Science/Environment Moving Australia to 100% Renewable Energy would actually SAVE us money.

[dockerfemme]

Now I'm no climate scientist / expert / enthusiast.

But I prompt a question, is 'net zero' actually achievable?

For example to make batteries that power EV's it is required to emit carbon to manufacture them, please correct me if need be.

This is just an example, same as solar panels - requires carbon to be emitted to manufacture them.

My point is, and this is not 'climate denying', is that the world does not have the technology (yet) to truly emit zero carbon. So to the thread title '100% renewable' is not actually a thing because at a start point emitting carbon is necessary to achieve that panel or battery.

On Friday, the govt. released it's vague modelling to reach '85%' less emissions, how they come to that number I don't know. And the other '15%' will come from future technologies. It's an admission 'we can't do it yet'

I'd argue no one on the planet can, the tech doesn't exist - yet if you're a govt. or opposition and say 'we can't coz no tech yet' you're a pariah.

I am a person with no technical background in this, but I take a huge interest and read a lot.

I completely agree with you that it is not doable with current technology. We can't make steel or aluminium, we can't have the electricity storage to see us thru periods of low wind and sun, there is no answer for fueling of shipping and planes. While some level of 'negative emissions' may occur thru direct air capture, planting trees or soil sequestration (if that's the right term) I can't see this being close to sufficient to cover all the things we can't address.

As well as the 15% you mention of future technologies (the unknown unknowns), there is another significant percentage of known unknowns such as carbon capture and storage and hydrogen that have to be made to work at scale and financial viability.

I also think there are a myriad of reasons outside of pure technology at a world level. There is a large study performed by Princeton University called Net Zero America which identifies the actions the US needs to take. If I remember correctly, the first thing that needs to be done is double the electricity transmission capacity by 2030 and then add that much again by 2040 (final result of tripling). If you just think about logistical issues like finding the land and going thru planning permission processes it is quite mind boggling. They would have to implement wind and solar at a huge rate year in year out until 2050. (And by the time they get there they will be replacing everything they have put in place in the last 30 years as onshore wind has a life of 20-25 years, solar 30 years, offshore wind not really known but maybe less than 20 years.

Another issue is materials. As a rule of thumb wind and solar require 10 times as much material as fossil fuel power stations etc. They require a lot of specialist minerals (lithium, cobalt, copper etc etc) and the world is just not doing the mining (and exploration etc etc) to cover the future needs. There is a report on this by the International Energy Agency and a report from a British perspective from the British Natural History museum.

Processing, smelting, manufacturing and construction of all this material is never considered.

The scope of work of all this stuff is just mind boggling and it is hard to see how it can possibly occur, without a significant rethink (or even with a significant rethink).

None of this means we should do nothing, and even though our emissions are low on a global level, if we push ahead on things like hydrogen we could have a significant world effect by inventing and proving stuff.

One other thing. My understanding of current thinking of most energy engineers (eg the guy that led the Net Zero America study) is that you need base load electricity, thinking you can go ahead with wind, solar and batteries just isn't going to get financially viable.

One more thing. I worry about the concept of electrifying everything - electric cars and no gas heating, hot water, cooking. It may be not too much of an issue in Australia with its largely warm climate, but in North America and northern Europe a major snow storm could knock out electricity supply for days and people would have no heating, hot water or cooking and quite limited ability to use a car.

I think I have finished.

 

[Pessimistic]

Its a dirty problem which will require some dirty solutions, and some on the green side don't seem to be able to countenance something not "pure" (ignoring some of the shocking outcomes of cobalt mining in africa that is)

Rushing to replace current supply chains (liquid energy) with new ones which themselves may be flawed or immature (electricity transmission) seems like a problem too

That would mean a whole infrastructure of liquid fuel would be abandoned, or needing to be cleaned up as industrial waste - yet there could be clean liquid fuel developed in future.

Is the EV industry trying to get a monopoly as soon as possible so it than then become the intrasigent monster liquid fossil fuel now is?

should it be able to lock in subsidies which would insulate it against better solutions in future?


While I was watching COP26 related stuff in the UK, (I think it was CEO of volvo) said many of these companies we are seeking to force rapid change on - they are all in each of our super funds in some way or another - we all need to consider that

 

[Carringbush2010]

I am a person with no technical background in this, but I take a huge interest and read a lot.

I completely agree with you that it is not doable with current technology. We can't make steel or aluminium, we can't have the electricity storage to see us thru periods of low wind and sun, there is no answer for fueling of shipping and planes. While some level of 'negative emissions' may occur thru direct air capture, planting trees or soil sequestration (if that's the right term) I can't see this being close to sufficient to cover all the things we can't address.

