Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Veteran Nature Program presenter David Attenborough has urged business and political leaders at Davos to provide practical solutions for unlimited clean energy, to prevent climate catastrophe.
‘We need a plan’: Attenborough urges Davos leaders to act on climate change
…
“If people can truly understand what is at stake, I believe that they will give permission to business and governments to get on with the practical solutions. And as a species, we are expert problem solvers.
“But we haven’t yet applied ourselves to this problem with the focus that it requires.
The Blue Planet and Dynasties narrator said: “We can create a world with clean air and water, unlimited energy and fish stocks that will sustain us well into the future. But to do that, we need a plan.”
…
Read more: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/we-need-a-plan-attenborough-urges-davos-leaders-to-act-on-climate-change
I have to say I fully endorse David Attenborough’s call for unlimited energy, I would like to have access to unlimited clean energy as well. If only the engineers would get on with it and build the magic boxes, it’s not like we haven’t repeatedly asked, pleaded and demanded that they stop messing about and come up with a solution.
Don’t know why anyone should take any more notice of him than they would of me. He’s just a TV presenter who now seems to be being used by environmental activists to push their cause.
He did forget the other 2 caveat requirements of
Affordable
and
Reliable
Anything supplied by government is free. At least that what the liberals keep telling me.
Depends on the type of government. The statement is true if it is a sovereign government; it is not true for subservient governments. At least that is how the US Constitution works. Don’t know enough about the constitutions of other governments.
Here is the reason the statement is true for the federal government of the US. The federal government has the right to issue coins and bills of credit (the paper equivalent of coins). States, counties and municipalities are prevented by the Constitution from issuing coins and bills of credit.
Does the federal government have to tax to mint coins? No. Does it have to borrow to mint coins. No. The same things are true for bills of credit. So the federal government can buy or supply things for free (or pretty much next to nothing). States can’t.
The fact that the Federal government does not issue coins or bills of credit in sufficient amounts to pay for anything it wants is due to politics, not the legality of doing it. Simply put, politicians want an excuse for not buying what their citizens need for free. They want to be able to tell the citizens the government can not afford what the people want or need.
@davidgmillsatty: Right so! This shows how something can be obtained at no cost indeed! True, there IS a cost, it’s called political damage, but who cares! Politicians come and go, unaware of worries, regrets and/or responsibilities.
A pleasure to read your crystal-clear, irony-free explanation, sir!
.-
Revamped nuclear in a better regulatory environment is the only technology that does all of that.
But the public has to see it as a saviour not a pollution and risk problem.
Fusion is the only technology that does all of that, but some people are unwilling to wait for the ITER to provide what we need in order to make that a reality.
… unwilling to wait…?
Do we have a choice? I’m waiting.
Use the sun. It’s fusion and it already works. No nuclear waste problem either.
ITER is a dog. Former Fusion Director at DoE Robert Hirsch is on record that magnetic confinement designs such as ITER will never be able to provide commercial electric power.
Other approaches to fusion are actively being developed with private capital.
Doesn’t work well before/between 6:00am and 10:30 or after 2:30 (winter) 4:30 (summer) or 50degrees N Latitude. And doesn’t work at all after 5:00pm (winter) 9:00pm (summer) or before 6:00am
Not to mention reduced capacity on cloudy days possibly down to Nil
Yes Solar is Fusion but it’s unreliable on any given day, sometimes for weeks and never at night.
Nuclear is available rain or shine, windy or still, day or night 24/365.
Except for a 2 week period when a unit is taken offline for refueling
When they begin to act like it is a crisis, I will believe it is a crisis.
The first symptom will be strong demand for nuclear energy.
When they give up flying their private jets in Davos I might give a flying f*ck.
“Record private jet flights into Davos as leaders arrive for climate talk”
“……..up to 1,500 individual private jets will fly to and from airfields serving the Swiss ski resort this week.”
“Political and business leaders and lobbyists are opting for bigger, more expensive aircrafts, according to analysis by the Air Charter Service, which found the number of private jet flights grew by 11% last year.”
“……..possibly due to business rivals not wanting to be seen to be outdone by one another”. Last year, more than 1,300 aircraft flights were recorded at the conference, the highest number since ACS began recording private jet activity in 2013.
But…..but……Sir Davy Attenborough says this is all immoral and destroying the planet……as he walks home.
