Fossil or renewable. What is the future?

aznsx

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Messages
1,872
Location
Phoenix, AZ USA
"Fossil or and renewable"

meat and vegetables
cats and dogs
cars and trucks
boats and planes
pneumatic and hydraulic
bicycles and motorcycles
screws and nails
...
...
...
or and
 

Monocrom

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
21,094
Location
NYC
"Fossil or and renewable"

meat and vegetables
cats and dogs
cars and trucks
boats and planes
pneumatic and hydraulic
bicycles and motorcycles
screws and nails
...
...
...
or and
Definitely agree with you. The future is a combination of both.
Still going to have to rely on fossil fuels until renewable technology gets to the point where it's just as reliable as the former. That isn't happening soon.
 

vincent3685

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
196
"Fossil" fuels are renewable. It ain't gold or silver, and stop spreading the propaganda that it is. Oil is made up of all dead organic material, from plants, trees, bugs, marine life, dead human beings, and yes, dinosaurs. It is a constantly regenerative substance that is second only to water in abundance on earth. There is really no reason to "conserve" it. It is here for us to use, and we should use it to make our lives better.
 
Last edited:

vincent3685

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
196
Oh look, Mr Fixit Man trying to start another argument thread.
Surprise surprise.
Yeah, the knob has the magical answer; Solar and wind will replace everything. Free energy for everyone. Just like free housing, free education,free medical care, and free food will solve everything. Free everything for everybody. He's a ****ing communist. PUHLEESE!
 
Last edited:

vincent3685

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
196
Oh look, Mr Fixit Man trying to start another argument thread.
Surprise surprise.
The knob is an idiot who thinks he has the answers to our energy needs. In reality our energy needs are renewable fuels, i.e.; petroleum, coal, natural gas, and oil vs. unreliable sun, wind, and rainbows and unicorn farts". Lol

Gasoline Forever
 
Last edited:

mrfixitman

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 16, 2023
Messages
599
Location
San Francisco
"Fossil" fuels are renewable. It ain't gold or silver, and stop spreading the propaganda that it is. They're made up of all dead organic material, from plants, trees, bugs, marine life, dead human beings, and yes, dinosaurs. It is a constantly regenerative substance that is second only to water in abundance on earth. There is really no reason to "conserve" it. It is here for us to use, and we should use it to make our lives better.
That poison was built up over billions of years. We used it up in a couple of centuries renewables are the only logical choice, unless some rocket scientist gets fission to work. Otherwise it's batteries or pumped hydro to store energy from wind and solar. If Texas is doing it, it must be good. US coal plants face a new rule. Capture CO2 or close up. I guess you didn't watch the video on how solar, wind and batteries are working and eliminating Peaker plant operation. Not to mention renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels.
https://about.bnef.com/blog/us-coal-plants-face-new-rule-capture-co2-or-shutter/
 

mrfixitman

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 16, 2023
Messages
599
Location
San Francisco
Solar and wind energy have the potential to meet global electricity demand 100 times over, and the costs of these renewables are collapsing so rapidly that fossil fuels could be pushed out of electricity generation altogether by 2035, according to a report by a U.K. think tank. Apr 26, 2021 This information placed here for educational purposes. It's someone else's theory. Sounds good to me. I have eliminated fossil fuels in my life. My pocketbook thanks me. Beta was better than VHS but VHS won because it was cheaper. It will be the same with fossil fuels.
 

mrfixitman

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 16, 2023
Messages
599
Location
San Francisco

How renewables will Kill Off Fossil Fuel Electricity By 2035: New Report

David Vetter
Senior Contributor
Climate research, renewables and circularity
Follow



Apr 26, 2021,04:20am EDT
Updated Dec 10, 2021, 09:17am EST

This article is more than 3 years old.
960x0.jpg
The 250-metre-high chimney of the former Steag power plant in Lünen, Germany, collapses. The ... [+]
DPA/PICTURE ALLIANCE VIA GETTY IMAGES
Solar and wind energy have the potential to meet global electricity demand 100 times over, and the costs of these renewables are collapsing so rapidly that fossil fuels could be pushed out of electricity generation altogether by 2035, according to a report by a U.K. think tank.


