We can also illustrate the growth of wind and solar this way:
In 2019 wind+ solar produced 272 TWh more electricity than 2018.
This growth equals = 272 000 GWh / 24 / 365 = 31 GW installed power running 24/7
Nuclear regularity is around 92% , i.e 31/0,92= 34 GW
So, the GROWTH of wind and solar alone represented adding approximately 34 Nuclear reactors every year.
And since growth also accelerate, this equivalent number will only increase in the years ahead.
Therefore I am a renewable optimist 😉
Well, Ruby at least advocates for something (nuclear power.) Technical and economic issues aside, it simply is not going to happen in today’s geopolitical environment.
I agree. Especially in Japan. Most nukes there were closed down when I last checked. They were increasing coal consumption, which is a terrible idea. I would be in favor of reopening the nukes until renewable or natural gas plants can be built to replace them, but I doubt many will reopen. There is too much local opposition.
They are building a new nuke in Georgia. The cost overruns are horrendous. It has bankrupted the parent company. I think the high cost alone means there will never be another.
But what about advanced reactor types (thorium or pick you own favorite)?
Hydrogen-boron plasma fusion! From our own Heinrich Hora, cold fusion researcher.
https://asiatimes.com/2020/05/…ron-laser-fusion-reactor/
As for Zephir, he is clearly a man with an agenda, but nobody can figure out what that agenda is.
I sure can't figure out what he is in favor of. Coal?
I do not know about your calculation, I would have to check that. Assuming your are correct, we'd still need to generate an extra amount due to the losses. This is just for the US in 2015 where we see about a 60% loss, but it's the same situation for losses everywhere that there is a grid in use.
The 60% loss shown in that graph is "rejected energy." That means energy lost in the conversion from heat to electricity with thermal power plants. Not transmission and distribution (T&D) losses. That is 60% average for all thermal plants, including coal, gas and nuclear.
Given the temperatures of burning coal and hottest possible heat transfer to pressurized boiling water, the maximum Carnot efficiency of a coal plant is 64%. They can never be more efficient than that. In practice, most are ~33%.
Hydro and wind have no "rejected energy" losses. All of the energy that is transferred from the wind to the propellor blades is converted to electricity. All but 6% of that reaches the end user. The 6% are T&D losses. That is not to say that 100% of the wind power transfers to the blades. It is not as if there is a dead calm downwind of the blades. Only about 35 to 45% of the wind is stopped and converted to rotary motion. But there is essentially an unlimited supply of wind, so that does not matter. If you want more power, just build another turbine. Only you don't want to put it downwind of the first one, because the first one will "steal the wind" as racing yacht captains say. There is not a dead calm, but there is considerably less wind immediately downwind of a turbine, or a sailboat, or a sailing ship. One way to win a yacht race is to get between the wind and your rival.
I sure can't figure out what he is in favor of. Coal?
He's already said, very recently. He's in favour of LENR and other truly alternative sources.
He's already said, very recently. He's in favour of LENR and other truly alternative sources.
It is hard to think of anyone more in favor of LENR than Jed, but that does does not cause him to attack wind and solar power with endless specious arguments.
Of course, after TAX used to subsidize the "renewables". One could make these money by burning or selling fossil fuels instead - this amount of coal corresponds the carbon footprint of renewables.
How they could be better, if they get more expensive than coal, i.e. when they consume more (coal) energy on background, than they save?
How much crack did you consume before writing the blue line ??
I think you live in a conspiracy world and due to your low education you are unable to properly relate facts and finally to draw your own conclusion.
Times have change. Solar had the break through about 5 years ago in average but oh surprise it depends on the geographical, political and economic environment. I would say in North Norway it will never be a success...
The same for Wind, but with much more political foul play involved. Sad to note: Germany is ruled by an industrial mafia and they only try to make the most money possible. If the citizens accept this then they should not complain.
Just one example: The Siemens family had no ready solution to connect off shore wind parks. But they got the $$$ business anyway. As a consequence 3 wind parks were offline for more that 2 years and you had to pay for the total production that never happened ... May be you should start to understand...