Ha effing Ha!
Through the Snow…Uphill…In both directions
Add a third caveat: Not violate the laws of physics.
Unlimited, affordable, reliable.
Pick two.
Fossil fuels is the closest you can get to picking all three… for now, at least.
Given the 6 hour time slot when Solar Power is at it’s most robust, to get your power from Solar at night (From where the sun is still shining at least) would require enough solar panels to create the entire global consumption be placed on every quarter of the surface since only 1/4 of the surface is at max potential at any given time
You’re just a uptopia denier
We all know the next stunning renewable development is imminent,coming,under development, just over the horizon and needs just a bit more funding. All will be well, my unicorn said so
The sun.
The sun don’t shine at night and is only productive for 6 hours every 24
And the harvestable energy density per square meter for solar and wind is just not good enough. Never will be. We also want to use the surface of the earth for other purposes: to live on, play on, work on, grow our food on, etc, etc.
We have already lost decades in our optimization of nuclear power because of kowtowing to so-called environmentalists. If they really cared for the environment they would bring up their children to become nuclear engineers, not Jane Fonda lookalikes.
Similarly, somebody who really wants to help reduce human suffering from cancer becomes an oncologist, or a molecular biologist, or a medicinal chemist. They do not become an activist campaigning for new laws to make cancer illegal.
Bryan A
January 23, 2019 at 8:55 pm
“The sun don’t shine at night”
Yes it does & it’s productive for 24 hrs/day.
You may not get accsess to it… but it’s there.
Not in My Country.
Except for the extreme north of Alaska for a few weeks per year but the solar incident angle is far too low to be effective.
Remember,
To convert the Island of Manhattan (NY NY) to 100% Solar in every aspect of energy use 24/7 would require covering an area the size of Connecticut with Solar Panels and Long Island with battery backups
Last time I looked, the Sun Sets every day (quite spectacularly too). You won’t be getting your solar power from a country on the other side of the planet during your night because THEY will be using it themselves during their day time.
He said practical, that covers affordable and reliable. He said clean. He said unlimited.
We don’t have fusion (yet), so it’s not practical (yet). But we do have fission, and the problems are political, not engineering. So when the Greens stop executing their old Soviet anti-nuke code, we’ll know they’re serious.
We have a proven reliable technology that already works right now in fact has been working for more than 100 years. Coal-fired electricity generation. It also happens to be cheap, a lot cheaper than nuclear. Especially when one adds in the cost of insurance. Here in the UK the government (in other words the taxpayer) takes the hit if one of them goes boom because they are uninsurable. Keep building lots of coal plants until something proven to be better and cheaper comes along.
No. Pick the nuclear power we developed at Oak Ridge (molten salt cooling and the thorium cycle) and never used. Here is an Oak Ridge documentary from the time. Molten salt, because it stays liquid for a 1000 degrees C is what makes it affordable. Thorium makes it unlimited for all practical purposes. Nuclear fission has proven to be very reliable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDbq5HRs0o
Supply this video to Attenborough.
Affordable, Reliable, and PORTABLE.
Don’t forget he is employed by the BBC that rampant green fake news organisation.
He’s an ancient old fogey that made nice programs 30-40 yrs ago,a bit like some sort of “Dad’s army” nostalgia seller the BBC program recycling machine is famous for.
Well past the sell by date, like the other nutcase green dictator CAPITAIN COUSTEAU of CALYPSO fame.
What looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck…
But he is a secular saint!
Isn’t he??
Surely.
Whilst I share general concerns about wildlife – rhinos may not last fifty years in the wild, for example – I think St. David has been guzzling the Kool-Aid with the best of them. It keeps him in clean underwear, through the munificence of the BBC [and, no, we are not allowed to know how much he trousers –
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/22/bbc-extraordinary-claim-does-not-know-star-names-paid/ ].
Shock horror.
Auto
Britain’s answer to David Suzuki.
David Attenborough apparently skipped courses in science and engineering. Here is a primer:
First, this is the economic solution for intermittent green energy – typically wind and solar power:
1. Build your wind or solar power system and connect it to the grid.
2. Build your back-up system consisting of 100% equivalent capacity in gas turbine generators.
3. Using high explosives, blow your wind or solar power system all to hell.
4. Run your back-up gas turbine generators 24/7.
5. To save even more money, skip steps 1 and 3.
Despite many trillions in squandered subsidies, green energy has increased from just above 1% to just below 2% is recent decades. Green energy is not green and provides little useful (dispatchable) energy.