As well as the 15% you mention of future technologies (the unknown unknowns), there is another significant percentage of known unknowns such as carbon capture and storage and hydrogen that have to be made to work at scale and financial viability.

I also think there are a myriad of reasons outside of pure technology at a world level. There is a large study performed by Princeton University called Net Zero America which identifies the actions the US needs to take. If I remember correctly, the first thing that needs to be done is double the electricity transmission capacity by 2030 and then add that much again by 2040 (final result of tripling). If you just think about logistical issues like finding the land and going thru planning permission processes it is quite mind boggling. They would have to implement wind and solar at a huge rate year in year out until 2050. (And by the time they get there they will be replacing everything they have put in place in the last 30 years as onshore wind has a life of 20-25 years, solar 30 years, offshore wind not really known but maybe less than 20 years.

Another issue is materials. As a rule of thumb wind and solar require 10 times as much material as fossil fuel power stations etc. They require a lot of specialist minerals (lithium, cobalt, copper etc etc) and the world is just not doing the mining (and exploration etc etc) to cover the future needs. There is a report on this by the International Energy Agency and a report from a British perspective from the British Natural History museum.

Processing, smelting, manufacturing and construction of all this material is never considered.

The scope of work of all this stuff is just mind boggling and it is hard to see how it can possibly occur, without a significant rethink (or even with a significant rethink).

None of this means we should do nothing, and even though our emissions are low on a global level, if we push ahead on things like hydrogen we could have a significant world effect by inventing and proving stuff.

One other thing. My understanding of current thinking of most energy engineers (eg the guy that led the Net Zero America study) is that you need base load electricity, thinking you can go ahead with wind, solar and batteries just isn't going to get financially viable.

One more thing. I worry about the concept of electrifying everything - electric cars and no gas heating, hot water, cooking. It may be not too much of an issue in Australia with its largely warm climate, but in North America and northern Europe a major snow storm could knock out electricity supply for days and people would have no heating, hot water or cooking and quite limited ability to use a car.

I think I have finished.

Yeah I'm on a similar line of thinking, although not as studious as you seem to have been.

The problems I have is the politicizing / sensationalizing of the whole thing.

1/ The whole world is led to believe that 'net zero' is achievable - like now, when clearly it is not possible as you've outlined.

'everyone just buy solar panels and ev's - that should fix it' without realizing the emissions required to create all that. Not to mention as you stated the materials required is not readily available.

2/ The govt. being totally opaque with their '85%' plan. Just come out and say it FFS - it can't be done yet, that's why we're relying on future technologies.

3/ The crayon eating hand wringers who witch hunt anyone who points out the realism (the govt is too wimpy to point out the realism).

 

[ChampRevesby]

Going to need a revolution (not evolution) in battery tech and/or hydrogen storage and efficiency for current tech to be relevant in reaching any target. Hope we find something and soon, or we could just build 150 nuclear plants like China

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Going to need a revolution (not evolution) in battery tech and/or hydrogen storage and efficiency for current tech to be relevant in reaching any target. Hope we find something and soon, or we could just build 150 nuclear plants like China

We probably wouldn't even need 10.

 

[Kwality]

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

'A corporate push towards carbon neutrality is helping drive up the price of renewable energy and the largest electricity retailers stand to make windfall gains as major companies look to buy up offsets against fossil fuel generation.'

Are offsets just another market to be played, not a useful tool ?

 

[JoondalupJ]

When will people realise that you've watched a 20 minute YouTube video and so know much more about climate science than the combined knowledge of the worlds climate scientists?
But what I'm really interested in is your expert opinion on Ivermectin and its benefits in the management of symptoms of Covid-19?

Don't know if I'd answered you before, but I'll say YouTube music is my main subject in my dotage i LIKE TO GO BACK AND FIND DECENT LISTENING AND READING.
Now get onto scientific books and knowledge and yes opinion in some cases, and find out about the Younger Dryas, I'll say no more, but read about it google it and then try and tell me that global warming is anything more than a natural cycle of earth that we do not cause and we can not take action over , because we do not rule nature, we are part of it, and what we are now is living in a warm calm age on planet earth, in hopefully for a while, a calm corner of the Galaxy, where our Asteroid/comet might not be forth coming for a while, we hope, but at leat we are capable of watching out for them? But nothing is perfect.
The atmosphere needs CO2 we deliver a tiny percentage into the atmosphere, many scientists will be able to describe that, unless someone on BF has a great statistic to throw out that they hope will "prove" the end is nigh, why? Who knows?

Fact is we need the rivers oceans lakes bushlands mountains and cities world wide cleaned up off the ground, so as when in back of Bourke bushland, you don't keep finding bloody empty coke cans etc everywhere !