Times have change. Solar had the break through about 5 years ago in average but oh surprise it depends on the geographical, political and economic environment. I would say in North Norway it will never be a success...
..or may be not.
The University of Tromsø in the far north of Norway tested panels in 2018, panels at different angels and also bifacial panels that are becoming popular.
A positive factor in the north is 10% increased efficiency for 20 degC reduced temperature....And fixed bifacial panels may use reflection from the snow behind, and the night sun during summertime...
In one year run (which they say was an average year wrt clouds and sun), they achieved 960 KWh pr. KW panel.
This is comparable with places further south where clouds are normal, like parts of UK or north of Germany.
As cost come further down it is not unlikely we will see the first grid scale solar plants north of the polar circle 😎
@oystia.
I agree with you on the 'midnight sun' effect seen in northern latitudes boosting output. I think that over the course of a year it boosts average output hugely, I think you have to spend some summertime days in the far north to appreciate what a 22 hour day is like. People who have not experienced it are still amazed by this- even when they have read about it.
I agree with you on the 'midnight sun' effect seen in northern latitudes boosting output.
This is the intellectual approach... But the shadow of the panel will force you to plant them within 10m distance....
Oh yes, but if you have a south-facing mountain to plant your panels on you can always see the sun. I think they have lots of mountains further north.
QuoteI sure can't figure out what he is in favor of. Coal?
I already said it: overunity and maybe cold fusion (which could be abused easily though). Coal and fossil fuels in general is threat for geopolitical stability because of their limited reserves and volatile prices. But how else to handle "renewables" once they increase dependency on fossil fuels? The religion is opium of the people - and the "renewables" ARE religion.
I already said it: overunity and maybe cold fusion (which could be abused easily though). Coal and fossil fuels in general is threat for geopolitical stability because of their limited reserves and volatile prices. But how else to handle "renewables" once they increase dependency on fossil fuels? The religion is opium of the people - and the "renewables" ARE religion.
And your religion is the absurd insistence that renewables increase dependency on fossil fuels, which is laughably, demonstrably and utterly false. And you are an extreme zealot in this cult with one member. 🥱
QuoteAnd your religion is the absurd insistence that renewables increase dependency on fossil fuels, which is laughably, demonstrably and utterly false
EU dependency on fossil fuel imports on rise despite energy consumption decrease - I'm not proposing or insisting it - I'm explaining, why it is so (EU also utilizes largest portion of "renewables")
EU dependency on fossil fuel imports on rise despite energy consumption decrease - I'm not proposing or insisting it - I'm explaining, why it is so (EU also utilizes largest portion of "renewables")
you refer to an article but do not understand what it says 😉
And your article refer to 2015 data, it's old when changes happen exponentially 😉
And you show statistics but do not understand them 😉.
But you may read my earlier posts on the issue 😉
I can live with such an "arguments" comfortably 
According to French economist Gaël Giraud (who dissents from most liberal "renewables" pushing economists from good reason) GDP growth is about energy generation (google translated) and GdP growth is thus linked to the capacity to use energy. Here are English slides about his position (more info).
According to his paradigm it doesn't matter how smart you are and how clever your energy technology is: until it's more expensive than fossil fuel energy, then it also consumes more energy on background and it must be subsidized by economy based on cheaper technology (guess which one it is) - which also means, it increases the consumption of fossil fuels on background. In similar way, it doesn't matter how advanced your electric car is: once its ownership and operation consumes more money that gasoline car, then it's electric car which wastes the natural resources and fossil fuels - not classical one. The (unsubsidized) price of product or technology simple expresses energy content required for its production, and so on..
Electric cars: every cartoonist knows, what Elon Musks pretends he does not...
From this perspective it's very simple to spot the energy technology, which is really saving life environment and limiting the fossil fuel consumption: such an energy source must get CHEAPER than the fossil fuel energy in both relative, both absolute numbers - there is no other way around. Once it gets more expensive or once we must even subsidize it, then there is fundamental mistake in our reasoning (no matter how well intended it may be) - and we are actually making things worse. It's as simple as it is: nothing wrong is with solar or wind electricity, but it must get cheaper for their consumers than this one of coal without any subsidizes. Without it it would increase the consumption of energy and carbon footprint of civilization - not decrease.
you make no sence.
