWE's stake in its renewable energy spin-off, Innogy, that is keeping the company afloat. In other words, RWE has long seen the tide rising but is now surprised that it is drowning.
howhot3
2.3 / 5 (3) May 23, 2018
You know what there @greenie, I think the creep @ward is a plant, a stooge, a trouble maker just here to provoke us. Nothing new about social engineering. When I see his kind on-line, I really wonder how much he gets paid to do his schtick. His time line puts him in east europe, so there is that.

What I'm always amazed about these rightwing operatives is the depth of there deception. and the crimes they will commit to grab the microphone. Look at what EPA's Pruitt did to the CNN reporters covering his speech. To me that just speaks volumes about this schlock and what we need to do next election.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 23, 2018
Germany's journey toward a renewable energy system began almost two decades ago.
France has done much more with much less money and in much less time, and with much less damages to the environment and ecology, in the fight against Climate Change, thanks to carbon-free nuclear energy.
Renewable Cultists have no option, except ignore the facts and call liar who exposes their lies.
https://uploads.d...bfe4.jpg
"France realized it's a really bad idea to ditch nuclear power"
http://www.cfact....r-power/
"Macron: Europe must prioritise emission reductions" - Apr 2018
"If the closure of power plants leads to the reopening of coal plants, which was the case in Germany unfortunately, you degrade your CO2 balance..."
http://world-nucl...187.html
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 23, 2018
Gas demand for power production may peak in 2025 before being replaced with wind and solar
Intermittent renewables replacing gas and all kind of fossil fuels, not even in small scale, worse yet in large scale.
Not doubt "100% renewables" has become a religion completely dishonest and divorced from reality.
"Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy." - Dr. James Hansen(climate scientist)
https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3759/661/original.jpg
"MIT report: it will take 400 years to transform to 'clean' energy"
https://wattsupwi...-energy/
"Wind and solar are proven technologies. They've proven they can't replace coal and natural gas as a primary energy source."
barakn
5 / 5 (3) May 23, 2018
Barakn the 1800s were a far different times than now. We were not a welfare society then. We are now. These people were LEGAL immigrants and did not sneak over the border to collect government aid for their children. -MR166

Corporations pay what should be criminally low wages for a huge variety of menial and entry-level jobs, so welfare is necessary to keep an entire class of working poor financially afloat, whether they are immigrants or native. The claim that illegals come to the US just to get welfare for their kids is ludicrous. They come here to work. If immigrants aren't doing a job, some native citizen will have to and will also be receiving welfare. Conservatives always fixate on the welfare cost and typically lie about how much taxes they pay. According to the Congressional Budget Office, "in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use."
MR166
1 / 5 (1) May 23, 2018
, "in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use."

Yea, the same CBO that predicted that Obamacare would save the public 100s of Billions in insurance costs. Their predictions are nothing but propaganda issued in order to placate the ignorant public. I dare you to show one program whose benefits exceeded their predictions.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) May 23, 2018
Ward
France has done much more with much less money and in much less time, and with much less damages to the environment


Talk about gish gallop right? Ward makes an assertion - disparaging renewables - because despite all the investment in renewables - C02 levels are not falling.

That point is countered - with the very salient response - that C02 levels from electricity generation are falling - and this is of course the relevant metric - when looking at renewable energy - which is of course electricity generation.

Ward then counters with some incredible gish gallop - wandering all over the place - but never staying on topic.

To counter the point from Ward above about France and Nukes - as Ward well knows - as has been pointed out many times before - France is now in the process of transitioning to renewable energy - https://www.reute...CN1C027P

cont.
greenonions1
1 / 5 (1) May 23, 2018
cont. Once again - the point is that this is a long game. No energy source is going to take over suddenly - as that would require retiring perfectly functional existing power plants - which would of course jack up the cost of electricity - no matter if we swithched to renewablles - or nukes. The Germans found this out - but the world is probably not going to go down that route.