When the earth s last ice age melted it sort of stopped for a while after a giant giant lake leaked into the Atlantic ocean, and created about 10 centuries of reversal and swamp land and re glaciating , then the warm finally came back, several thousand years back and turned our planet into the calm livable planet we have now, Global Warming saved our arses!

But we could be warming a little more, we could be cooling, heading into an ice age, when? Christ knows , maybe a 100,000 thousand years time??
The ice age the last full on one, started its warming because of the spinning axis of earth moving off its line, don't ask me to explain that, go get some info and read about it.
BUT THAT'S THE SCIENTISTS WHO EXPLAIN THAT SORT OF STUFF AND OF COURSE YOU MAY KNOW MORE THAN THEM??
I know I don't.

But I do know logic and I do tons of reading and I never came to my own conclusions from listening and watching protesters and marches and extinction and warming action (of which there is none)
So after all of that s**t thats been building for years I thought, some of this sounds stupid and driven fanatically.
For reasons I couldn't find, when my first instinct said to me when the "Greta Cult" really got under way, " but we've had ice ages in the past and something must have got pretty warm to melt the ice, See? It's all happened before!
And it'll happen forever until the planet dies , which it will in millions of years, whether we're still on it or not.

So your comment about You Tube is saying nothing, and I would prefer you to say something

Ivermectin was discovered to have an effect on COVID by a scientist in Australia who happened to be part of the team that discovered and I think won a Noble Prize for the tripple therapy stomach ulcer medication that put an end to stomach ulcers when detected and has been a marvelous medical move forward.
I have forgotten his name you look it up.
But Ivermectin used with zinc and other drugs was being used and working in some cases I think??
For reasons unknown Aussie Govts did not take up the evidence offered, I don't know why, but the fellow who did work on this is a very well know and credentialed medical scientist, I suspect Ivermectin already approved and cheap and being used in animals for skin conditions was not going to make anybody lots of money.
I don't know what my opinion of Ivermectin or Hyroxichloroquine is now but I've heard both have been used and HCQ used also with zinc and another drug has seemed to work , but we never hear our media talk on it now, it did, HCQ that is get bad publicity to start with because it was being given to people in too big a doses, some got sick some died, and Donald Trump did not make sensible normal people rubbish its use, of course the haters did, and maybe some copwards in politics said the same just to show they hated Trump , like so many short headline-only readers do, for a vote?

Now if you want to say something make a point, COVID IS TERRIBLE, VACCINATION was THE WAY TO GO, BUT THEY DID MAKE BIG MISTAKES PERHAPS WITH iVERMECTIN AND HCQ, FOR TREATMENTS, I ACTUALLY WAS SAYING STUFF ON BF ABOUT IT 2020.
WHETHER IT WORKS, TAKEN EARLY IN THE RIGHT AMOUNT I DON'T KNOW?

But you might be able to find out on YouTube , while I search the tube for some decent music.

While your at it, look up our earths geological history in books and in doco's in the era of 15,000 years ago to about 6 or 7,000 years ago, all was fine BY 7000 APPROX, beautiful warming and it still is.
But nothing is perfect, thats why big business will solve the mess up renewables has become.

They have the base power and the electricity to build renewables which strangely enough NEED fossil fuels to get started, the circle is a joke though and we should be developing nuclear contained reactors that you can't see, unlike those woeful looking turbines destroying the scenery.
But humans can get hysterical. There is some logic in all that, I reckon you'll have an idea and ideal , but you got to hunt for stuff and what looks true to you, you can make up your own mind. Your own mind.
NOT YOUTUBE CLIPS????

 

[JoondalupJ]

I am a person with no technical background in this, but I take a huge interest and read a lot.

I completely agree with you that it is not doable with current technology. We can't make steel or aluminium, we can't have the electricity storage to see us thru periods of low wind and sun, there is no answer for fueling of shipping and planes. While some level of 'negative emissions' may occur thru direct air capture, planting trees or soil sequestration (if that's the right term) I can't see this being close to sufficient to cover all the things we can't address.

As well as the 15% you mention of future technologies (the unknown unknowns), there is another significant percentage of known unknowns such as carbon capture and storage and hydrogen that have to be made to work at scale and financial viability.

I also think there are a myriad of reasons outside of pure technology at a world level. There is a large study performed by Princeton University called Net Zero America which identifies the actions the US needs to take. If I remember correctly, the first thing that needs to be done is double the electricity transmission capacity by 2030 and then add that much again by 2040 (final result of tripling). If you just think about logistical issues like finding the land and going thru planning permission processes it is quite mind boggling. They would have to implement wind and solar at a huge rate year in year out until 2050. (And by the time they get there they will be replacing everything they have put in place in the last 30 years as onshore wind has a life of 20-25 years, solar 30 years, offshore wind not really known but maybe less than 20 years.