Second, understand that fossil fuels comprise fully 85% of global primary energy, unchanged in decades, and unlikely to change in future decades. Ban fossil fuels and everyone in Britain is dead in a month.
Third, understand that atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is too low for optimal plant growth and alarmingly low for the survival of carbon-based terrestrial life. Look up “CO2 starvation” during ice ages.
Fourth, CO2 is NOT a major driver of global warming – any warming caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 will be minor and net-beneficial to humanity and the environment.
Fifth, Earth is colder-than-optimum for humanity and the environment. More than 50,000 Excess Winter Deaths occurred in just England and Wales last winter – an Excess Winter Death rate almost three times the per-capita average in the USA.
Sixth, the only proved solution for global energy is nuclear, but greens hate nuclear more than they hate fossil fuels.
Seventh, … OK. I give up – try as you may, you cannot fix stupid.
That sums it up very well. Would make a good syllabus for “Climate Truth 101” course. Day 1 of the course – read the syllabus; class dismissed for the term.
Thank you Clay for your kind comments.
I can now continue…
Seventh, even of ALL the observed global warming is ascribed to increasing atmospheric CO2, this calculated MAXIMUM climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is only about 1 degree C, which is not nearly enough to produce dangerous global warming. Climate computer models use much higher ASSUMED values to create false alarm.
Eighth, atmospheric CO2 trends lag global temperature trends at all measured time scales, from ~9 months in the modern data record on a ~3 year natural cycle to ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a much longer time cycle. Rational observers have noted that the future cannot cause the past.
Ninth, the continued false warming “adjustments” of the surface temperature record, the fraudulent Mann hockey stick embraced by the IPCC and the Climategate emails all prove the criminal intent of the leaders of the global warming/climate change scam.
Tenth, the IPCC and the leaders of the global warming movement have a perfectly negative predictive track record – every one of their very-scary predictions of runaway catastrophic global warming and more extreme weather have failed to materialize. The ability to correctly predict is the best objective measure of scientific competence, and the warmist cabal have a perfectly negative predictive track record, demonstrated negative competence, and negative personal credibility. Nobody should believe them or their alarmist nonsense.
Eleventh, we published with confidence in 2002 in a written debate with the leftist Pembina Institute:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
Twelfth, we also published with confidence in the same 2002 debate:
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
Past decades of actual global observations adequately prove that these two statements are correct to date. Since then, many trillions of dollars and millions of lives have been wasted due to false global warming alarmism and green energy nonsense. Competent scientists and engineers have known these facts for decades, and we told you so, 17 years ago.
typo:
Seventh, even if
Sounds like a good plan.
Right now the UK’s wind energy is generating 235 Megawatts, in other words virtually zero. And it’s freezing cold. It’s far, far beyond stupid. It’s criminal.
Chris
“He’s just a TV presenter”
So is David Suzuki*, and he has leveraged being able to read a script in a decent voice to running one of our largest grifting organizations currently removing loose loonies and toonies** from innmmerate twits.
* yes, he is a real scientist. His expertise is fruit flies, nothing else.
** thats $1 and $2 coins.
Did he ride his bike to the meetin’? If not his voice is null and void.
He once had a mate on the BBC who was equally respected as a naturalist, David Bellamy but Mr. Bellamy knew that global warming was rubbish and said so publicly. The BBC sacked him so Attenborough saw where the money was and adapted to the new profitable norm. He also saw what happens to non-believers.
David Attenborough has stated that mankind is a plague, presumably because we’re destroying the planet.
Of course, as well as insulting 7 billion people he is completely deluded.
Far from destroying the planet, it seems that mankind is making it greener. Nature clearly *loves* CO2.
It’s a supreme irony: green idiots like Attenborough endlessly demonise the very thing that makes the planet green.
There’s a big problem with global warming: there isn’t enough of it!
Chris
Attenborough would be at odds with the green faction represented by Paul Ehrlich, who stated that having unlimited energy would be “like giving an idiot child a machine gun”.
An easier solution would be to limit the world’s population to the upper 10,000, but it is politically incorrect to speak about loudly.
