Best check your facts. In 2015 wind and solar already contributed 7% of world generation total.
Alan
Iva Biggen said
10:59 AM Jun 14, 2019
Brenda and Alan wrote:
Best check your facts. In 2015 wind and solar already contributed 7% of world generation total.
Alan
The meme says 12.5% in 2018.
But many do doubt the so called facts from both sides, true facts or true lies, that is the question.
I remember reading that SA struggled when a power wire that ran from Victoria failed the the state was in some serious trouble because the powers to be believed that the state could run on wind and solar.
Unfortunately closing powers stations will be at the peril of some states. Renewables may ease the load but at a great expense to the consumer. Ask a South Aussie how much their power bill is.
Greystone said
05:39 PM Jun 14, 2019
This is from the BP Energy Outlook 2019:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/energy-outlook/bp-energy-outlook-2019.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjs6vaUuejiAhWHaCsKHUYFDZ4QFjAUegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw2ItylHoAxqUOeJ1PTm0zZI&cshid=1560497736985
"Renewable energy is the fastest
growing source of energy,
contributing half of the growth
in global energy supplies and
becoming the largest source of
power by 2040.
Demand for oil and other liquid
fuels grows for the first part of the
Outlook before gradually plateauing.
The increase in liquids production
is initially dominated by US tight oil,
but OPEC production subsequently
increases as US tight oil declines.
Natural gas grows robustly,
supported by broad-based demand
and the increasing availability of gas,
aided by the continuing expansion
of liquefied natural gas (LNG).
Global coal consumption is broadly
flat, with falls in Chinese and OECD
consumption offset by increases in
India and Other Asia."
Greystone said
05:43 PM Jun 14, 2019
And this explains why the high electricity prices in SA are not due to renewables only.
https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-south-australias-high-electricity-prices-the-consequence-of-renewable-energy-policy-93594
Iva Biggen said
09:06 AM Jun 15, 2019
Greystone wrote:
And this explains why the high electricity prices in SA are not due to renewables only. https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-south-australias-high-electricity-prices-the-consequence-of-renewable-energy-policy-93594
As I said above
Many do doubt the so called facts from both sides, true facts or true lies, that is the question.
Jay might feel all warm and fuzzy when he closed the Port Augusta power station earlier than was planned but what was the true reason?
I may have missed something but I have not seen any reference to how much SA has to pay for power purchased from interstate. It does appear that the authors tend to blame the inflated price on the cost of poles and wires. I wonder if this is the actual truth.
BP may display an obvious bias due to the fact that they were heavily into the manufacturing of solar panels.
I can appreciate the need for all of us to mind our planet but throwing buckets of taxpayer or consumer money at the exercise will do little but line the greedy pockets of a few under the disguise of global warming and climate change...
Iva Biggen said
10:03 AM Jun 15, 2019
Here are some facts reportedly created by BP indicating the improbability that the world will be powered entirely by renewable energy by 2050.
The daily figure is astounding if not impossible to achieve according to BP.
No one argues that renewables will 100% replace fossil fuels by 2050. But it is the fastest growing form of energy, whereas coal is going down being replaced by gas and renewables and oil is flat.
Iva Biggen said
03:36 PM Jun 15, 2019
Greystone wrote:
No one argues that renewables will 100% replace fossil fuels by 2050. But it is the fastest growing form of energy, whereas coal is going down being replaced by gas and renewables and oil is flat.
Maybe that comment is a typo,
That report indicates what is needed every day to achieve no reliance on fossil fuel by 2050.
14 million solar panels each day....wow I would like to see that.
Best check your facts again. This was not from BP but a well known climate change denier.
Try Googling BP climate change.
Alan
Greystone said
08:50 AM Jun 16, 2019
Meanwhile in Tasmania they are way ahead of us on the mainland.
Are wind farms the 'Formula One cars' of our future power systems?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-16/not-all-hot-air-with-tasmanian-windfarm-plans/11209390
Brenda and Alan said
10:14 AM Jun 16, 2019
I tend to get a little annoyed when things are posted which don't stack up (550 nuclear power plants need to be built every year), and the poster cant be bothered to verify their facts.