The report, from London-based non-profit Carbon Tracker, reveals that solar and wind have the potential to produce thousands of petawatt hours (PWh) of electricity a year, while the world's current electricity demand stands at just 27 PWh. Furthermore, Carbon Tracker shows, if humans chose to get all their energy from solar power alone, the land required would take up just 450,000 km2—just 0.3% of the world's total land area, and less than the space currently taken up by fossil fuel industry operations.

That option should not be necessary, as wind farms and other renewables are also producing an increasingly larger share of global energy capacity. As Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson shows in his book 100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything, global energy demand could be met by using 0.2% of available land area for solar, and 0.5% for spacing between onshore wind turbines.
Carbon Tracker uses the findings to claim that "the fossil fuel era is over." At current growth rates, it says, solar and wind power could price fossil fuels out of the world's electricity markets by the mid-2030s, and by 2050 could replace fossil fuels entirely.
"We are entering a new epoch, comparable to the industrial revolution," said Kingsmill Bond, Carbon Tracker's lead strategist and the report's author. "Energy will tumble in price and become available to millions more, particularly in low-income countries. Geopolitics will be transformed as nations are freed from expensive imports of coal, oil and gas. Clean renewables will fight catastrophic climate change and free the planet from deadly pollution."
The findings should not come as a complete surprise. Last year, the International Energy Agency found that solar power was now the cheapest electricity "in history," in most major countries. The International Renewable Energy Agency says the cost of electricity from solar photovoltaics fell 82% in the last decade, while the costs of onshore and offshore wind fell 39% and 29% respectively.


Forbes Daily: Join over 1 million Forbes Daily subscribers and get our best stories, exclusive reporting and essential analysis of the day's news in your inbox every weekday.

Sign Up

By signing up, you agree to receive this newsletter, other updates about Forbes and its affiliates' offerings, our Terms of Service (including resolving disputes on an individual basis via arbitration), and you acknowledge our Privacy Statement. Forbes is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Yet right now, people are using only a fraction of the renewable energy available to them. The report notes that only 0.01% of the world's solar potential is being utilized, and just 0.16% of wind potential is being exploited. While many parts of the world have access to abundant solar and wind energy, in some regions these resources are super-abundant: nations in Sub-Saharan Africa, such as Namibia, Botswana and Ethiopia, have solar potential 1,000 times greater than their electricity usage. Indeed, Africa, Australia and South America have "huge technical potential compared to energy demand," the report states.
The report helps bolster the case for the world's energy decarbonization plans, including President Joe Biden's plan to make U.S. electricity production carbon free by 2035.
Harry Benham, co-author of the report and chairman of the climate think-tank Ember, said: "The world does not need to exploit its entire renewable resource—just 1% is enough to replace all fossil fuel usage. Each year we are fuelling the climate crisis by burning three million years of fossilised sunshine in coal, oil and gas while we use just 0.01% of daily sunshine."
The findings are also a reminder that as the economic potential of renewables grows, fossil fuel investments are becoming an increasingly risky prospect: last month, Carbon Tracker published a note showing that $640 billion in investments in fossil fuel firms had lost $123bn of their value between 2012 and 2020.
You can download Carbon Tracker's report 'The Sky's the limit' here.
Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn.
400x0.jpg
David Vetter
 

Attachments

  • s1.png
    s1.png
    625 bytes · Views: 23

vincent3685

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
196
It sure would be good to see you 👆👆actually contribute to the flashlight forum instead of starting quarrelsome threads or starting quarrels in existing ones.

Just sayin'.....
He's a complete idiot who likes to use a leftist narrative to try and legitimize his propaganda. Every so-called "study" he cites is from leftist media. It's all garbage
 

mrfixitman

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 16, 2023
Messages
599
Location
San Francisco
Last edited:

mrfixitman

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 16, 2023
Messages
599
Location
San Francisco
He's a complete idiot who likes to use a leftist narrative to try and legitimize his propaganda. Every so-called "study" he cites is from leftist media. It's all garbage
Forbes is as capitalist as it gets. These guys try to predict so they can invest to maximize profit.
What kind of news is Forbes? Published eight times a year, Forbes features articles on finance, industry, investing, and marketing topics. It also reports on related subjects such as technology, communications, science, politics, and law. Not garbage. Fox News is garbage. IMHO. But getting better.
 