Sorry, Genocide is not easier than providing clean energy.
it doesn’t have to be a comparison (or choice) when one desired outcome facilitates the other.
It’s not easier because they fight back. They just don’t get it do they? Paradise could be for everyone (who’s left). If only they understood what’s at stake.
/serious/sark.
I don’t know, AC. I think the various Socialists and Communists of the last hundred years have proven that Genocide is surprisingly easy. I just don’t know why so many people on the Left keep suggesting a massive die off of humans would be a solution to anything.
I do note however that almost every time it’s tried, it ends up being someone OTHER then those promoting it that are expected to do the dieing.
~¿~
Don’t give them ideas. They already have bad enough as of now.
Upper? Can I help you decide who is in the upper?
They’ve already self selected
I seriously doubt if any of the 10000 would know how to grow food or to make things so they would just die out through incompetence. There would be no need for the powerful and good if they could not feed themselves. Ask the Mayan priests.
Having unlimited energy would be like giving Paul Earlich a machine gun???
I’ve heard it said that the pen is mightier than the sword.
Paul has written a book and become famous for both the book contents, and his utter failure to have a correct prediction, ever. May as well just give him a machine gun and see if he can hit anything…
Are you implying he couldn’t hit a barn with an elephant?
He could shoot at the ground and miss.
Shoot at the ground and hit his foot.
“But all it’s really going to take is for my friends and I put in charge of everything, with the power to enforce our will upon the occasional skeptical “citizen”.”
That’s the part they always forget to say out loud.
I used to have high regards of the man.
Not so anymore.
Yep. His ‘Life On Earth’ and ‘Blue Planet’ series were epic. He inspired me in many ways. Then he lost his mind.
Attenborough has a really smooth, hushed, soothing voice. Therein ends my admiration of him.
Give man a chance, he’s only 92 and 3/4.
Good point. I let Stephen Hawking slide for the same reason and more.
But Neil deGrasse Tyson has no excuse. He knows better.
The way he jets and helicopters all around to present the case for fake climate change, he is a master hypocrite.
To Eric’s point who doesn’t want what Attenborough wants or seems to be demanding. Beam me up Scottie. I want to be able to transport and avoid airport security but I don’t throw tantrums because somebody hasn’t developed that ability yet.
DAVOS!? I thought there was just a climate conference in Poland, what another one?
In this last quarterly conference they tabled the motion to hold monthly meetings.
John Bell
Davos is a global economics conference. It’s been held in the same luxurious Swiss Alpine village for the last 50 years.
And on the agenda this year is how to develop globalisation and change capitalism.
This of course includes the climate as a necessary component, to terrify the proles.
See my post above on the increasing number, and size of private jets are commissioned to transport the elite to and from this ‘essential’ conference. That is, yet another’essential’ conference.
Pimps, prostitutes and drug dealers need work too
All I need to know is if he took one of the 1200 private jets to get to Davos?
Yes, he did
The folks going to Davos might want to check
http://www.spaceweather.com/
{scroll down about 2/3rds to the “Daily Hot Flights” }
Taking a charter flight to Davos probably catches quite a lot of radiation! 60-70 times sea level dose rate!!
I’m afraid he lost the plot some while ago, I was reading an interview with him recently where he claimed that he was sceptical about agw until he was shown a graph showing, as he described it, co2 in lockstep with temperature.
He didn’t have enough curiosity or nouse to discover that the relationship was the wrong way round!
” I was reading an interview with him [David Attenborough] recently where he claimed that he was sceptical about agw until he was shown a graph showing, as he described it, co2 in lockstep with temperature.”
Yes, that phony “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick chart has fooled a lot of people.
David Attenborough should read the Climategate emails. He will find out that he has been duped by some sly characters.
Here’s the real temperature profile of the globe David:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
The real global temperature profile is the chart on the left, the US surface temperature chart, which shows temperatures were just as warm during the 1930’s as they are today, There is no unprecedented heat to contend with, we’ve been here before in the past.
The chart on the right is the bogus, bastardized modern-period Hockey Stick chart which shows temperatures getting hotter and hotter with each succeeding decade. That’s the chart that fooled you, David.
The Climategate conspirators took the global temperature profile on the left and turned it into the Hockey Stick chart on the right in an effort to bolster their case for human-caused Global Warming/Climate change.