Notice how Ward is totally immune to any kind of reasoning. Attacking other posters for linking to a great web site like Cleantechnica - but immediately again use wattsupwiththat as a source.
MR166
3 / 5 (3) May 24, 2018
"as that would require retiring perfectly functional existing power plants - which would of course jack up the cost of electricity -"

Like coal plants for instance!
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 24, 2018
France is now in the process of transitioning to renewable energy...
"France is already seeing its electricity prices rise as a result of deploying more solar and wind."
https://www.forbe...ing-too/
Poor Frenches. They don't have cheap coal or gas to be "greenwhashed" by intermittent renewables, hydro is limited, so they will have to import natural gas(methane) from Russia or somewhere.
C02 levels are not falling.
According to renewable cultists the C02 levels are failing, and RE is keeping Europeans warmed:
"European Renewables Are Up. So Are Carbon Emissions" - May 14, 2018
https://www.green...missions
"Europe's Freezing Winter May Exacerbate Global Warming" - May 24, 2018
https://www.bloom...al-power
greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) May 24, 2018
MR
Like coal plants for instance!
Yes MR - like coal/nuke/gas/geothermal etc. The math will be a little advanced for you - but basically (this just an example) - if you build a plant with a life projection of 60 years. You borrow the capitol on a 20 year loan. The cost of electricity after 20 years drops significantly - because the loan is paid off - and now you just have fuel and operating costs. If you retire that plant early - you lose that benefit. So it would not matter if we switched suddenly to nukes, or to renewables - that factor would probably see electricity prices going up. That is what has happened in Germany. The Germans were willing to make that sacrifice - in order to close their nukes. Maybe you could study the subject some more - it is pretty complex....
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) May 24, 2018
Notice how Ward just keeps jumping around with the gish gallop. The point being addressed is Ward saying that C02 emissions were going up - despite wind and solar being deployed - and the rebuttal was that if you look just at the electricity system - you see the C02 levels going down. Then post an article from the highly bias forbes - that is full of rubbish. If nukes are so great - why is France - the country so experienced with nukes - switching to renewables? How much extra are the Brits going to have to pay - if they make the stupid decision to go ahead with Hinkley point - and pay 12 cents kwh - in a 5 cent world?
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) May 24, 2018
Not only will we get 100% of our electricity from renewables - if you use current data - you see that electricity prices will fall, as the % of renewables rises - https://www.green....JOjiP0c
leetennant
4 / 5 (4) May 24, 2018
Just the idea that a solar farm or wind farm takes more space than a giant f'ing strip mine shows how ridiculous this whole thing is.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 25, 2018
why is France - the country so experienced with nukes - switching to renewables?
To please the eco-nuts and the fossil fuel industry.
"Wind and Solar are all absolutely necessary for providing "greenwashing" (decorative facade) for Coal and Nat Gas in order to displace carbon-free nuclear."
"If Solar and Wind Hit 50% of Generation, US Wholesale Energy Prices Could Fall 25%"
Typical fake promise in order to continue to expand gas/fracking the eternal bridge to sunshine&breeze unicorn energy in order to displace carbon-free nuclear energy, a crime in the face of Climate Change.
Just the idea that a solar farm or wind farm takes more space than a giant f'ing strip mine shows how ridiculous this whole thing is.
As if mining were not necessary; as if solar panels and windmills grew on trees.

PTTG
3.7 / 5 (3) May 25, 2018
The amount of fear the anti-renewables crowd has is palpable.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 25, 2018
The transition to so-called "clean energy" is a fraud. People think it's about transitioning to low-carbon energies, but it isn't, it's about transitioning from carbon-free nuclear energy to intermittent renewables(bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers) backed up by coal/oil/gas. The numbers and real-time data don't lie: wind and solar are a trillion-dollar fiasco at reducing emissions everywhere.
https://www.elect...map.org/
"100% renewable" is just a distraction to continue to burn coal and then natural gas.
Germany has enough installed-capacity of wind/solar to replace coal, even so they will have to replace coal by natural gas(methane(CH₄) worse than CO₂) to symbolically lower their CO₂ emissions, because wind/solar need at least 80% backup from coal/gas-fired plants to prevent Germans from freezing in the dark mainly during the Winter when energy is most needed.
Intermittent renewables are waste of money and environmental resources in the fight against Climate Change.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) May 26, 2018
continued demand for renewable energy in France is expected to be secured by national policy to reduce the share of nuclear power in electricity production from about 75 percent to 50 percent by 2025


