I wonder how they’ll manage to put 25,000 offshore wind turbines in place after seeing the long battle (back to 2001 for the first permit) to get Cape Wind in Massachusetts approved with enviros switching sides to protect viewsheds, and it still isn’t built. I can’t see California’s sensitive coastline to go any easier, and never mind the other projects they propose, which will have their own challenges. The biggest failure of the plan seems to be lack of backup power for when the wind doesn’t blow, the sun doesn’t shine, and the tides are lower than usual. – Anthony
Stanford study shows how to power California with wind, water and sun (press release via Eurekalert)
New Stanford research outlines the path to a possible future for California in which renewable energy creates a healthier environment, generates jobs and stabilizes energy prices.
By Rob Jordan
A Stanford study outlines how power from facilities such as the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in California’s Mojave Desert can be part of the state’s renewable energy future. (Courtesy of BrightSource Energy)
Imagine a smog-free Los Angeles, where electric cars ply silent freeways, solar panels blanket rooftops and power plants run on heat from beneath the earth, from howling winds and from the blazing desert sun.
A new Stanford study finds that it is technically and economically feasible to convert California’s all-purpose energy infrastructure to one powered by clean, renewable energy. Published in Energy, the plan shows the way to a sustainable, inexpensive and reliable energy supply in California that could create tens of thousands of jobs and save billions of dollars in pollution-related health costs.
“If implemented, this plan will eliminate air pollution mortality and global warming emissions from California, stabilize prices and create jobs – there is little downside,” said Mark Z. Jacobson, the study’s lead author and a Stanford professor of civil and environmental engineering. He is also the director of Stanford’s Atmosphere/Energy Program and a senior fellow with the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and the Precourt Institute for Energy.
Jacobson’s study outlines a plan to fulfill all of the Golden State’s transportation, electric power, industry, and heating and cooling energy needs with renewable energy by 2050. It calculates the number of new devices and jobs created, land and ocean areas required, and policies needed for infrastructure changes. It also provides new estimates of air pollution mortality and morbidity impacts and costs based on multiple years of air quality data. The plan is analogous to one that Jacobson and other researchers developed for New York state.
The study concludes that, while a wind, water and sunlight conversion may result in initial capital cost increases, such as the cost of building renewable energy power plants, these costs would be more than made up for over time by the elimination of fuel costs. The overall switch would reduce California’s end-use power demand by about 44 percent and stabilize energy prices, since fuel costs would be zero, according to the study.
It would also create a net gain, after fossil-fuel and nuclear energy job losses are accounted for, of about 220,000 manufacturing, installation and technology construction and operation jobs. On top of that, the state would reap net earnings from these jobs of about $12 billion annually.
According to the researchers’ calculations, one scenario suggests that all of California’s 2050 power demands could be met with a mix of sources, including:
- 25,000 onshore 5-megawatt wind turbines
- 1,200 100-megawatt concentrated solar plants
- 15 million 5-kilowatt residential rooftop photovoltaic systems
- 72 100-megawatt geothermal plants
- 5,000 0.75-megawatt wave devices
- 3,400 1-megawatt tidal turbines
The study states that if California switched to wind, water and sunlight for renewable energy, air pollution-related deaths would decline by about 12,500 annually and the state would save about $103 billion, or about 4.9 percent of the state’s 2012 gross domestic product, in related health costs every year. The study also estimates that resultant emissions decreases would reduce global climate change costs in 2050 – such as coastal erosion and extreme weather damage – by about $48 billion per year.
“I think the most interesting finding is that the plan will reduce social costs related to air pollution and climate change by about $150 billion per year in 2050, and that these savings will pay for all new energy generation in only seven years,” said study co-author Mark Delucchi of the University of California, Davis.
“The technologies needed for a quick transition to an across-the-board, renewables-based statewide energy system are available today,” said Anthony Ingraffea, a Cornell University engineering professor and study co-author. “Like New York, California has a clear choice to make: Double down on 20th-century fossil fuels or accelerate toward a clean, green energy future.”