The Climategate conspirators say the US chart doesn’t represent the global temperature profile, but all one has to do is look at unmodified (by the conspirators) local and regional temperature charts from around the world and you will see that they all, more or less, resemble the US surface temperature chart profile which is that the 1930’s were as warm or warmer than subsequent years. None of the unmodified charts resemble the bogus Hockey Stick temperature profile of “hotter and hotter” There is no correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels.
You have been played for a fool, David Attenborough. You should be angry about that. This CAGW scam has caused enormous harm to humanity and the Earth and the creatures that live in it! With no end in sight as long as people like David Attenborough stayed fooled.
Oh, so all we have to do is show him another graph where CO2 levels have broken step with temperature and pulled off into the Y-axis?
Disappointing that one with such a reputation for hands on activities can be ‘convinced’ by what are effectively a couple of email attachments.
Equally disappointing is the stage management of the message. “Quick, we need a well loved public figure everyone can relate to! No one believed that 12 year old Swedish Girl. Go through the BBC’s back cupboard and see who we can get on short notice.”
“But to do that, we need a plan.”
Agree. Plan B, plan A failed.
What we really need is a B ark.
Does David Attenborough think that nuclear is clean?
Small modular ones seem pretty clean to me. So I think the engineers do have the answer Eric.
Mind you what David thinks and what he is paid to say could be very different.
David Attenborough? Wasn’t Prince Charles available?
We are double shifting our 2 best loonies!
Prince Charles wasn’t available. He just flipped over his Land Rover, injuring another driver. He was seen driving the next day without a seatbelt on.
Trebla
That was Charles’ Father, Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh.
Auto
97
That is correct. Philip was the roll over driver. Charles was unable to make the Davos get together because he had a prior appointment to speak to the trees.
Apparently they keep whispering CO2 in quiet breezes as they seek out their essential nutrient.
Charles was also explaining to the less educated trees that his love of hedge laying, was nothing to do with sex.
I think you are right, Trebla. I reckon Charlie “borrowed” the old man’s car, pranged it and gave his name as Chookie Enbrough.
I believe Prince Charles was… uh … busy … imagining himself to become a tampon so he could be even closer to Camilla. Yeah, I know … ewwwwww!!! But the man is on-tape … speaking like that to his mistress. And I’m going to take advice from THAT loony-tune?
Be patient, cold fusion is just a few weeks away. In the mean time, I’d be frozen solid without fossil fuels.
Cold fusion is complete BS. Always has been, always will be.
Perhaps they should try Luke Warm Fusion instead
I prefer Thai/Cajun Fusion.
^¿^
Demand in one hand, defecate in the other. Tell us which fills up first.
Or, tell us which gets the most attention, positive or negative.
What is about leftists and this belief that all they need to do to create what they want, is demand that it be created?
They believe in magic.
“If people can truly understand what is at stake, I believe that they will give permission to business and governments to get on with the practical solutions.”
Should read:
“If people can truly be made to accept the propaganda, I believe that they will give permission to business and governments to get on with implementing the useless policies that would do nothing about the alleged “problem” if it was real, while consolidating power and control with the politically connected scum pushing the propaganda, which is the result we, your betters, desire.”
Unlimited clean energy and fish stocks…and a holodeck. I really want that holodeck.
Gee – wasn’t this the esteemed ‘Sir’ Attenborough who declared the human race a ‘pestilence’? Or was it a plague?
A BBC successful brain bent! All the good things I used to admire him for no longer exist.
Please be aware of the BBC’ s inherent and destructive bias.
Uncontrolled, but a public company.
Seems to me that the answer is quantitative, and fairly predictable.
The price of solar power has definitely been going down. Still, the system we just had proposed for our rooftop ended up costing $3.50 per peak output watt; it has no storage, but rather relies on energy credits to make for a “net zero payment” to the local PG&E company. Unfortunately, this also won’t be the case, since PG&E still (now) charges for grid use, connection use (no power delivered), and all the rest of the taxes and levies which it can get away with. So, I expect our power bill to be $100 a month, even with the 7.5 kW peak system in place.
The price of wind power has also been coming down, per kilowatt. The fans are getting bigger — way bigger — upwardsnow of 5,000 kW per fan. But in turn, the net installation price per kW is dropping. Thing is, I do wonder how much more ecologically-sound tappable wind resource there is?