https://www.renew...023.html

Maybe the French government knows a little more about energy policy than some anonymous poster. They are probably aware that the wholesale price of Hinkley Point (a French companies own project) is 12 cents Kwh - vs the current cost of wind and solar. Better and cheaper usually wins out in the halls of the smart people...
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 26, 2018
Good news for birds, bats, natural landscapes and wildlife habitats.
Expensive fiascos at reducing CO2 emissions on the brink of being definitively shut down.
"Germany Faces Gigawatt-Scale Loss of Onshore Wind Power" - May 25, 2018
https://www.green...nd-power
"Big growth in wind energy, but what about the waste? The 16,000 tonnes *per year* are "huge problem," say Germans."
https://www.clean...riticism
It is lasting less than previously thought, ~12 years instead of 30 years, it hardly can payback/repair the energy used from fossil fuels to manufacture/mine/transport/install/repair/maintain/recycle its components, low ERoI.
No surprise it's a fiasco at reducing emissions.
"Is 100 Percent Renewable Energy Possible? (Or Are Green Zealots Just Nuts?)"
https://climatech...ossible/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 26, 2018
"Nuclear is dead" Oops! Intermittent Renewables are causing Germans to freeze to death, they are learning the lesson: No Nukes = More Coal/Oil/Gas.
"US launches nuclear initiative to cut carbon with Canada, Japan, UK" - May 23, 2018
http://www.climat...apan-uk/
"U.S. and 8 other countries form new coalition to push nuclear power"
https://www.axios...1e2.html
Lesson learned: carbon-free nuclear energy is the only hope stop Climate Change; wind and solar are a trillion-dollar fiasco at reducing emissions, an economically/environmentally expensive form of providing "greenwashing" for coal/oil/gas in order to displace carbon-free nuclear energy, a crime in the face of Climate Change.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) May 27, 2018
Utilities around the world are beginning to understand the economic argument for renewable energy
By 2022, the utility says its wind capacity alone will reach 40 percent, totaling a 61 percent carbon-free mix.
https://www.green....hTRD=hA]https://www.green....hTRD=hA[/url] Mean time 12 cents kwh looms over the British tax payer - and nukes are no longer economically viable - https://www.green....hTRD=hA]https://www.green....hTRD=hA[/url] Nuclear industry is begging for a government bail out - while wind and solar continue their steady progress - https://cleantech...-jersey/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 27, 2018
Utilities around the world are beginning to understand the economic argument for renewable energy
A more correct statement would be: "Fossil fuel industries around the world are beginning to understand the economic argument for renewable energy": it is the only way to remain "greenwashed" in order to compete with carbon-free nuclear energy with full support of faux-green organizations, academic charlatans and eco-hypocritical celebrities.
"Industry spent more than €100m in 2016 ... deployed over 1000 lobbyists plus an army of PR and lobby consultancies, who helped to ... push the myth that gas is a 'clean' fuel to partner renewable energy." - Oct 31, 2017
https://corporate...gas-lock
"Battery storage needed to convert solar generation equal to a year of Hinkley nuclear generation to baseload: $700 billion, about 28 times the ~$25 billion cost of the Hinkley plant."
http://euanmearns...storage/
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 27, 2018
Unlike fossil fuels(coal/oil/gas), carbon-free nuclear energy doesn't need "greenwashing" from "unreliables"("cheap" but "batteries never included").
"If you have nuclear, why piss around with wind & solar? Variable cost of fuel in a nuclear plant is small."
"Wind and solar require backup generating plants, usually natural gas plants."
"Because the backup plants make the wind and solar plants redundant, the only concrete economic benefit of wind and solar plants is the fuel saved in the backup plants when the wind or solar are actually generating electricity."
"Currently, that job falls mostly on fossil fuel plants that are abused to speed up and slow down as necessary to compensate for the erratic wind and solar."
https://climatech...ossible/
Cognitive Dissonance:
"Most fans of renewable energy explicitly reject renewable hydroelectricity if it involves damming a river. Most renewable energy-lovers are also dam-haters."
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) May 27, 2018
"If you have nuclear, why piss around with wind & solar?
Cuz it is too damn expensive. You want to stick the whole world with 12 cents kwh from millions of Hinkley points. We want to develop tomorrows energy system - cheaper, cleaner, distributed. Beats bailing out the nuke industry - cuz they can't compete on price - even with all their subsidies.