In the infancy all technologies required subsidies, Until costs have come down, either caused by increased demand and production or material costs have come down.
And now wind farms can be built an increasing amount of places without subsidies.
Like in UK
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-sc…ighlands-islands-51325543
while the New Hinkley Point nuclear project in UK require very large subsidies.....still 60 years since the technology was invented.
also of interest om subsidee free renewables:
A subsidee free solar farm being built in UK. Which should be surprising, considering UK possibly not the most optimal place.
This is not about subsidizes, which have absolutely no meaning here, as many countries like Saudi or Iraq live comfortably just from fossil fuel exports. Their replacement by renewables would require to live comfortably from wind/solar plants instead without any subsidizes as well. But it's about TCO, i.e. total cost of technology during its life-time from beginning to ecological scrapping including compensations of elevated expenses for expansion of grid and batteries / hydro-dams for balancing, backup and storage, including backup fossil fuel and nuclear plants which currently keep the "renewables" nonsense running during winter and energy consumption peaks.
One of ways how to get real economical numbers about it is to dream for a moment and to imagine, what we would actually need for full replacement of fossil fuel plants by these "renewable" ones? Right now wind and solar energy meet only about 2 percents of global demand; hydroelectricity about 7 percent. To match the power generated by fossil fuels, the construction of solar energy farms and wind turbines would gobble up 15 times more concrete, 90 times more aluminum and 50 times more iron, copper and glass than we are producing right now. And not just that, we should spend this production every twenty-thirty years again because or limited life-time of wind/solar plants (iron / aluminium can be recycled with roughly 60% energy efficiency, but concrete can not).
For to keep global electricity production from the current 400 TWh to 12,000 TWh in 2035 and 25,000 TWh in 2050, as projected by the World Wide Fund for Nature, about 3,200 million tonnes of steel, 310 million tonnes of aluminium and 40 million tonnes of copper will be required for to build the required wind and solar facilities. This corresponds to a 5 to 18% annual increase in the global production of these metals for the next 40 years. And 25,000 TWh is still only one sixth of the total world energy consumption today, as most of energy is not consumed in form of electricity, but with fossil fuels directly! It's evident that so-called "renewables" would just convert the fossil-fuel crisis into raw source crisis, without actually helping the fossil fuel consumption at least a bit (the price and energy demands of raw source mining would raise with increasing volume exponentially). Not to say about environmental crisis, which would undeniably follow such a massive exploitation of natural reserves.
To put these things into simple perspective: just the production of cement for concrete production consumes about 2% of total energy consumption by now. 15-times more concrete would thus consume about 30% of fossil fuel energy, which we are consuming today - just for building pillars of wind plants, nothing else. Another 2 percents of energy is consumed into production of aluminium today. Well, for 100% replacement of fossils by "renewables" we would need 2 x 90 = 180% of energy consumption today - and now we are already in the red numbers: the implementation of "renewables" would increase world energy consumption two-fold once when we consider only the concrete and aluminium needed for it!
The funny thing about economics or natural selection is that a number of possible solutions to improve energy production or new life forms must come forward. It seems like such a waste because the selection process eliminates what doesn't compete well. Even if some proposed solution were to become well accepted, it does prevent selection. Solutions keep getting recycled until the current solution is replaced by a better one. The basic problem with green technologies is that they can improve but that improvement will plateau. The basis problems with LENR and energy from undefined sources is that most of it is not based on facts and therefore competes so poorly that it never gets to market.
Invention will explore facts by proposing hypotheses and doing experiments. Getting experimental results that actual work, would happen sooner, if more people that do the experiments could find a way to share the most relevant facts and if funding were less a result of a few self- chosen powerful and well placed people. Basically, people and power trying to control or survive the selection process to the next round of selection.
I predict that since fusion at a lower density, confinement time and plasma temperature than the Lawson criterion is a proven fact that when that ignored proof is understood, an energy solution will emerge that is completive with coal. Until that happens so called green solutions will continue to gain market share. The intelligences that drive the selection process can neither be controlled or stopped.