Another issue is materials. As a rule of thumb wind and solar require 10 times as much material as fossil fuel power stations etc. They require a lot of specialist minerals (lithium, cobalt, copper etc etc) and the world is just not doing the mining (and exploration etc etc) to cover the future needs. There is a report on this by the International Energy Agency and a report from a British perspective from the British Natural History museum.

Processing, smelting, manufacturing and construction of all this material is never considered.

The scope of work of all this stuff is just mind boggling and it is hard to see how it can possibly occur, without a significant rethink (or even with a significant rethink).

None of this means we should do nothing, and even though our emissions are low on a global level, if we push ahead on things like hydrogen we could have a significant world effect by inventing and proving stuff.

One other thing. My understanding of current thinking of most energy engineers (eg the guy that led the Net Zero America study) is that you need base load electricity, thinking you can go ahead with wind, solar and batteries just isn't going to get financially viable.

One more thing. I worry about the concept of electrifying everything - electric cars and no gas heating, hot water, cooking. It may be not too much of an issue in Australia with its largely warm climate, but in North America and northern Europe a major snow storm could knock out electricity supply for days and people would have no heating, hot water or cooking and quite limited ability to use a car.

I think I have finished.

You have hit the nail on the head. I am one who believes that the crisis of warming is not a crisis, I'll get that out of the way now.

But your comments dockerfemme ring millions of bells, base load power is needed now to even build renewable operating machinery and hardware.
Whether they work here (maybe) or, in Northern Hemisphere winters is another story.
Renewables earlier in late 2021 actually had the UK HAVE TO RE OPEN COAL FIRE POWER STATIONS ONE WITH WOOD BURNING BECAUSE, THE STILL AIR AND GREY WEATHER HAD STOPPED SUN AND WIND, it also happened in Germany and other places the electricity prices went insane.

So indeed significant rethinking is an understatement.

What is your opinion on super conservative British PM Boris Johnson and his comments about coal free societies,
I believe he is the frontline for conservative politicians and conservative big big business including mining and oil etc, to
take the global warming fanatics who have grown to what I call the blind mass hysteria , and let the already mining trillionaires become the renewable trillionaires to stay where they are or kill it ? And all the zero politician s will not be alive in 2050!

Point is the fossil fuel giants are the only ones with the where with all financially, and active capacity to operate and build new technology. All renewable tech now has to be built and after 25 to 30 years DUMPED??

I believe we need new nuclear world wide small barely see-able reactors.

There's everyones answer, if global warming is more than just a politically driven nonsense.

But nuclear is now the answer if the green ideals have to be followed true or false.

 

[Pessimistic]

How much of the earth would need to be covered if all power came from solar panels For mine it’s the fact it can be installed on rooftops and lower the power consumption of the building to next to nothing, without too much strain on distribution networks either

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Don't know if I'd answered you before, but I'll say YouTube music is my main subject in my dotage i LIKE TO GO BACK AND FIND DECENT LISTENING AND READING.
Now get onto scientific books and knowledge and yes opinion in some cases, and find out about the Younger Dryas, I'll say no more, but read about it google it and then try and tell me that global warming is anything more than a natural cycle of earth that we do not cause and we can not take action over , because we do not rule nature, we are part of it, and what we are now is living in a warm calm age on planet earth, in hopefully for a while, a calm corner of the Galaxy, where our Asteroid/comet might not be forth coming for a while, we hope, but at leat we are capable of watching out for them? But nothing is perfect.
The atmosphere needs CO2 we deliver a tiny percentage into the atmosphere, many scientists will be able to describe that, unless someone on BF has a great statistic to throw out that they hope will "prove" the end is nigh, why? Who knows?

Fact is we need the rivers oceans lakes bushlands mountains and cities world wide cleaned up off the ground, so as when in back of Bourke bushland, you don't keep finding bloody empty coke cans etc everywhere !

When the earth s last ice age melted it sort of stopped for a while after a giant giant lake leaked into the Atlantic ocean, and created about 10 centuries of reversal and swamp land and re glaciating , then the warm finally came back, several thousand years back and turned our planet into the calm livable planet we have now, Global Warming saved our arses!

But we could be warming a little more, we could be cooling, heading into an ice age, when? Christ knows , maybe a 100,000 thousand years time??
The ice age the last full on one, started its warming because of the spinning axis of earth moving off its line, don't ask me to explain that, go get some info and read about it.
BUT THAT'S THE SCIENTISTS WHO EXPLAIN THAT SORT OF STUFF AND OF COURSE YOU MAY KNOW MORE THAN THEM??
I know I don't.