But Mycle Schneider, a nuclear industry analyst, says nuclear also faces growing price pressure from wind and solar.


https://www.npr.o...-the-u-s
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 28, 2018
Carbon-free nuclear is unable to compete with cheap gas(methane/fracking) "greenwashed" by wind/solar.
"100% renewable" is similar to Communism, has failed in small-scale(e.g. Cuba, North Korea), is a fiasco in large-scale(USSR, China(fake communism)), but even so cultists still want to impose it to the whole world no matter how much it will cost.

"Environmentalists Secretly Invested In Fossil Fuels" - 05/25/2018
"the leak of sensitive documents reveal big names in the environmentalist world to be heavily invested in the same industry they decry."
"A number of environmental groups made investments in private equity firms that specialize in fossil fuels, according to data revealed..."
http://dailycalle...l-fuels/
"Gates says renewables are rubbish. Probably won't win over the Linux fanciers."
http://www.thereg...into_rd/
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) May 29, 2018
but even so cultists still want to impose it to the whole world no matter how much it will cost
Well - as someone concerned about climate change - and the damage we are currently doing to our earth - I think it would be wise to be willing to spend - on stopping the use of fossil fuels. I am just in favor of doing it the cheapest, and best way - what ever that happens to be. I just don't share the cultists view point of current gen nukes. As those who really understand current gen nukes say
Cheap dreams, expensive realities


https://www.ucsus...NVEgvyM8
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 29, 2018
...as someone concerned about climate change ... stopping the use of fossil fuels ... the cheapest, and best way...
Wind and solar don't stop the use of fossil fuels, they just provide them with "greenwashing" and have caused the electricity prices to go through the roof everywhere except in states that have abundant supply of cheap coal/oil/gas to be "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables.
"As predicted, closing nuke ... have pushed up capacity prices for the country's biggest grid operator." - May 23, 2018
https://www.green...-auction
Cheap dreams, expensive realities...
https://www.ucsus...NVEgvyM8
UCS("Union of Confused Scaremongers")
"There may well be a definite need for nuclear scientists/engineers to educate. But the UCS is not in that line of work: Their aim is to misinform."
https://pbs.twimg...Unxn.jpg
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) May 29, 2018
Wind and solar don't stop the use of fossil fuels
Yes they do. Just as an example - https://www.thegu...me-in-uk Wind and solar generated more electricity than nukes in the U.K. The U.K is phasing out coal, and increasing it's share of wind and solar. One day there will be no fossil fuels. Everyday we see announcements like this one - https://cleantech...pproval/

wind and solar are kicking nukes ass - based on cost. Better/cheaper/distributed energy.....
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) May 29, 2018
Relevant head line -
New Wind Farm Activity In Missouri Shows How States Can Leapfrog Over Natural Gas


https://cleantech...ral-gas/

Stating

Vistra Energy Corp. and Dominion have announced they will not build any more gas-fired power plants, citing the low cost of solar


Little by little - those of us who are paying attention - are seeing the transition.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 30, 2018
Wind and solar generated more electricity than nukes in the U.K. The U.K is phasing out coal...
A more correct statement would be:
"With help of natural gas(methane/fracking), wind and solar generated more electricity than nukes in the U.K. The U.K is phasing out coal..."
Wind and solar are parasites on other reliable/weather-resilient forms of energy, it's why parasitic people love them because they identify themselves with these useless placebos.
"UK greenhouse emissions decrease. Main reason: Switch from coal to renewables backed up by natural gas."
https://pbs.twimg...2PT_.jpg
"UK wind farms found to be most profitable when switched off" - 2018
https://theenergy...hed-off/
"Solar farms receive more cash from green subsidies than selling the energy they produce" - Apr 2018
http://www.dailym...uce.html
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 30, 2018
Relevant head line -
New Wind Farm Activity In Missouri Shows How States Can Leapfrog Over Natural Gas
...
Stating
Vistra Energy Corp. and Dominion have announced they will not build any more gas-fired power plants, citing the low cost of solar
"Coal fueled 81% of Missouri's electricity generation in 2017, and more coal is consumed for electricity generation in Missouri than in all but two other states."
"Missouri's one nuclear power plant, Callaway Nuclear Generating Station, contributed 10% of the state's net electricity generation in 2017."
https://www.eia.g.../?sid=MO