Currently, most of California’s energy comes from oil, natural gas, nuclear power and small amounts of coal. Under the plan that Jacobson and his fellow researchers advance, 55.5 percent of the state’s energy for all purposes would come from solar, 35 percent from wind and the remainder from a combination of hydroelectric, geothermal, tidal and wave energy.
All vehicles would run on battery-electric power and/or hydrogen fuel cells. Electricity-powered air- and ground-source heat pumps, geothermal heat, heat exchangers and backup electric resistance heaters would replace natural gas and oil for home heating and air-conditioning. Air- and ground-source heat pump water heaters powered by electricity and solar hot water preheaters would provide hot water for homes. High temperatures for industrial processes would be obtained with electricity and hydrogen combustion.
To ensure grid reliability, the plan outlines several methods to match renewable energy supply with demand and to smooth out the variability of wind, water and sunlight resources. These include a grid management system to shift times of demand to better match with timing of power supply; and “over-sizing” peak generation capacity to minimize times when available power is less than demand. The study refers to a previously published analysis that demonstrated that California could provide a reliable grid with nearly 100 percent clean, renewable energy.
The footprint on the ground for the new energy infrastructure would be about 0.9 percent of California’s land area, mostly for solar power plants. The spacing area between wind turbines, which could be used for multiple purposes, including agriculture and rangeland, is another 2.77 percent.
“I believe that with these plans, the people and political leaders of California and New York can chart a new way forward for our country and for the world,” said study co-author Robert Howarth, a Cornell University professor of ecology and environmental biology.
The study’s authors are developing similar plans for all U.S. states. They took no funding from any interest group, company or government agency for this study.
Rob Jordan is the communications writer for the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.
-30-
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
M Courtney says: July 25, 2014 at 1:14 am:
But the article does tell us one thing of note:
Air Pollution is now being used as the motivator for Green Energy.
AGW is no longer the prime argument.
Who says the science argument is not worth winning? The politics is following.
They are morphing the debate, basically saying it doesn’t matter if CO2 causes warming ( though they will still argue that it does), getting rid of the terrible CO2 pollution we are creating is still necessary. If they can’t convince convince us of GW, they’ll try convincing enough people that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, and continue pushing ruinous policies on us. Avoiding GW will be a secondary, but important, byproduct of ending CO2 pollution in their arguments.
Some of you might be happy if they concede that CO2 may not cause cAGW, but what good is that if they still get their way of devestating our way of life?
“The study concludes that, while a wind, water and sunlight conversion may result in initial capital cost increases”
“May” result. And the sun might come up tomorrow.
It feels like it’s free when you are spending Other People’s Money.
If you like your current (grid) you can keep your (grid). Now where have I heard that line before?
Dr Ken Pollock at 3:04 PM has come nearer to what I see as the real issue – That it is the control of when the power is used. It is the changing of when people will or would be able to consume the power in attempts to keep the grid balanced. Due to the fact that the proposed green sources feeding this new grid provide the power in a relatively uncontrolled way – that is only when the sun, wind, tides, or whichever source producing the power is shining, blowing, moving, or otherwise turning a turbine. Intermittent power in, would by necessity require intermittent power out (usage) to maintain balance – in the absence of reliable back-up to balance spike demand. How to do this? Enter that old venerable approach – Smart Grid. Coupled with public ridicule, and artificially making power more expensive when the masters do not want you to use it – viola! A balanced green grid. Hearts and minds if not outright top-down control. Bye-bye, freedom of choice – all for Gaia, you know. This one says “No Thanks” to that paradigm.
And in other related news:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/596e17d7cac720848525781f0043629e/65272c5c40714d9085257d20004d1a38!OpenDocument
And the beat goes on……
Well, let’s see here. Maybe we “can” come up with some times and frequencies.