But I do know logic and I do tons of reading and I never came to my own conclusions from listening and watching protesters and marches and extinction and warming action (of which there is none)
So after all of that sh*t thats been building for years I thought, some of this sounds stupid and driven fanatically.
For reasons I couldn't find, when my first instinct said to me when the "Greta Cult" really got under way, " but we've had ice ages in the past and something must have got pretty warm to melt the ice, See? It's all happened before!
And it'll happen forever until the planet dies , which it will in millions of years, whether we're still on it or not.

So your comment about You Tube is saying nothing, and I would prefer you to say something

Ivermectin was discovered to have an effect on COVID by a scientist in Australia who happened to be part of the team that discovered and I think won a Noble Prize for the tripple therapy stomach ulcer medication that put an end to stomach ulcers when detected and has been a marvelous medical move forward.
I have forgotten his name you look it up.
But Ivermectin used with zinc and other drugs was being used and working in some cases I think??
For reasons unknown Aussie Govts did not take up the evidence offered, I don't know why, but the fellow who did work on this is a very well know and credentialed medical scientist, I suspect Ivermectin already approved and cheap and being used in animals for skin conditions was not going to make anybody lots of money.
I don't know what my opinion of Ivermectin or Hyroxichloroquine is now but I've heard both have been used and HCQ used also with zinc and another drug has seemed to work , but we never hear our media talk on it now, it did, HCQ that is get bad publicity to start with because it was being given to people in too big a doses, some got sick some died, and Donald Trump did not make sensible normal people rubbish its use, of course the haters did, and maybe some copwards in politics said the same just to show they hated Trump , like so many short headline-only readers do, for a vote?

Now if you want to say something make a point, COVID IS TERRIBLE, VACCINATION was THE WAY TO GO, BUT THEY DID MAKE BIG MISTAKES PERHAPS WITH iVERMECTIN AND HCQ, FOR TREATMENTS, I ACTUALLY WAS SAYING STUFF ON BF ABOUT IT 2020.
WHETHER IT WORKS, TAKEN EARLY IN THE RIGHT AMOUNT I DON'T KNOW?

But you might be able to find out on YouTube , while I search the tube for some decent music.

While your at it, look up our earths geological history in books and in doco's in the era of 15,000 years ago to about 6 or 7,000 years ago, all was fine BY 7000 APPROX, beautiful warming and it still is.
But nothing is perfect, thats why big business will solve the mess up renewables has become.

They have the base power and the electricity to build renewables which strangely enough NEED fossil fuels to get started, the circle is a joke though and we should be developing nuclear contained reactors that you can't see, unlike those woeful looking turbines destroying the scenery.
But humans can get hysterical. There is some logic in all that, I reckon you'll have an idea and ideal , but you got to hunt for stuff and what looks true to you, you can make up your own mind. Your own mind.
NOT YOUTUBE CLIPS????

Invermectin is not a cure or a particularly sound treatment for Covid.

Fact Check : Ivermectin Triple Therapy By Professor Borody! | Tech ARP

Can the Ivermectin Triple Therapy by Professor Thomas Borody really cure and prevent COVID-19? Find out what the FACTS really are!

www.techarp.com

If you disagree , take it to the appropriate thread.

I don't see the topics as related, and its only due to people trying to politicise them that they could possibly be.
Not many things are black or white, but i know i can't debate global warming and the ways to combat it with people like my Niece who is studying an MBA and has no clue about science. She's more on the cult of Greta embracing Veganism and other trendy causes, and has her mind totally made up. Her narrow minded attitude rules out any methods that aren't 100% renewable. There are a lot like her.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

How much of the earth would need to be covered if all power came from solar panels For mine it’s the fact it can be installed on rooftops and lower the power consumption of the building to next to nothing, without too much strain on distribution networks either

It works for your house.
Not for any sort of industry requiring a lot of energy.
LED's and inverter drives are helping, but you can only save the "Waste energy " not the required energy.

You'd need a bloody big roof for an aluminium smelter and you can't switch them off at night.
If the Aluminium goes hard , you junk the factory.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Her narrow minded attitude rules out any methods that aren't 100% renewable. There are a lot like her.

Even this has an emission to begin with as it will at it's disposal, so you could argue that 100% doesn't exist.

And this is the problem with the mantra of 'renewable', what is shopped around is only the good bits that these energy sources are 'renewable'. Rarely is there any mention of the emissions required to fabricate things like wind and solar, other things like the resourcing of materials and the environmental cost of that.