It's ever more obvious that having lots and lots of installed-capacity of intermittent renewables is just to provide "greenwashing" for coal/gas-fired backup plants in order to displace carbon-free nuclear energy, a crime in the face of Climate Change.
greenonions1
3 / 5 (2) May 30, 2018
"Coal fueled 81% of Missouri's electricity generation in 2017, and more coal is consumed for electricity generation in Missouri than in all but two other states
Which was the point of the article. If you had read on - you would have seen this sentence.

That provides wind and other renewables with a window of opportunity to get a jump on the replacement game


The point you seem so unable to grasp is that the tide is turning. How many nukes are they building in Missouri Willie? compared to this -
Arora said Ameren plans to spend around $1 billion by 2020 toward a goal of generating at least 700 megawatts of wind-generated energy.

https://www.usnew...ind-farm
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) May 31, 2018
Arora said Ameren plans to spend around $1 billion by 2020 toward a goal of generating at least 700 megawatts of wind-generated energy.
"Batteries not included" so it's coal that prevents Missourian families from freezing in the dark when wind isn't blowing, "greenwashing". You can power a whole state with coal but you cannot power even a small city/island with solar and wind without coal/oil/gas to back them up, e.g. El Hierro Island.
...the tide is turning...
France understands that nuclear plays an integral role in carbon reduction.
https://pbs.twimg...oElg.png
Coal and oil power plant emissions are associated with premature births.
"Fossil Fuel Use Affect Premature Births" - May 30, 2018
"These results stand in stark contrast to nuclear energy where studies have shown there are no health effects from living near nuclear plants, even in children."
https://www.forbe...-births/
greenonions1
not rated yet May 31, 2018
France understands that nuclear plays an integral role in carbon reduction

No argument there - never has been for me. You are the one who wants to argue with reality. What I point out is that due to cost factors - the future is moving towards renewables.
Other large energy companies appear to finally be reading the writing on the wall: that the traditional electricity generation strategy of burning fuels (or creating fission) and boiling water is giving way to the sustainable and cost-effective harvesting of photons and Aeolian currents


https://www.forbe...0f037d94

EDF is investing $31 billion in solar in the coming years. I guess the engineers at the nuclear giant know more about energy than you do....
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) May 31, 2018
... https://www.forbe...0f037d94 ...
Undoubtedly, solar and wind are just Trojan horses for the fossil fuel industry in order displace carbon-free nuclear energy.
From your article:
"BP recently announced it would invest about $0.5 billion of its annual capital expenditures on clean energy..."
"Meanwhile, Shell recently bought electric vehicle charging company NewMotion, picking up 30,000 charging stations in Europe in the bargain..."
"Exxon Mobil is taking an entirely different approach, investing over $1 billion annually in hundreds of research and development projects looking into alternative forms of energy..."

"More Wind and Solar Power Perversely Locks In Fossil Fuel Generation"
https://reason.co...nd-solar
"Nuclear, they found, has decarbonized electricity at a rate 12 times faster than solar or wind."
greenonions1
not rated yet May 31, 2018
Undoubtedly, solar and wind are just Trojan horses for the fossil fuel industry in order displace carbon-free nuclear energy
If we displace current energy system (fossil fuels and nukes) with cheaper/cleaner/better renewables - I don't see the problem. Again from the article
Other large energy companies appear to finally be reading the writing on the wall: that the traditional electricity generation strategy of burning fuels (or creating fission) and boiling water is giving way to the sustainable and cost-effective harvesting of photons and Aeolian currents
So I'm glad you liked the Forbes article - and wanted to quote extensively from it. It of course makes sense that energy companies - keep their finger on the pulse of energy - and as the article suggests - now see the "writing on the wall."

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.