1. Solar energy is available only 6 hours each day – between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM each average day of the year. No more. So, 3/4 of the time (15:00 each afternoon through 09:00 the next morning), solar energy is NOT available in California. We can quibble about winter time and summer time solar durations if you wish. We can also quibble about the north-south distribution of solar energy up and down CA if you wish.
2. We MUST however, discuss seriously the effect California’s Mediterranean climate has on the weather across California in general, and the energy production along the coast (near-constant heavy dark clouds), the coastal mountains (near-zero half the year, near continuous half the year), the Central Valley (irregular but heavy clouds all year round, 3/4 rainy/stormy days in the winter (October-April) and full-desert (no rain at all) from April through October). The Sierra Mountains? Heavy, snow-laden clouds 50% of the year, regular summer cloud cover. Fortunately, the snow-bound Sierras are neither heavily populated (very low population density) nor heavy energy demand regions. What MASSIVE power AND water supplies are available have already been turned (against massive Eco-fananatic extremist protests!) into the water and energy suppliers of the rest of the state. No Hetch Hechy water? No San Francisco water, no San Jose water, no Silicon Valley water, much less California power. No Shasta water or power? No Sacramento water and much less Central Valley power.
Thus, 50% of those 25% of the hours that the sun DOES shine high enough to potentially generate power on the ground in California, the sun is blocked by either full or intermittent cloud cover. Oopsie! No solar power 87.5% of the time. Looking at it differently, you need to install 7 times the area of solar panels to generate enough of the power that you DON’T get 7/8 of the time to “average” one day’s average power.
3. Storage for the excessive 7x power being generated 1/8 of the time? None at present. Nothing coming in the realistic future. Nothing coming even in an optimistic future. But that reality won’t stop the Eco-fanatic’s and Eco-politcians living in a dream world of smoky back rooms and self-serving media liars and publicists.
5. Tides? Well, I LIKE the idea of generating power from tidal propellers anchored underwater in San Francisco’s deep channels at the Golden Gate. Don’t think the Eco-fanatics will ever permit them, but the idea is worthwhile pursuing. But nobody ever discusses workable 24-hour-per-day power generation. THAT idea is not “popular” and so it will never happen.
Short (vertical-propelled) tide and small wave generators? Open ocean semi-thermal exotic cycles using millions of gallons of highly poisonous highly-volatile liquids at sea in un-manned remote buoys running without repair or supervision or daily maintenance? Sure!
Those are politically corrupt (er, politically correct) and will get funded. Useless, but they have regularly been promoted and “studied” by the university funding political machinery. Unfortunately, they are also VERY VERY small energy producers requiring very wide area installations across very, very expensive ocean-anchored distances in surprisingly deep waters. Ain’t gonna happen in the real world where ocean-anchored systems are very expensive, very hard to maintain, and very, very hard to run cables back to the seashore. Which is NOT going to receive permits to drag and install very, very expensive cables and overhead wires across dunes, beaches, mountains, Eco-restrained valleys and hill-sides, and wilderness preserves. One recent West Virginia-Pennsylvania-Virginia 200 mile powerline required over 12 YEARS of permitting just to get approval to cross the mountains to improve reliability in the east coast. Now, try to convince Californians to approve a power line and transformer station on the beaches just south or north of San Francisco? They are still trying to blow up the Hetch Hechy dam laid in the 1910-1920’s just so they can look at the muddy rock-stained nude walls of a remote canyon in the Sierra mountains covered 80 years ago!
Tidal power – even in the Golden Gate channels draining the vast SF Bay – is either dead zero as water level stops changing each ~12 hour lunar min-max period, or decreases significantly if river assisted as at the Golden Gate. Tidal power REQUIRES a changing height of water to create the potential energy used => No power 50% of the time. Admittedly, the 50% of no-power from tides will be predictable – MUCH better than solar’s and wind’s irregular production rates! – but still, 50% of the time – tidal power is producing “nothing” while solar is producing “nothing” 75% of the time.