Because the way the landscape of renewables is reported and the sensationalism (possible) of the effects of fossil fuel, that may be in part to blame for the narrow mindedness of your Niece and maybe even Greta herself.

The one thing I will say about people with this narrow minded view is rarely do such people come up with any practical solution, that's not a criticism of your Niece (or Greta) it's a knock on the 'lack' of proper information provided to the public.

Willing to bet if 'all' the angles of renewables, not just the sunshine and lollipops, was common knowledge, there'd probably be a lot more rational discussion around climate change more broadly.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Invermectin is not a cure or a particularly sound treatment for Covid.

Fact Check : Ivermectin Triple Therapy By Professor Borody! | Tech ARP

Can the Ivermectin Triple Therapy by Professor Thomas Borody really cure and prevent COVID-19? Find out what the FACTS really are!

www.techarp.com

If you disagree , take it to the appropriate thread.

I don't see the topics as related, and its only due to people trying to politicise them that they could possibly be.
Not many things are black or white, but i know i can't debate global warming and the ways to combat it with people like my Niece who is studying an MBA and has no clue about science. She's more on the cult of Greta embracing Veganism and other trendy causes, and has her mind totally made up. Her narrow minded attitude rules out any methods that aren't 100% renewable. There are a lot like her.

The young always have narrow outlooks , they have not had the time to see where they were wrong and where they were right.

Trendy is a perfect word!

But thank heavens they grow and learn, those who don't learn I think take a stand on any issue to the extreme, and refuse to get other opinions, or sometimes simply have no chance that they might ever agree with anything that they don't like or doesn't fit the agenda at the time.
Most don't do that and fanatical political day dreaming happens in the young, as they work out what maybe a better way to do things.
That is very general comment.
But humans have to learn, I think most do
Its not really abnormal for some young people to totally say the opposite some think they know it all.

And I think some deep investigating can relax your own beliefs to a point where you just say, give them time, the ones whose ego's learn are the ones who will look back at their younger selves and laugh.

I know I made up my mind about many things as I got older by going and finding out, and deciding for myself, youngsters tend to follow the Trend, or the politics, most break away, but in the end old bastards like me don't have to have an argument anymore we just know inside , folks just be patient with them.

 

[JoondalupJ]

It works for your house.
Not for any sort of industry requiring a lot of energy.
LED's and inverter drives are helping, but you can only save the "Waste energy " not the required energy.

You'd need a bloody big roof for an aluminium smelter and you can't switch them off at night.
If the Aluminium goes hard , you junk the factory.

There are so many brick walls in the way of lots of renewable ideas, its why the fossil fuel industries and their cousins (BIG BUSINESS) all over the planet are starting to agree, that because the global warmers FANATICS AND THE MISLED, have brainwashed half the worlds population, that they THE POWERS OF INDUSTRY better get stuck into the "CRISIS" that is not a CRISIS AT ALL!
And prepare themselves for the renewable energy era in about 50 to 100 years , where they can invent and build what ever type of renewable that the easily led think are life saving, which they are not.

And make a fortune out of a myth , while using their fossil fuel, base load power, to build the clean whatevers???

The joke will be when the turbines if they keep going building them and the solar panels if they keep building them as well,
will all after 30 years have to be dumped AND RENEWED, that's a big dumping OF GARBAGE, especially if you have just covered the entire Sahara desert with solar panels to feed the world's energy needs, it'll take more than the Sahara!
Then you have to dump them as well. Sounds like pollution to me. But house rooves would still be a good idea for the average Joe !
But, it'll be OK because Twiggy and BHP AND RIO AND CHINA AND OIL COMPANIES ALL THE OTHER POWERS, COUNTRIES OR COMPANIES WILL HAVE PERSUADED THE WORLD , THE SENSIBLE THING TO DO FOR THE WORLD POPULATION WILL BE SMALL CONTAINED BARELY VISIBLE NUCLEAR REACTORS, FOR ELECTRICITY NOT BOMBS, BOMB ONLY MAKE THE WHOLE THING NOT WORTH EVEN WORRYING ABOUT. And we still got plenty.

The Greta lie is almost finished, its now about who can make the money for the powerful , and that's the fossil fuels people.
Or go nuclear tomorrow , take 15 years to set up but that gives you way before 2050, and all the world leaders who went to Glasgow will mostly all be dead. A new wave of thinking . Zero won't be a word!
Twiggy? Speaking of new fuels, separating hydrogen from oxygen may be fine, but how do you , and how much is the cost to transport it for use, when it has explosive potential I have read, and heard, 20 times that of petrol , and carting petrol is not the safest carting to ever do?
New nuclear thats the go. CLEAN AIR, Greta. And plenty of power.

You'll have to take up music like Mum. But go well young lady, I think you are honest but over the top and not really that detailed .