Alan
Ron-D said
12:40 PM Jun 16, 2019
My absolute pet hate is be driving along looking up at what used to be stunningly beautiful hill sides ,now full of ugly big white propellers and there dreadful towers,its a true cancer on the countryside!
blaze said
01:53 PM Jun 16, 2019
Ron-D wrote:
My absolute pet hate is be driving along looking up at what used to be stunningly beautiful hill sides ,now full of ugly big white propellers and there dreadful towers,its a true cancer on the countryside!
better look than removing the hill and shipping it offshore, at least its still there
cheers
blaze
Greystone said
03:43 PM Jun 16, 2019
Ever driven through Latrobe valley and admire the open pits?
Hewy54 said
04:20 PM Jun 16, 2019
Ron-D wrote:
My absolute pet hate is be driving along looking up at what used to be stunningly beautiful hill sides ,now full of ugly big white propellers and there dreadful towers,its a true cancer on the countryside!
I would be interested to find out what percentage of driving would be past hill sides full of towers.
Yes you may consider them ugly, but when comparing the advantages with the fraction of a percentage of the countyside affected I believe they are a huge plus.
Iva Biggen said
08:08 PM Jun 16, 2019
Hewy54 wrote:
Ron-D wrote:
My absolute pet hate is be driving along looking up at what used to be stunningly beautiful hill sides ,now full of ugly big white propellers and there dreadful towers,its a true cancer on the countryside!
I would be interested to find out what percentage of driving would be past hill sides full of towers.
Yes you may consider them ugly, but when comparing the advantages with the fraction of a percentage of the countyside affected I believe they are a huge plus.
Wont be much of any hill left if to comply with the above projection we have to erect 1500 wind turbines a day for the next 31 years.
The turbines we currently have in Aus will be well worn out before we can all begin to feel warm and fuzzy.
Responsible adults would be better to provide true facts to our young than encourage the Bob Browns and Al Gores with their dangerous personal agendas.
Iva Biggen said
08:19 PM Jun 16, 2019
Brenda and Alan wrote:
I tend to get a little annoyed when things are posted which don't stack up (550 nuclear power plants need to be built every year), and the poster cant be bothered to verify their facts.
Alan
So your point is??
if the figures in the the post above are incorrect then instead of instructing us all to use google you might be able to support your annoyance by providing us with genuine information.
The figures projected above are for a world wide situation not what we have here in Australia.
if we in Australia all choose to throw a bucket full of money at this fantasy it will be to the detriment of our future generations and will not be a saviour to anyone.
Nothing is renewable without an opposite reaction.
Greystone said
08:28 PM Jun 16, 2019
If you believe in the myths put forward by climate change sceptics, then read all rebuttals here. No point reiterating nearly 200 myths!
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Iva Biggen said
08:38 PM Jun 16, 2019
Call it skeptical science and therefore we have a result.
Plant a tree is a better solution for our children.
I dont think that anyone who doubts the current trend of global warming and climate change information which is being thrust upon us all deserve to be labelled a sceptics any more than the other side which are pushing their own barrows.
History has shown that many who have been referred to as sceptics in our world have been proven to be correct over time.
blaze said
09:19 PM Jun 16, 2019
Iva Biggen wrote:
Call it skeptical science and therefore we have a result.
Plant a tree is a better solution for our children.
That pic is plantation, havnt you seen old growth
cheers
blaze
Greystone said
09:23 PM Jun 16, 2019
Talk of environmental damage, have you heard of Adani and the potential environmental effects they will have? Have you seen the Latrobe valley brown coal pits? This website gives a good summary of current anti renewable energy myths. https://www.australianethical.com.au/news/myth-busters-guide-renewable-energy/
Greystone said
09:30 PM Jun 16, 2019
And as far as sceptics are concerned, science relies on scepticism. It is established process to question scientifically postulated theories with logical counter evidence that is also scientifically proven. That's how science evolves. However, refuting established science with opinions is nonsense. Everyone has an opinion. Some even believe that the earth is flat!
Iva Biggen said
08:39 AM Jun 17, 2019
The direction of my original post was intended to indicate that the projection of eventually relying on renewable energy to power the world is at best, extremely difficult to achieve in the next two generations.
There appears to be scepticism on both sides of the debate as to wether this is achievable or not.
If the figures above are from a sceptic on the unable to achieve side then is there any figures to support that this situation of it can be achieved and if so how many nuclear power stations, wind generators, and solar panels need to be completed each week to achieve this?
Remember, this is on a world scale, not just Australia.