Wow. Let’s be sure to turn off Silicon Valley regularly so the rest of the state can turn on its lights.
How much more detail is needed? Want to discuss air conditioning? Manufacturing? Farming? Water use? Water supplies? Snow storage and flood control? Shipping and China shipping receipts into the rest of the US? Intermodel transportation from the CA ports?
Health aspects of “pollution”? Hmmmn. The La Brea Tar pits have been draining asphalt and tar residues into the LA water supplies for …. 20,000 years now? The mid-ocean oil pools underwater off of Long Beach have been draining oil into the sea for 20,000,000 years now? (Less now actually, since we have been able to reduce the underground oil pressures and reducing the oil seepage! )
Are our sewage treatment and water cleansing and water purification NOT getting millions of of people MORE water, cleaner water at lower prices than ever in history? Better pharmaceuticals and medicines and hospitals due to more reliable power than wind or solar? Yes: LA air needed improvement. But lives even under polluted skies were longer than under no power and no transportation but oxen and horses and no lights and bad heating and no air conditioning and no screens and no sewage treatment! (But lots and lots of free BS on the streets! Well – maybe the last is even more pronounced today. )
What I love about green energy is once you create a wind farm or solar farm or free-range unicorn-fart harvesting farm, nothing ever needs maintenance or repair. Nope, everything is free forever after.
About 37.4% of the total power from this architecture comes from wind turbines, 35.9% from concentrated solar plants, and 22.4% from rooftop PV solar cells. Geothermal, waves, and tidal power add up to 4.3% and are so insignificant to the whole that they could be eliminated within the accuracy of this whole calculation. (The fact that they were included at all, to no practical effect, makes one wonder about the thinking of the architect.) The variability of the wind component alone would require comparable “spinning” reserve power. The rest of it is available (at best) on a diurnal cycle. Imagine nearly 60% of your electrical power being unavailable during evening, night, and morning. A perfect emulation of North Korea.
Did anyone estimate the tons and tons of aluminum and copper that would be required to wire all this into a connected system? Or the heavy metals needed to supply all the load-leveling battery systems—and their systematic consumption over time, because every battery technology has a limitation on charge-discharge efficiency as a function of the number of charge-discharge cycles?
So there would be an initial increase in cost due to building the systems, but the benefits! Yes, you can replace the windmills and solar panels every 25 years of so and you can use all that excess water they have over there washing off the solar collectors so as to keep them functioning somewhere near full capacity. As for the windmills, well, there are those times that the wind doesn’t blow hard enough, and then there those when it blows too hard. But batteries that will need replacing every few years can collect and hold the energy not used to recharge the cars and run the air conditioners or pumping water up hill to power hydrogeneration in Calitopia. And of course I am sure there was certainly no impact on the environment and the habitats of all those species that Calitopia conservationists wish to protect with all those shiny rooftops, bird choppers spinning in the breeze, those lake looking structures in the desert that specialize in frying migrant birds, and bobbing wave generators. Why is it these “visionaries” never look beyond their visions at the consequences of their changes?
LA is subject to temperature inversion layers, which is the biggest reason they tend to get smog. But that is LA’s problem, and certainly no reason to change the energy systems of the entire state, nor indeed the nation. They are using a common Warmunist trick of conflating actual pollution, which has for the most part been dealt with (although more could probably be done in smog-prone areas like LA) with their Warmist doctrine.
There is a comprehensive analysis of Germany’s 412 billion Euro folly with renewable energy, “Development and Integration of Renewable Energy: Lessons Learned from Germany” prepared by Swiss Consulting company, FAA Financial Advisory AG.The report is linked in the news story about this study:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/21/germanys-412-billion-green-energy-plan-meets-harsh-reality/ I have the pdf file but don’t know how to attach it
The solution to climate change
replacement for fossil fuel powered electrical generation
D.Baker @ur momisuglysilenced_not
Urgent action required, appears to be the consensus of the most learned climate change advocates!