 

[SaintsSeptember]

There are so many brick walls in the way of lots of renewable ideas, its why the fossil fuel industries and their cousins (BIG BUSINESS) all over the planet are starting to agree, that because the global warmers FANATICS AND THE MISLED, have brainwashed half the worlds population, that they THE POWERS OF INDUSTRY better get stuck into the "CRISIS" that is not a CRISIS AT ALL!
And prepare themselves for the renewable energy era in about 50 to 100 years , where they can invent and build what ever type of renewable that the easily led think are life saving, which they are not.

And make a fortune out of a myth , while using their fossil fuel, base load power, to build the clean whatevers???

The joke will be when the turbines if they keep going building them and the solar panels if they keep building them as well,
will all after 30 years have to be dumped AND RENEWED, that's a big dumping OF GARBAGE, especially if you have just covered the entire Sahara desert with solar panels to feed the world's energy needs, it'll take more than the Sahara!
Then you have to dump them as well. Sounds like pollution to me. But house rooves would still be a good idea for the average Joe !
But, it'll be OK because Twiggy and BHP AND RIO AND CHINA AND OIL COMPANIES ALL THE OTHER POWERS, COUNTRIES OR COMPANIES WILL HAVE PERSUADED THE WORLD , THE SENSIBLE THING TO DO FOR THE WORLD POPULATION WILL BE SMALL CONTAINED BARELY VISIBLE NUCLEAR REACTORS, FOR ELECTRICITY NOT BOMBS, BOMB ONLY MAKE THE WHOLE THING NOT WORTH EVEN WORRYING ABOUT. And we still got plenty.

The Greta lie is almost finished, its now about who can make the money for the powerful , and that's the fossil fuels people.
Or go nuclear tomorrow , take 15 years to set up but that gives you way before 2050, and all the world leaders who went to Glasgow will mostly all be dead. A new wave of thinking . Zero won't be a word!
Twiggy? Speaking of new fuels, separating hydrogen from oxygen may be fine, but how do you , and how much is the cost to transport it for use, when it has explosive potential I have read, and heard, 20 times that of petrol , and carting petrol is not the safest carting to ever do?
New nuclear thats the go. CLEAN AIR, Greta. And plenty of power.

You'll have to take up music like Mum. But go well young lady, I think you are honest but over the top and not really that detailed .

People can't seem to get their head around the fact that Electricity is hard to store and transport.
You need to make the amount you need , when you need it , relatively close to where you need it.

The French are sitting back chuckling, selling their surplus nuclear Energy to anyone relatively nearby ( Europe ) who run short on Electricity.

Meanwhile market forces are at play. Suppliers to BMW must only use renewable Energy, and they do not count Nuclear as renewable.
This means suppliers need to buy those bullshit energy certificates, ( meaning they re-allocate it so the guy with all the panels on his roof is burning heaps of coal on paper ) if there is no other option.
But that's not easy. If you talk to an energy company that is supplying 95% nuclear about buying green energy they are like "WTF...we already give you electricity with negligible CO2 " so the green energy is not available to those suppliers. It comes down to move that business to a different site. ( RL example ).
BMW themselves, in the same area as their nearby supplier is happy to use whatever electricity is available to them.

Lot of people being dicks with this stuff.

 

[Power Raid]

We probably wouldn't even need 10.

we can't build 1.6GW power stations in Oz as it is simply too big to shut down for maintenance without huge back up generation.

I dare say we will have 100s of small reactors (10Mw to 400MW) and a large number of these will be deployed in remote areas where diesel is required to generate 20MW or more. This represents 50% of our current diesel consumption.

 

[jim boy]

How much of the earth would need to be covered if all power came from solar panels For mine it’s the fact it can be installed on rooftops and lower the power consumption of the building to next to nothing, without too much strain on distribution networks either

About a 1/5000. Roughly the amount of energy we get from the sun for an hour is more than all energy used by humans over a year. Not that Solar is the only renewable - you also have wind, tidal, biomass etc. Storage is a a big issue of course - you have your lithium iron batteries and your pumped hydro. But I think the real technology will come with hydrogen, as hydrogen generation improves, excess solar etc can be used to generate hydrogen which is your 'stored sunshine' - and then that can be shipped anywhere. Another factor is that 'big' energy is going to reduce, we're already seeing solar dinting that. Wind turbine walls and biomass generation will mean that even in suburbia, people will generate far more than they need. Once battery technology improves (and it could be through small community projects), more and more people will go off grid and be 'low' carbon users.