To base it only on Australia when most of the manufacturing countries of the world will ignore these efforts will only create a massive financial burden for future Australians. This wont worry a lot of us on this forum as we are close to the end of our lives.
Best check your facts. In 2015 wind and solar already contributed 7% of world generation total.
Alan
The meme says 12.5% in 2018.
But many do doubt the so called facts from both sides, true facts or true lies, that is the question.
I remember reading that SA struggled when a power wire that ran from Victoria failed the the state was in some serious trouble because the powers to be believed that the state could run on wind and solar.
Unfortunately closing powers stations will be at the peril of some states. Renewables may ease the load but at a great expense to the consumer. Ask a South Aussie how much their power bill is.
As I said above
Many do doubt the so called facts from both sides, true facts or true lies, that is the question.
Jay might feel all warm and fuzzy when he closed the Port Augusta power station earlier than was planned but what was the true reason?
I may have missed something but I have not seen any reference to how much SA has to pay for power purchased from interstate. It does appear that the authors tend to blame the inflated price on the cost of poles and wires. I wonder if this is the actual truth.
BP may display an obvious bias due to the fact that they were heavily into the manufacturing of solar panels.
I can appreciate the need for all of us to mind our planet but throwing buckets of taxpayer or consumer money at the exercise will do little but line the greedy pockets of a few under the disguise of global warming and climate change...
Here are some facts reportedly created by BP indicating the improbability that the world will be powered entirely by renewable energy by 2050.
The daily figure is astounding if not impossible to achieve according to BP.
Maybe that comment is a typo,
That report indicates what is needed every day to achieve no reliance on fossil fuel by 2050.
14 million solar panels each day....wow I would like to see that.
Best check your facts again. This was not from BP but a well known climate change denier.
Try Googling BP climate change.
Alan
I tend to get a little annoyed when things are posted which don't stack up (550 nuclear power plants need to be built every year), and the poster cant be bothered to verify their facts.
Alan
My absolute pet hate is be driving along looking up at what used to be stunningly beautiful hill sides ,now full of ugly big white propellers and there dreadful towers,its a true cancer on the countryside!
better look than removing the hill and shipping it offshore, at least its still there
cheers
blaze
I would be interested to find out what percentage of driving would be past hill sides full of towers.
Yes you may consider them ugly, but when comparing the advantages with the fraction of a percentage of the countyside affected I believe they are a huge plus.
Wont be much of any hill left if to comply with the above projection we have to erect 1500 wind turbines a day for the next 31 years.
The turbines we currently have in Aus will be well worn out before we can all begin to feel warm and fuzzy.
Responsible adults would be better to provide true facts to our young than encourage the Bob Browns and Al Gores with their dangerous personal agendas.
So your point is??
if the figures in the the post above are incorrect then instead of instructing us all to use google you might be able to support your annoyance by providing us with genuine information.
The figures projected above are for a world wide situation not what we have here in Australia.
if we in Australia all choose to throw a bucket full of money at this fantasy it will be to the detriment of our future generations and will not be a saviour to anyone.
Nothing is renewable without an opposite reaction.
Call it skeptical science and therefore we have a result.
Plant a tree is a better solution for our children.
History has shown that many who have been referred to as sceptics in our world have been proven to be correct over time.
That pic is plantation, havnt you seen old growth
cheers
blaze
The direction of my original post was intended to indicate that the projection of eventually relying on renewable energy to power the world is at best, extremely difficult to achieve in the next two generations.
There appears to be scepticism on both sides of the debate as to wether this is achievable or not.
If the figures above are from a sceptic on the unable to achieve side then is there any figures to support that this situation of it can be achieved and if so how many nuclear power stations, wind generators, and solar panels need to be completed each week to achieve this?
Remember, this is on a world scale, not just Australia.
To base it only on Australia when most of the manufacturing countries of the world will ignore these efforts will only create a massive financial burden for future Australians. This wont worry a lot of us on this forum as we are close to the end of our lives.
More info ...
http://www.thegwpf.com/rainforest-trees-cut-down-for-windfarm-transmission-corridor/
ISTM that the dilemma is similar to the question of what to do when an endangered animal eats endangered plants.
Thanks for the link Dorian,
I was unable to upload it as I was not a paid subscriber.
I note also that there is some interesting links to more info at the bottom of the main page.