The collective wisdom acquired through trial and error test applications of alleged solutions, has been enlightening, and sobering as agenda driven rhetoric failed time after time to deliver a replacement technology for the fossil fuel powered electrical generating facilities, which are the primary sources.of GHG the alleged culprits inducing global climatic destabilization!
Most recently 2 documents have corroborated a much maligned document I wrote!
In My Opinion! lnkd.in/ifM2au@ur momisuglyInc
* Leaked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the report says that agricultural output may drop by as much as two percent every decade for the rest of this century, compared to what it would have been without the effects of climate change. Demand for food is reportedly expected to rise 14 percent each decade during that time, exacerbating the food supply issue.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/1/5056260/ipcc-leaked-climate-change-report-warns-severe-food-constraints
* letter, by Kenneth Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution, Kerry Emanuel at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, James E. Hansen of Columbia University and Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Adelaide
“To Those Influencing Environmental Policy But Opposed to Nuclear Power”
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/to-those-influencing-environmental-policy-but-opposed-to-nuclear-power/?_r=0
Unfortunately building conventional nuclear facilities is not realistic due to the costs associated with safety issues.
This leaves you with one option other than Geo-engineering “A New Nuclear Technology”!
Geo-engineering is the newest subsidy for the fossil fuel industry and is wrought with unknown risks and dangers and therefore not an option.
The New Nuclear Technology I propose is as follows:
Human Excrement + Nuclear Waste = Hydrogen
disq.us/8en3l0
lnkd.in/ifM2au@ur momisuglyInc
http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=938667&type=member&item=5794160567027515392&commentID=5794504904257064960&report%2Esuccess=8ULbKyXO6NDvmoK7o030UNOYGZKrvdhBhypZ_w8EpQrrQI-BBjkmxwkEOwBjLE28YyDIxcyEO7_TA_giuRN#commentID_5794504904257064960 … … … … … … … … … …
You’ve tried everything else first and these have failed adding to the urgency of action required!
Dennis Baker
1. – 998 Creston Avenue
Penticton BC Canada V2A1P9
dennisbaker2003 at hotmail.com
@ur momisugly dennisearlbaker @ur momisugly silenced_not
http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=938667&type=member&item=5794160567027515392&commentID=5794504904257064960&report%2Esuccess=8ULbKyXO6NDvmoK7o030UNOYGZKrvdhBhypZ_w8EpQrrQI-BBjkmxwkEOwBjLE28YyDIxcyEO7_TA_giuRN#commentID_5794504904257064960 … … … … … … … … … …
You’ve tried everything else first and these have failed adding to the urgency of action required!
Dennis Baker
1. – 998 Creston Avenue
Penticton BC Canada V2A1P9
dennisbaker2003 at hotmail.com
at dennisearlbaker at silenced_not
Greg Goodman says:
July 24, 2014 at 2:14 pm
Since one of California’s biggest energy needs is air-con, there should be a lot of scope for powering this from solar. The days when there’s no sunshine in the sunshine state will be days that need less power for air-conditioners.
This could even be sourced on an individual basis, thus taking a lot of load off the grid.
Also if there is a major move to electric vehicles the batteries in those vehecles are a form of distributed back up storage.
=======================================================================
Right, because electric vehicles work really well when their batteries are discharged.
I see Sowell is flat out laying again about nuclear power. “Near miss meltdown every 3wks.” That’s rich. He’s ready to start writing for the IPCC.
Lying not laying.
dennisearlbaker says:
July 25, 2014 at 4:00 pm
The New Nuclear Technology I propose is as follows:
Human Excrement + Nuclear Waste = Hydrogen
Wow. I hope Canada’s health care system covers mental health.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116877/Is-future-Britains-wind-rush.html
“The key lesson from history is that when the subsidies go, the wind farms go,’ he told me. ‘It costs too much to maintain them and they just get abandoned.”