In the US, hydro is pretty much tapped out.
The one thing no one (but we definitely could) do is to use coastal-hills “reverse reservoirs”. Pumping ocean water in, perhaps up as little as 250 meters. Filling up hundreds-of-thousands of acre-feet (hectare-meters, 10,000,000 liters per hectare-foot) with excess renewable energy, for draining in periods of inclement weather, uncoöperative wind, capricious and diurnal variations, seasonality, all that.
Thing is, there are definitely monied interests which while ostensibly glad-handing the while renewable power thing, are definitely working against it in the long run. Companies which have invested thousands of billions of dollars fracking for natural gas, digging millions of oil wells, retrofitting them with low-yield-recovery solvent systems, or who have taken the overburden off of thousands of hills containing coal, or have invested billions digging mines, buying the specialized equipment to mine coal, and all that …
Thing is, those interests are NOT in the least inclined to abandon their investments well short of their expected payback time, unless compensated for the premature losses.
Got that last part?
Unless compensated for the premature cessation losses.
Because ultimately, whether you’re in a capitalist system, or a socialist one, or a commie one, you really don’t want to invest substantial monies only to see no return (or big losses) on the investments.
BUT IT STILL CAN WORK, in a way. (“work” → “substantially becoming dependent on renewable energy as a civilization”).
It’ll take the other bitter pill: taxation, tariffs, surcharges, legislation and ultimately, government underwriting the preferred future energy industry.
That pill is anathema to many. The thought of more taxation on something which already has fairly high taxes, in order to displace it, and ultimately to tax it high enough to even largely thwart future demand … well, that’s almost treasonous.
Yet it isn’t.
It turns out to be the only path to implement the renewable-energy-is-our-goal future.
And whilei there’s nothing wrong with the goal, it flies in the face of most-everyone here.
Taxation, to raise the price of the exiting product.
To invest in the future market.
Kind of riles the progressive / libertarian harbored in most peoples hearts.
Just look at the comments here!
Yet, I challenge anyone to describe an accelerated future that substantially replaces petrochemical fuel with renewable electrical (and possibly organic) energy. Without taxation.
That is a serious challenge.
Anyone here up to take a few bites out of the elephant?
Just saying,
GoatGuy
Of course it can’t be done.
But if its carbon free energy you want its 50GW of nukes in the UK
WAY cheaper that renewables/storage/mess of transmission lines etc etc.
Nuclear is not a solution.
It’s the only solution.
Goatguy, one look at the UK’s grid status page – it doesn’t matter what the cost of solar or wind is (and it is exceptionally high when fairly costed) because you can never have enough – it often produces nothing/negligible on a continental scale! Storage of sufficient capacity to overcome this is just ruinously costly insanity and a physical impossibility.
Yes, there are times when renewable energy, especially in nations vexed by long, long seasonal fogs, overcast sky, freezing rain … don’t have Solar. Usually though at least “stormy” is positively associated with wind power. Not always.
But in the end, it is one where “sufficient storage capacity” is almost always possible with things liek synthetic hydroelectric (i.e. reverse-pumped reservoirs). Just have to have the highlands and expanses of low-value land to do it. Clearly it wouldn’t be the solution for a lot of shires. But it is for some.
While he’s easy to make fun of, the Elon Musk municipal-scale battery concept isn’t completely feather headed. It is particularly good at dealing with capricious sources (like solar in lightly cloudy weather), back-filling efficiently. Not so good for long stretches of low renewable energy production.
For the longer periods, I think one can make quite decent arguments for “80% renewable, 20% petrochemical, mostly for the longer gotchas”. One might reasonably as other authors have expressed, turn that into something “French” — 60% nuclear, 30% renewable, 10% backstop-petrochemical power.
But there is a calculus of tradeoffs that isn’t all that hard to optimize.
In the end.
GoatGuy
“… there are times when renewable energy, especially in nations vexed by long, long seasonal fogs, overcast sky, freezing rain … don’t have Solar. ”
Many of these times are commonly referred to as “Night”.
“While he’s easy to make fun of, the Elon Musk municipal-scale battery concept isn’t completely feather headed. It is particularly good at dealing with capricious sources (like solar in lightly cloudy weather), back-filling efficiently. Not so good for long stretches of low renewable energy production.”
