The transition

Chargeride said:
...

We would need another planet to provide first world consumption to 8 billion humans using wind and solar.
Click to expand...

not even remotely true; the solar and wind footprint required is actually very small, far less than the amount of the world we've already paved over.

here's an interesting study on the subject. you can quibble with elements of the methodology but the orders of magnitude are clear.


what we need to continue making renewables a larger part of the energy solution is a better grid and more/better storage. these are not "if" problems, they're when problems. they will be figured out just as surely as we figured out an infrastructure to power a couple billion two ton vehicles roaming around the planet every day. but hopefully the new version won't destroy that same planet.
 
mschwett said:
not even remotely true; the solar and wind footprint required is actually very small, far less than the amount of the world we've already paved over.

here's an interesting study on the subject. you can quibble with elements of the methodology but the orders of magnitude are clear.


what we need to continue making renewables a larger part of the energy solution is a better grid and more/better storage. these are not "if" problems, they're when problems. they will be figured out just as surely as we figured out an infrastructure to power a couple billion two ton vehicles roaming around the planet every day. but hopefully the new version won't destroy that same planet.
Click to expand...
Another way is to install many small scale facilities that each service a small area. That would make the integrity of a massive grid less critical. Sabotage or natural disasters, such a hurricanes show the vulnerability of the system. Look at Texas, and their messed up power system. Anyhow, transmitting lots of power over great distances is highly inefficient. That's why the huge power lines you see carry such high voltages.
 
To even provide the next 25 years increase in world energy demand....just the increase... using wind... would require an offshore windfarm the size of Russia.

Just the increase.

People often purposely grey the area between electric energy and total usage.

In the UK the grid is only 18% of our energy usage, if 8 billion people started using power like the west does, we would need another planet to provide that total power from renewables.

You need a factor of at least 4X to provide energy over the year and the cabling alone would require us to capture an asteroid for materials.
 
Mr. Coffee said:
Citation please.
Click to expand...
I'll try to find the article, but you can use simple math, the projected total energy increase, the ouput power and density of offshore wind, plus the massive multiplaction factor to achieve constant power all year.
Remember..we are talking entire power usage, not just grid.
 
Chargeride said:
I'll try to find the article, but you can use simple math, the projected total energy increase, the ouput power and density of offshore wind, plus the massive multiplaction factor to achieve constant power all year.
Remember..we are talking entire power usage, not just grid.
Click to expand...
here are some actual numbers by actual scientists :

energyDemand.jpg


what's interesting about this is that it represents a range of predictions from everyone from fossil fuel companies to government agencies and NGOs - but you can see that in almost every scenario the vast majority of both the increase from current day (2022ish) is handled by some mix of solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear with most scenarios relying most heavily in solar and wind. none of these scenarios has an offshore wind farm the size of russia, nor a solar farm the size of china. in fact, it only takes a tiny portion of the earth's area to meet a huge fraction of our energy demand with current solar tech. if you didn't look at the previous map, which had lots of citations and sources from, again, actual scientists, here's another analysis which has been widely shared and analyzed. this is solar electricity for the entire world as of around 20 years ago. of course the numbers are different now and power demands increase, but it's not an order of magnitude difference, and we have the whole planet, not just algeria...

main-qimg-90de6c543058158f42f688c95d5d9b4f-lq.jpg
 
mschwett said:
here are some actual numbers by actual scientists :

View attachment 179801

what's interesting about this is that it represents a range of predictions from everyone from fossil fuel companies to government agencies and NGOs - but you can see that in almost every scenario the vast majority of both the increase from current day (2022ish) is handled by some mix of solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear with most scenarios relying most heavily in solar and wind. none of these scenarios has an offshore wind farm the size of russia, nor a solar farm the size of china. in fact, it only takes a tiny portion of the earth's area to meet a huge fraction of our energy demand with current solar tech. if you didn't look at the previous map, which had lots of citations and sources from, again, actual scientists, here's another analysis which has been widely shared and analyzed. this is solar electricity for the entire world as of around 20 years ago. of course the numbers are different now and power demands increase, but it's not an order of magnitude difference, and we have the whole planet, not just algeria...

View attachment 179802
Click to expand...
Again...world ELECTRICITY demand.
 
Art Deco said:
,.. we need to remove carbon from the air.
Click to expand...

I remember watching a documentary where it was suggested that if every person on earth planted a tree every year for six years, we could reverse global warming.

Trees are the most effective and efficient CO2 sponges.
As long as we don't cut them down and burn them once they're bigger, then we'd have to start over.
 
PCeBiker said:
I remember watching a documentary where it was suggested that if every person on earth planted a tree every year for six years, we could reverse global warming.

Trees are the most effective and efficient CO2 sponges.
As long as we don't cut them down and burn them once they're bigger, then we'd have to start over.
Click to expand...
If we plant enough, and if we keep them alive for 20 years. That's about when newly planted trees cover the carbon cost of planting them, and become a net carbon sink. (But a forest is forever !)
 
PCeBiker said:
I remember watching a documentary where it was suggested that if every person on earth planted a tree every year for six years, we could reverse global warming.

Trees are the most effective and efficient CO2 sponges.
As long as we don't cut them down and burn them once they're bigger, then we'd have to start over.
Click to expand...
Actually it depends a lot on the species of tree and its location and environment.

Young western hemlock stands (on the western coasts of North America) have the highest land biomass production, on the order of 100 tons per acre per year. However, seaweeds (e.g. kelp) and saltwater algae can produce biomass at even higher rates.
 
Its funny that prior to us burning fossill CO2 was actually low for healthy plant growth.
At 150ppm plants start to respire and photosynthesis will stop completely.
260ppm pre industrial has risen to 450ppm and the biomass loves it, we have record world crop production with the help of CO2 levels.
We could see 600ppm or more this century, just have to adapt.
No one is going to fix it.
 
PCeBiker said:
I remember watching a documentary where it was suggested that if every person on earth planted a tree every year for six years, we could reverse global warming.

Trees are the most effective and efficient CO2 sponges.
As long as we don't cut them down and burn them once they're bigger, then we'd have to start over.
Click to expand...

We planted a few hundred trees 25 years ago, and they've had grandkids now. BUT we recently mulched a few tonnes of their branches , using a diesel powered mulcher. About 4 hours of belching smoke - I feel guilty, but it's part of our fire risk reduction at home. At least I used my electric chainsaw ...
 
A few years ago, I was surprised to learn just how much Co2 grasslands absorb. I used to cut my fallow fields once a year, but now do it every 3 or 4 years, just to keep the invasives under control. Not sure just how much I reduce the Co2 level, but it's an excuse to avoid the work. 😁
 
Probably the only carbon capture scheme that might scale is to grow seaweeds far offshore, harvest them, and bury them somewhere. It is an open question if we can do that at a large enough scale to make a significant dent in CO2 levels. You are probably talking about billions of tons a year of seaweed to make a difference.
 
kevinmccune said:
true,being warm trumps being cold.Read a science fiction story about the Earth losing its heat source,people survived for a while with little quality of life( had to bring solid gases inside to thaw to make a breathable atmosphere-it wasn't pretty)
Click to expand...
I think something like that happens in Three Body Problem-- the sun is blocked or the earth is put in a shell or something, but we manage to muddle along for a few years as everything starts slowly freezing.

Man, that trilogy was brutal to read. I understood maybe 17% of the physics. But I love big idea Sci Fi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back