Nothing else needs to be said
Oil Industry knows Wind and Solar not real threat to Fossil Fuels.
#solution #ClimateChange pic.twitter.com/f0W2DIlong #CO2 http://sfy.co/gb3A pic.twitter.com/UL8VkLzuvw
RACookPE1978 says:
July 25, 2014 at 12:41 pm
5. … Don’t think the Eco-fanatics will ever permit them, but the idea is worthwhile pursuing. But nobody ever discusses workable 24-hour-per-day power generation. THAT idea is not “popular” and so it will never happen.
—
They do discuss it but only in the context of projects which are wildly uneconomic and won’t be funded. But they really only wanted a cut of the consultancy funds for such proposals anyway. Current leftist state-funded media won’t even discuss the crippling economics of the more hair-brained schemes (Hot Rocks for instance). Instead they keep dangling them out there like they are a credible option, spreadsheets and studies not withstanding.
The state media and green wingnuts have done the same trick (keep it dangling out there) with the false claim that observable sea-level rise in Kiribati confirmed global warming, when they know perfectly well that it’s due to geodetically measured regional oceanic crustal subsidence combined with seasonal winds and SST thermal expansion. The Islanders of course knew that all along, but because they wanted someone else’s money, they bleated on like it was the end of their world and played up the idea of massive compensation and UN responses, and evacuation to Australia at someone else’s expense. The ABC, SBS and Kiribati have gone quiet on the scam recently but I’m not convinced any of them have given up on their myth making yet. More likely they fear Abbot might finally call them out and tell them to get stuffed. Better to wait until a hard-left govt appears again before pressing on that button, the facts are optional for the objective professional journalists at the ABC.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/kiribati-was-half-submerged-in-wwii/
http://ict.sopac.org/VirLib/TR0167.pdf
keeping the nonsense dangling out there is part of the game.
kenw says:
July 25, 2014 at 10:16 am
Unmentionable says:
July 25, 2014 at 9:57 am
Steve Reddish says:
July 24, 2014 at 6:12 pm
*******
No, wrong on all accounts. the silence will require legislation to add noisemakers to warn Bambi and friends of oncoming traffic. The din from high-frequency warning devices (harmonics of which will be very audible to humans) will be positively deafening. and therefore require yet another round of solutions. And grants to research them.
—
“… I … I feel a great disturbance in the Farce … as if millions of taxpayers cried out in terror … then were suddenly silenced. …”
Unmentionable says at July 26, 2014 at 3:40 am …
Yup, that wins. The thread has an unbeatable winner.
Richard
They say,
but my brain hears “This is an obsessive-compulsive disorder focus with us and our product has been informally reviewed by our crony-peers of the same obsessive-compulsive disorder focus”.
My state (Michigan) the watermellons tried to push through a mandate for amend the state constitution to include a renewable energy mandate of 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources like wind, solar, and biomass power by 2025; Since 2008, Michigan law requires that 10 percent of the state’s electricity be generated from renewable energy sources by 2015 and has been in effect since 2008. This effort failed by a 62 percent margin, the mix we have is proving effective, a modest and achievable “renewable” goal, located in areas that are both conducive to wind generation and the local population actually wants the turbines in their area. 10 % works, 25% doesn’t.
Greg Goodman July 24, 2014 at 2:14 pm:
If you look at the the charts of actual solar production and of electricity use,
http://www.caiso.com/Pages/ISOToday.aspx
you will discover that production peaks at noon and drops off quickly after 3pm, in the summer, while use peaks at 5 pm. The gap must be bridged by storage or by other means of production.
Several people have pointed out how silly the second idea is. You can use them for back up, or you can drive them, but they can’t be in two places at once.