Last edited:

Hooked on Fenix

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
3,328
I think we need an all of the above energy approach. If you think we will electrify everything, think about these statistics. The average age of the larger transformers that make up our grid is over 38 years with an operating lifespan of 40 years. The lead time to get a new transformer is currently around 3 years. Do the math. The entire grid has major components that needs to be replaced faster than they can be now to avoid catastrophic failure. We recently had our first nuclear power plant come online (Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia) since the Three Mile Island incident. Took a couple decades and $31 billion to build. While I hope future plants get built faster, and modular reactors speed up additions to the grid more quickly, red tape, building costs, and a not in my back yard attitude have prevented any new plants from being built anywhere for a long time. As far as renewables go, solar is getting cheaper, but waste and disposal is going to be a concern soon. Same for wind turbines which kill birds on land and kill whales at sea. The mirror trough solar panels (not photovoltaic) work better as there are no components to wear out other than sun tracking motors. However, they look like a lake from above and vaporize birds that drop down to the central point. Near Primm, Nevada is a good example. For battery storage, lithium ion has proved to be unsafe. Some plants have had uncontrolled fires. Lithium iron phosphate is better, but lithium is limited and puts us at a dependence on China for raw materials, and they don't have the best environmental record. I think the future of large battery storage is Enervenue's nickel hydrogen batteries which last 30,000 charge cycles, and was based off a battery technology that was used and tested on our satellites in space. Honestly, I'd like to get to the point where we can have separate homes run on their own power, solar probably, and have an Enervenue battery power supply, with a backup gas (gasoline, diesel, natural gas, or propane) generator capable of kicking in automatically only when the battery runs out of power for the day. I'd like to get away from getting screwed by the electric company, eliminate widespread blackouts, and make it harder for terrorists to target infrastructure.
 

vincent3685

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
196
I think we need an all of the above energy approach. If you think we will electrify everything, think about these statistics. The average age of the larger transformers that make up our grid is over 38 years with an operating lifespan of 40 years. The lead time to get a new transformer is currently around 3 years. Do the math. The entire grid has major components that needs to be replaced faster than they can be now to avoid catastrophic failure. We recently had our first nuclear power plant come online (Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia) since the Three Mile Island incident. Took a couple decades and $31 billion to build. While I hope future plants get built faster, and modular reactors speed up additions to the grid more quickly, red tape, building costs, and a not in my back yard attitude have prevented any new plants from being built anywhere for a long time. As far as renewables go, solar is getting cheaper, but waste and disposal is going to be a concern soon. Same for wind turbines which kill birds on land and kill whales at sea. The mirror trough solar panels (not photovoltaic) work better as there are no components to wear out other than sun tracking motors. However, they look like a lake from above and vaporize birds that drop down to the central point. Near Primm, Nevada is a good example. For battery storage, lithium ion has proved to be unsafe. Some plants have had uncontrolled fires. Lithium iron phosphate is better, but lithium is limited and puts us at a dependence on China for raw materials, and they don't have the best environmental record. I think the future of large battery storage is Enervenue's nickel hydrogen batteries which last 30,000 charge cycles, and was based off a battery technology that was used and tested on our satellites in space. Honestly, I'd like to get to the point where we can have separate homes run on their own power, solar probably, and have an Enervenue battery power supply, with a backup gas (gasoline, diesel, natural gas, or propane) generator capable of kicking in automatically only when the battery runs out of power for the day. I'd like to get away from getting screwed by the electric company, eliminate widespread blackouts, and make it harder for terrorists to target infrastructure.
How about we follow the laws of conservation of mass? Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. No matter what form of energy we use, there will always be a trade-off. NOTHING is completely free of environmental consequences. Except of course for rainbows and unicorn farts. In the real world there is no such thing as "free energy" nor perpetual motion. Only someones opinion of what the quietest, least offensive form (for them) it comes in.
 
Last edited:

Hooked on Fenix

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
3,328
We can use solar and battery for a portion of our energy, but can't replace all with renewables. We need constant power. Nuclear would provide it, but we could end up in a nuclear war soon with Russia. Materials may be hard to get for use for reactors when defense becomes a priority. Aging grid and hard to get transformers at start of world war requires us to focus on producing smaller independent grids that are stable and close to population centers rather than spanning the continent with wires, transformers, and electric car charging stations. Ideally, independent home systems would be best. I never said anything about perpetual motion. If you have solar with battery and an automatic transfer switch to a gas generator in case the battery dies, you can ensure stable off grid power year round as long as you don't run out of gas. Just make sure the generator is propane, natural gas, or it's fuel injector based. Carburetors with gas left in them clog up.
 