You clearly do not live in South Australia. At very best it is a very expensive solution to a problem of their own creation. It – so the fans claim – was never intended to power the state, but help smooth out the transitions when grid collapsing spikes appeared in the system.
Now if our beloved local leaders would just embrace the concept of BASELOAD and commit to a new coal (or even better Nuke) plant then both the problem and the solution needed would completely go away.
Musk is a con, his giant battery is a con, and the wind power obsessed tool of an ex state premier should be forced to spend the rest of his walking life doing community service as an apology for the generation long amount of damage he has done to our state.
Even taxation, tariffs, etc. aren’t enough. You will need to control the demand side (consumer/user) if you want any chance at building a power generation system based on solar and wind power. That would cause the biggest push-back: telling the consumer that no, you can’t have power when you want it, even if it’s the difference between life and death.
Using ocean water for pumped storage is definitely not a good idea. Unless the reservoir and the spillway is completely waterproof the salt water will infiltrate and you will end up creating a salt desert.
replaces petrochemical fuel with renewable electrical (and possibly organic) energy.
==========
electricity is not a fuel. it is a delivery method. you cannot replace fuel with something that is not fuel and expect a satisfactory solution.
once you accept that electricity is not fuel, then it becomes a matter of storing wind and sunlight, as we do now with coal, oil, gas, hydro and nuclear.
the problem is all about storage, so that you can match supply and demand. conventional fuels can all be stored in vast quantities until needed. We have very limited capability to store wind.
Sunlight we can store, in plants, but as has been seen with ethanol, it is hard to break even with plant based energy. similar to fusion. We can build a fusion machine (fusor) for about $1000 that will fuse deuterium and release energy. But it take a lot more energy in than you receive out.
Aaahh so, ferd b, ……. common sense thinking, logical reasoning and intelligent deductions always pose big problems for the naysayers, the inexperienced and the miseducated.
Part of the propaganda push for AGW involves getting the rich and famous to become spokespeople as in advertising. The only thing I can figure out is the rich and famous are wined and dined and convinced it’s their duty to save the world and without them there’s no chance of it. That they will go down in history as being change agents for the good. On another note….. who cares what a sports figure, actor, socialite, or wealthy person believes?
Why do so many people mistake social fame for simple intelligence?
In this regard, Attenborough is not any different than the bubble-headed beauty contestant/winner expressing her desire to ‘solve world hunger’.
Maybe he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
“And as a species, we are expert problem solvers.”
We’re pretty good at BS detection too…
“We;re pretty good at BS detection too…”
Craig, the wide-spread belief in the Climate Hustle disproves that assertion pretty handily. We are hardwire-programmed (via evolution’s natural selection) to believe stuff simply on faith based on Appeal to Authority arguments, especially if the claims fit pre-exisitng biases. Hence the use of mass propaganda, celebrities to push it, and rentseeking pseudoscientists to claim “overwhelming consensus”, by those pushing the climate hustle.
Sometimes I think all these types like Al Gore, Attenborough, DiCaprio (and so many others) are all competing for the 21st Century’s title of King of the Bunco men.
The top 19th Century Bunco men included Hungry Joe, Tom O’Brien, and Charles P. Miller.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_Joe
The 19th Century con men stories are a lost narrative in today’s society. Which commits us to repeating those mistakes every few generations as societal amnesia sets in.
And the catch phrase of Brunco men (con men) has always been, “There’s a sucker born every minute.”
I saw an article that claimed that 56% of voters approve of Medicaire for all.
Most people are convinced that free lunches are possible, so long as the government provides them.
Those 56% are zero-liability voters. They don’t have to believe free lunches are possible. They simply have to believe it won’t cost them anything.
Joel, I disagree. At some superficial level, the belief may be widespread, but a concern over it certainly isn’t. In public opinion polls, it doesn’t even register. Given the nonstop barrage of one-sided disinformation promoting the scam, I’d say folks BS detectors, by and large, are working just fine.
Joel O’Bryan – January 23, 2019 at 11:19 am
Hate to be picky, but, ……. “Nah”, ….. “We are nurtured by our environment (parents, guardians, peers, etc.) to believe stuff …… etc., etc.” ……… except that said “pre-existing biases” is nothing more than one person accusing another person of having a mental problem because of their disagreement(s).
They are as dumb as rocks.
It explains a lot.