Sciguy54 July 24, 2014 at 5:50 pm:
“Ask an in-the-know German how Energiewende is going TODAY. ”
An excellent article from Der Speigle the leading German newsmagazine:
“Germany’s Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good”
By SPIEGEL Staff 09/04/2013 07:15 PM
“Germany’s agressive and reckless expansion of wind and solar power has come with a hefty pricetag for consumers, and the costs often fall disproportionately on the poor. Government advisors are calling for a completely new start.”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html
And from the British Financial Newspaper Financial Times:
“Germany’s energy policy is expensive, harmful and short-sighted” By Bjorn Lomborg
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9d6ba56a-a633-11e3-8a2a-00144feab7de.html
“Berlin is failing the poor while protecting neither security nor the climate, writes Bjorn Lomborg”
“Germans told of billions lost to trade due to energy policy” By Jeevan Vasagar in Berlin
February 26, 2014 11:03 pm
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/352dfaf4-9efc-11e3-8663-00144feab7de.html
RE : sixth mass-extinction event ” Or Not “
I disagree with exclusionists: that the discussion regarding climate is best left to University accredited climatologists..I have to disagree because I’m a Canadian Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, not an University accredited climatologist.A Climatologist interprets vast amounts of data to form an educated and informed picture of Weather.That does not guaranty the Climatologist has sufficient life exposures to energy generation or utilization to form an educated and informed picture, with the exception of projecting emissions impacts of proposed alternatives to Fossil Fuels, on the climate.I recall the Wright Brothers were Bicycle Technicians.not University Accredited Aeronautical Engineers.You can Teach a Monkey how to ride a bike, but you can’t teach a Monkey to fix a bike. These life experiences and exposures were Transferable Skills and Technology enabling humans to fly. The fact is that we as humans all share the same fate, should we come up short on expedited CO2 reductions, regardless of nationality, race, religion,gender,age, color, height ,weight,education political affiliation, sexual preference,language,or any-other terminology applicable to, sub-divide the species.Deniers and acceptance fatalists often reiterate the misinformation that the worst case scenario is human extinction, the Earth will go on without us, as she had in the past.Again Insufficient life exposures to form an educated ,in formed picture. All Life Ends.Humans and the Planet Earth are in a state of Mutually Assured Destruction, she needs us as much as we need her. Without Humans to maintain the Infrastructure containment and storage of the vast volumes of Chemicals and Weapon stockpiles and chemical and biological weapons stockpiles, medicines, gasses and oils.These toxic substances and compounds will eventual escape from containment and storage facilities combining into who knows what super-toxin contaminating earth, water and air, terminating all life.The solution to climate changereplacement for fossil fuel powered electrical generationD..Baker @silenced_notUrgent action required, appears to be the consensus of the most learned climate change advocates! The collective wisdom acquired through trial and error test applications of alleged solutions, has been enlightening, and sobering as agenda driven rhetoric failed time after time to deliver a replacement technology for the fossil fuel powered electrical generating facilities, which are the primary sources.of GHG the alleged culprits inducing global climatic destabilization!Most recently 2 documents have corroborated a much maligned document I wrote! In My Opinion! lnkd.in/ifM2au@Inc* Leaked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the report says that agricultural output may drop by as much as two percent every decade for the rest of this century, compared to what it would have been without the effects of climate change. Demand for food is reportedly expected to rise 14 percent each decade during that time, exacerbating the food supply issue.http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/1/5056260/ipcc-leaked-climate-change-report-warns-severe-food-constraints* letter, by Kenneth Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution, Kerry Emanuel at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, James E. Hansen of Columbia University and Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Adelaide”To Those Influencing Environmental Policy But Opposed to Nuclear Power” http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/to-those-influencing-environmental-policy-but-opposed-to-nuclear-power/?_r=0Unfortunately building conventional nuclear facilities is not realistic due to the costs associated with safety issues.This leaves you with one option other than Geo-engineering “A New Nuclear Technology”! Geo-engineering is the newest subsidy for the fossil fuel industry and is wrought with unknown risks and dangers and therefore not an option.The New Nuclear Technology I propose is as follows: Human Excrement + Nuclear Waste = Hydrogendisq.us/8en3l0lnkd.in/ifM2au@Inchttp://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=938667&type=member&item=5794160567027515392&commentID=5794504904257064960&report%2Esuccess=8ULbKyXO6NDvmoK7o030UNOYGZKrvdhBhypZ_w8EpQrrQI-BBjkmxwkEOwBjLE28YyDIxcyEO7_TA_giuRN#commentID_5794504904257064960 … … … … … … … … … …You’ve tried everything else first and these have failed adding to the urgency of action required!Dennis Baker 1. – 998 Creston AvenuePenticton BC Canada V2A1P9 dennisbaker2003@hotmail.com @dennisearlbaker @silenced_not
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 02:43:11 +0000
To: dennisbaker2003@hotmail.com
It’s lunacy. I just keep thinking about the millions upon millions of birds and bat those wind turbines will kill. Madness.
