121–130 of 132 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The tax breaks were set to go down on a schedule. It would be nice if the same were true for oil and gas. Right now, those subsidies for renewables are only creating a more even playing field.
Could you quantify that? I don't believe the subsidy per megawatt for fossil fuels is anything like what it is for renewables.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Renews itself naturally at a rate exceeding that of consumption" Over what period of time (or is the rate of consumption fixed?) and what region of space? "at projected rates of consumption, would be sufficient for forseable demand until the end of time on Earth" Not sure I believe 4B-year forward demand projections... Isn't the amount of energy expended (and/or mass of raw materials mixed) per TWh produced what we…
If you want to dig into the specifics of any given model, well, you'd have to dig into the specifics of the model. If you look at the Timeline of the Far Future, somewhere between 100m and 800m years from now life as we know it on Earth becomes untenable (asteroid impacts, solar flux), if not before (other effects). There are some practical upper long-term limits to human population on Earth. I suspect it's anywhere…
The machines we use to harness energy don't last forever either. If every 30 years I have to replace either 2,600 tons of equipment for energy source A or 200 tons for energy source B, don't I want B?
This article describes the power Germany produced, but doesn't mention the power Germany consumed. Does Germany import a lot of power? If so, that would be a good way to tweak the numbers, just import more non-renewables, and produce less non-renewables at home.
Germany is a net exporter. We exported 8 TWh in the first quarter of 2012, IIRC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to dig into the specifics of any given model, well, you'd have to dig into the specifics of the model. If you look at the Timeline of the Far Future, somewhere between 100m and 800m years from now life as we know it on Earth becomes untenable (asteroid impacts, solar flux), if not before (other effects). There are some practical upper long-term limits to human population on Earth. I suspect it's anywhere…
If the model is physics, the specifics say that there's no such thing as renewable energy. Solar energy doesn't "renew itself", it's generated by the fusion of light elements in the sun. Geothermal energy doesn't renew itself, it's generated by the radioactive decay of heavy elements in the earth. The machines we use to harness energy don't last forever either. If every 30 years I have to replace either 2,600 tons of…
Yes, we all believe in the Third Law of Thermdynamics, and understand that the arrow of time is defined by entropy.
"Renewable" means that the specifically tapped resource will renew, by its own access to its prime driver, faster than we can deplete it. In your geothermal instance, it's the geothermal reservoir that's considered renewable. It's also possible to tap geothermal as a nonrenewable resource (generally in open-cycle systems in which groundwater is vented, release, or otherwise not returned to the reservoir, resulting in eventual depletion).
Even fossil fuels are renewable if the extraction rate is kept below the creation rate. Given that FF were created over roughly 200 million years, and will likely be practically exhausted in fewer than 200, that rate is on the order of 1 million times less than we're utilizing them now (probably more if you consider that extraction rates have accelerated the past 100 years).
Your harnessing plant isn't considered part of the fuel resource, and isn't considered in the sustainability equation, generally, unless you're doing something silly like open-pit nuclear fission to capture waste heat for generation, in which you'll likely exhaust your available habitable planetary surface.
Most likely you're not physically transforming your plant in a way that excludes, say, recycling of raw materials, and/or your plant is comprised of very abundant materials (iron, silicates, etc.) relative to your fuel source. It's not the absolute magnitude of plant material involved in generating energy, it's the portion of same relative to the available resources for replenishing these. Generally, structural materials are much more abundant than energy-containing materials. Starting with the matter surrounding and below you at this moment.
In related news, German electricity is 30% more expensive than French, and 300% more expensive than American. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing#Global_elec...
In other news German electricity is heavy taxed and Germans consume half the electricity than an American.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The tax breaks were set to go down on a schedule. It would be nice if the same were true for oil and gas. Right now, those subsidies for renewables are only creating a more even playing field.
Could you quantify that? I don't believe the subsidy per megawatt for fossil fuels is anything like what it is for renewables.
Counting per megawatt avoids looking at the subsidies that have been amassing to fossil fuels over decades, and completely avoids the issue of externalities.
Deepwater Horizon is but the most recent example of a catastrophic spill. We never hear of a wind spill. In any case, the big externality is being allowed to dump so much CO2 in our shared atmosphere.
As has happened in other countries, the subsidies have gone down over time. With increased growth we get faster drops in price (that experience curve, again). Compare this to the regulatory capture from oil and gas that has led to ever higher subsidies.
There's a lesson here for startup folks. Years ago, people said renewables wouldn't ever amount to much. Sure, it's growing exponentially, but look at how small it is! And yes, costs keep going down but it will take forever before it's competitive with coal and nuclear. Forever's come and gone. Oil and gas went up in price. Exponential growth generated a nice experience curve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_c…
As someone else said here a while back "The current alternative energies are linear solutions to an exponential problem." I have another lesson. 15 years ago before anyone knew it existed. Denmark invested heavily in wind. It created one of the biggest windmill companies in the world. It did all the right things. Took it to the stock market allowed normal people to invest in it, created lots of new jobs and the stock…
Care to say which ones you have in mind? Are any ready for large-scale deployment so we can avoid climate chaos?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the model is physics, the specifics say that there's no such thing as renewable energy. Solar energy doesn't "renew itself", it's generated by the fusion of light elements in the sun. Geothermal energy doesn't renew itself, it's generated by the radioactive decay of heavy elements in the earth. The machines we use to harness energy don't last forever either. If every 30 years I have to replace either 2,600 tons of…
You're arguing semantics. Yes, we all believe in the Third Law of Thermdynamics, and understand that the arrow of time is defined by entropy. "Renewable" means that the specifically tapped resource will renew, by its own access to its prime driver, faster than we can deplete it. In your geothermal instance, it's the geothermal reservoir that's considered renewable. It's also possible to tap geothermal as a nonrenewab…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're arguing semantics. Yes, we all believe in the Third Law of Thermdynamics, and understand that the arrow of time is defined by entropy. "Renewable" means that the specifically tapped resource will renew, by its own access to its prime driver, faster than we can deplete it. In your geothermal instance, it's the geothermal reservoir that's considered renewable. It's also possible to tap geothermal as a nonrenewab…
You act as if the distinction makes sense. Structural materials are more abundant than energy-containing materials? Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Structures, regardless of what they're made of, contain embodied energy by virtue of having structure.
Sources of useful energy are not hugely abundant. And, in the case of nonrenewable energy sources, are consumed in the process of utilizing them.
If you're looking at the Earth's crust, it's 60% silica, with most of the remaining 40% being various highly oxidized compounds, including certain quantities of dihydrogen oxide.