 

[Power Raid]

About a 1/5000. Roughly the amount of energy we get from the sun for an hour is more than all energy used by humans over a year. Not that Solar is the only renewable - you also have wind, tidal, biomass etc. Storage is a a big issue of course - you have your lithium iron batteries and your pumped hydro. But I think the real technology will come with hydrogen, as hydrogen generation improves, excess solar etc can be used to generate hydrogen which is your 'stored sunshine' - and then that can be shipped anywhere. Another factor is that 'big' energy is going to reduce, we're already seeing solar dinting that. Wind turbine walls and biomass generation will mean that even in suburbia, people will generate far more than they need. Once battery technology improves (and it could be through small community projects), more and more people will go off grid and be 'low' carbon users.

hydrogen can't be shipped everywhere........

1) it is extremely dangerous. Think of the explosion in Lebanon and then multiply that by a lot.
2) it makes metal brittle
3) it is highly energy intensive (minus 250 degrees)
4) there currently is no anodes to make hydrogen without severe corrosion

I believe hydrogen has an exciting future by it needs to be manufactured where it is consumed

 

[Pessimistic]

About a 1/5000. Roughly the amount of energy we get from the sun for an hour is more than all energy used by humans over a year. Not that Solar is the only renewable - you also have wind, tidal, biomass etc. Storage is a a big issue of course - you have your lithium iron batteries and your pumped hydro. But I think the real technology will come with hydrogen, as hydrogen generation improves, excess solar etc can be used to generate hydrogen which is your 'stored sunshine' - and then that can be shipped anywhere. Another factor is that 'big' energy is going to reduce, we're already seeing solar dinting that. Wind turbine walls and biomass generation will mean that even in suburbia, people will generate far more than they need. Once battery technology improves (and it could be through small community projects), more and more people will go off grid and be 'low' carbon users.

just waiting for a remake of mad max in the lithium mines

 

[jim boy]

1) it is extremely dangerous. Think of the explosion in Lebanon and then multiply that by a lot.

Oh the humanity! That was ammonium nitrate - bit of a stretch to equate that with Hydrogen - or were you thinking of the Hindenburg??

Do you hide in the cellar every time a fuel-cell powered car drives by?

it is highly energy intensive (minus 250 degrees)

So what? - that is the point, use excess energy created to generate Hydrogen - even if you're losing 50%, its just sunlight.

2) it makes metal brittle
4) there currently is no anodes to make hydrogen without severe corrosion

Yep - technical challenges - which is why it isn't the answer for today.

 

[Kwality]

Yep - technical challenges - which is why it isn't the answer for today.

Aspiration dressed as reality?

 

[Pessimistic]

hydrogen can't be shipped everywhere........

1) it is extremely dangerous. Think of the explosion in Lebanon and then multiply that by a lot.
2) it makes metal brittle
3) it is highly energy intensive (minus 250 degrees)
4) there currently is no anodes to make hydrogen without severe corrosion

I believe hydrogen has an exciting future by it needs to be manufactured where it is consumed

motor gasoline is already dangerous and there’s an existing supply chain tuned to the fact
We also transport LNG at temperatures which make normal steel brittle

 

[Power Raid]

Oh the humanity! That was ammonium nitrate - bit of a stretch to equate that with Hydrogen - or were you thinking of the Hindenburg??

Do you hide in the cellar every time a fuel-cell powered car drives by?


So what? - that is the point, use excess energy created to generate Hydrogen - even if you're losing 50%, its just sunlight.


Yep - technical challenges - which is why it isn't the answer for today.

based on this post, you clearly haven't considered the number of deaths have occurred in a small hydrogen market.

No I don't have concerns about hydrogen fuel cell cars but I do have concerns over pipelines, production, transportation and storage.

Lessons Learned | Hydrogen Tools

h2tools.org

and no solar isn't "just sunlight", please confirm you don't understand solar requires solar panels which are consumable items.

 

[jim boy]

based on this post, you clearly haven't considered the number of deaths have occurred in a small hydrogen market.

LOL - a 'small' market worth $200 billion annually and all you can come up with is a dozen industrial accidents over decades of use. I'll let you on a secret, fuel burns, that's what makes it fuel - of course there is a level of danger associated with it, just ask Max Pruss. But you need to always ask yourself when dealing with numbers 'is this a a big number?'

 

[Power Raid]

LOL - a 'small' market worth $200 billion annually and all you can come up with is a dozen industrial accidents over decades of use. I'll let you on a secret, fuel burns, that's what makes it fuel - of course there is a level of danger associated with it, just ask Max Pruss. But you need to always ask yourself when dealing with numbers 'is this a a big number?'

vs 2 trillion for oil

and what is the current use of hydrogen? please quote the value of hydrogen used in transportation rather than refining?

it is important to compare apples with apples