Well, when Governor Gray (out) Davis (Dem) was last screwing up the Grid in California we had lots of rolling blackouts and I ended up owning 2 generators. (Sold one when he was recalled and power stabilized). With the return of Governor Jerry (Moonbeam) Brown (Dem), electricity rates rocketed up some more ( 19 ¢ / kw-hr base, headed to $1/2 ‘soon’ in filings; peak just under $1 / kw-hr in places with high AC needs). So I live in Florida now… 7 ¢ power, always available….
Oh, and while Apple owned a massive data center in the north S.F. Bay Area, they put their ‘cloud’ facilities on the East Coast rather than deal with California and power issues. I was doing a LOT of “site shutdowns” as folks packed up companies and moved to cheaper places. Electric power cost and stability is a major issue to computer data centers. They can kiss them off (and all the jobs related to them). Chip fab too (though they already chased most of it away already).
Oh, and it became cheaper to use a kerosene stove on the patio than my All Electric Kitchen…
This is just more of the same insanity. Glad to be watching it from a distance.
Probably ought to mention that in the North Central Valley, it can be cold, dank, and foggy for weeks on end. “Tule Fog”. Everything from Chico to Fresno can be under a cloud / fog layer for weeks to months. Then there is the summer coastal fog cycle in places like San Francisco…
So the place with decent sun is in the lower 1/3 of the State. Not going to help N. California under the fog in November… When it’s foggy, there’s little to no wind either. The wind farms they already have fill the best spots already, and they are often idle for many days in a row. Other sites will be worse. The best Geothermal is also already exploited. It works well, but drops off over time as the deep steam cools. Oh, and the notion of replacing all the water heaters with heat pumps is a farce. Exactly where will all the second, third, and fourth floor apartments get their dirt? Land is already scarce, and digging up formal landscaping is not cheap.
California gets a load of power from the nuclear facilities at Palo Verde, Arizona, and via the Pacific DC Intertie from Washington State. They need to recognize that fact… The most valuable land in the state is the land with a coastal view. Nobody is going to let that be covered with windmills and tide machines. It was hard enough getting a nuke plant built in a modestly screened canyon. There is a fair amount of natural gas in State, and what would power the place is a mix of gas and nuclear. Everything else is a pipe dream or a political show.
One way to reduce energy demand, reduce human emissions, lower CO2 emissions, raise the average IQ of the human race, save on health care, reduce unfunded pension liabilities, provide more food for starving humanity, yadda, yadda, etc. etc. is … to cook and eat a greenie demagogue wherever found…
/sarc
This is what can happen to a whole continent on wind power-
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/when-the-wind-doesnt-blow-the-power-doesnt-switch-on/story-fni0d8gi-1226998025051?nk=486724348163f7076e6facc7be6a2aec