mrfixitman

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 16, 2023
Messages
599
Location
San Francisco
We can use solar and battery for a portion of our energy, but can't replace all with renewables. We need constant power. Nuclear would provide it, but we could end up in a nuclear war soon with Russia. Materials may be hard to get for use for reactors when defense becomes a priority. Aging grid and hard to get transformers at start of world war requires us to focus on producing smaller independent grids that are stable and close to population centers rather than spanning the continent with wires, transformers, and electric car charging stations. Ideally, independent home systems would be best. I never said anything about perpetual motion. If you have solar with battery and an automatic transfer switch to a gas generator in case the battery dies, you can ensure stable off grid power year round as long as you don't run out of gas. Just make sure the generator is propane, natural gas, or it's fuel injector based. Carburetors with gas left in them clog up.
I never needed a backup generator for the solar light over my garage. Properly sized solar system with battery and you will have a perpetual supply of energy. Do the math. The English are predicting full renewable energy by 2035. Watch your stranded assets.
 

mrfixitman

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 16, 2023
Messages
599
Location
San Francisco
I think we need an all of the above energy approach. If you think we will electrify everything, think about these statistics. The average age of the larger transformers that make up our grid is over 38 years with an operating lifespan of 40 years. The lead time to get a new transformer is currently around 3 years. Do the math. The entire grid has major components that needs to be replaced faster than they can be now to avoid catastrophic failure. We recently had our first nuclear power plant come online (Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia) since the Three Mile Island incident. Took a couple decades and $31 billion to build. While I hope future plants get built faster, and modular reactors speed up additions to the grid more quickly, red tape, building costs, and a not in my back yard attitude have prevented any new plants from being built anywhere for a long time. As far as renewables go, solar is getting cheaper, but waste and disposal is going to be a concern soon. Same for wind turbines which kill birds on land and kill whales at sea. The mirror trough solar panels (not photovoltaic) work better as there are no components to wear out other than sun tracking motors. However, they look like a lake from above and vaporize birds that drop down to the central point. Near Primm, Nevada is a good example. For battery storage, lithium ion has proved to be unsafe. Some plants have had uncontrolled fires. Lithium iron phosphate is better, but lithium is limited and puts us at a dependence on China for raw materials, and they don't have the best environmental record. I think the future of large battery storage is Enervenue's nickel hydrogen batteries which last 30,000 charge cycles, and was based off a battery technology that was used and tested on our satellites in space. Honestly, I'd like to get to the point where we can have separate homes run on their own power, solar probably, and have an Enervenue battery power supply, with a backup gas (gasoline, diesel, natural gas, or propane) generator capable of kicking in automatically only when the battery runs out of power for the day. I'd like to get away from getting screwed by the electric company, eliminate widespread blackouts, and make it harder for terrorists to target infrastructure.
Solar panels and a lipo house battery are all you need. You can update batteries as technology changes but batteries are so good now that may not be needed. I do have a question. Are the whales jumping out of the water to hit the turbine blades?
 
Last edited:

vincent3685

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
196
We can use solar and battery for a portion of our energy, but can't replace all with renewables. We need constant power. Nuclear would provide it, but we could end up in a nuclear war soon with Russia. Materials may be hard to get for use for reactors when defense becomes a priority. Aging grid and hard to get transformers at start of world war requires us to focus on producing smaller independent grids that are stable and close to population centers rather than spanning the continent with wires, transformers, and electric car charging stations. Ideally, independent home systems would be best. I never said anything about perpetual motion. If you have solar with battery and an automatic transfer switch to a gas generator in case the battery dies, you can ensure stable off grid power year round as long as you don't run out of gas. Just make sure the generator is propane, natural gas, or it's fuel injector based. Carburetors with gas left in them clog up.
Well sure, in theory, all of that is technically true. But, you're talking about investing in solar, batteries and gasoline generators. That's an expensive and complex system for the average homeowner. it would take many, many years to recoup the initial cost in energy savings. Not to mention that the VAST majority of the population lives in urban and suburban areas and are subject to HOA rules. Good luck getting that approved.

Yes, solar can work in limited circumstances and in limited areas. I'm sure you can theorize and invent scenarios where this would work, but for the average homeowner it just isn't practical. Again, there is no free ride when it comes to generating energy. There is ALWAYS going to be a cost.
 
Top