5 ms·

Wind and solar produced electricity. Electricity is a subset of energy (around 20% i think) Last summer in Denmark was amazing. The best we have had in a long

Wind and solar produced electricity. Electricity is a subset of energy (around 20% i think) Last summer in Denmark was amazing. The best we have had in a long time, the result was that the wind didn't blow wich meant no energy. So Denmark had to buy their energy from Germany, another country who is all in on trying to use alternatives. Of course that couldnt' deliver and instead they got energy from coal. There is so much misinformation going on when it comes to how wonderful solar and wind is. The reality is that they are less than 1% of the worlds energy production and not projected to be more than around 30% in 2040. In short. You are as wrong as you can be with regards to your believe in wind and solar. Hydro is better but only works in some places.

CalRobert 7y ago
Shame they couldn't buy it from France.
- himlion 7y ago
  That's why a lot of big power lines between European nations are being upgraded so the grid will become more flexible in the future.
adrianN 7y ago
Solar growth projections vs reality: https://steinbuch.wordpress.com/2017/06/12/photovoltaic-growth-reality-versus-projections-of-the-international-energy-agency/ https://steinbuch.wordpress.com/2017/06/12/photovoltaic-grow... Electricity can be used to replace all uses of energy we have today more or less economically. AFAIK anything but airplanes has replacements that are as good or better than the fossil fuel variant. Problematic are things like concrete and steel production, where we don't have good replacements yet.
- manfredo 7y ago
  Bear in mind that solar capacity and actually fulfilling electricity demand from that capacity are two very different things. The capacity factor of solar is between 20-30% as compared to >50% for fossil fuels and >90% for nuclear [1]. Hydrogen powered aircraft are hypothesized, but require lightweight hydrogen vessels. Maritime vessels can only be feasibly powered by nuclear power. The energy density of batteries is orders of magnitude less than fossil fuels, and sail boats cannot feasibly fulfill demand for shipping. There's a very strong aversion to nuclear energy, so we'll probably be burning fossil fuels in ships for a long time. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Capacity_factor_of_renewable_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Capacity_facto...
  - adrianN 7y ago
    Ships can probably be run off hydrogen, and if that is impossible for some reason you can always make synthetic fuels. Airplanes could also run off synthetic fuels, but since airplane emissions are actually a lot worse than just their CO2 output, that is not a good solution.
    - manfredo 7y ago
      Hydrogen has good energy per kilogram, but bad energy per square meter even in its liquid form [1]. Liquid hydrogen is less than 10 times as dense as water. Synthetic fuels either require considerably greater arable land and water consumption to grow biofuel, or the use of things like algae cultivation and accelerated decomposition. It's probably more effective on a $ / CO2 mass basis to just sequester carbon and keep using refined fossil fuels. Airplanes account for a single digit fraction of the CO2 emissions from transportation, though, as their mass and drag are both tiny as compared to cargo ships. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#/media/File:Energy_density.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#/media/File:Ene... Reply to your post below, HN is not letting me respond: Those synthetic fuels are effectively the same as biofuels. You're using energy to sequester carbon out of the atmosphere (or a body of water, in the case of algae based biofuels) and using that carbon to power a machine. You can either do this by using electricity generated from another artificial power source, as in your example. Or you can do this by harnessing natural energy, like setting up transparent pipes to collect solar energy into algae or by farming biomass on land. Since most energy decarbonization plans assume modest energy consumption growth, and sometimes even an overall energy consumption reduction the former plan is less feasible than harnessing naturally occurring energy.
      - adrianN 7y ago
        With synthetic fuels I don't mean biofuels, which I think are a terrible idea, but instead something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-diesel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-diesel
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    Thank you for mentioning nuclear ships, they are a very important and totally ignored piece of the puzzle. We already have a large nuclear fleet of ships, but they are mostly warships and ice breakers. But as soon as you mention that giant containerships should be nuclear people go ballistic! They also miss the fact that a nuclear container ship would be 2-3 times faster as fuel economy is a non-issue. That means it would go a long way in replacing air freight and land freight, where you don't need shipment in a day but can't wait a month. By the looks of it's due to public fear, we will end up using synthetic fuel. You might have a point on offsetting normal fuel by sequestation, but in terms of policing and managing abuse, synthetic fuel might be easier.
- ThomPete 7y ago
  No, it can't be used for that and the size of the batteries even for those things it can be used for is a giant issue (and thus cost) Solars capacity factor is around 20-30 or something like that. It's not even close to being a realistic deliverer and wind doesn't change that either. I am not joking here. If you can point me to any solution that can economically power ex. the shipping industry using electricity please point me to it so I can invest in it right away. The reality is that we are decades if not longer away from anything close to the dream scenario you read about everywere around you which becomes very very obvious the second you start looking for investment opportunities and is a good reason why it's primarily driven by politicians, not the market. Investments in solar and wind are declining too because china is reducing its investments. If it was so great why wouldn't the private market just take over? My guess is that in 5 years a lot of people are going to get a rude awakening when they finally realize they've been told dreams rather than reality. But as I said. If you can point to actual solutions to these problems then please let me know so I can invest.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    You say "economically" as if there was an alternative to stopping global warming. The shipping industry won't survive catastrophic climate change. That being said, if you google around a bit you find a number of studies showing how 100% or close to 100% renewable energy can be achieved with today's technology. There is for example http://energywatchgroup.org/new-study-global-energy-system-based-100-renewable-energy http://energywatchgroup.org/new-study-global-energy-system-b... or this (just for Germany) https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/Fraunhofer-ISE_Energiesystem-Deutschland-2050.pdf https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/p...
    - ThomPete 7y ago
      I don't need to google around, I know the litterature and I know the difference between what can be speculated and what can be demonstrated :) So don't worry about that. Fusion is theoretically possible that doesn't mean we are even close to it and neither wind nor solar will be able to deliver anything close to the amount of energy (not just electricity) we need. Again point me to a concrete solution that is currently being developed and I will invest instantly. With regards to climate change then, first of all, it's not going to be catastrophic not even IPCC thinks that. Second of all the climate has always been changing and giving us challenges with fossil fuel we've managed to combat most of that. You live in a rich society BECAUSE of its use of fossil fuels not despite of it. Nature doesn't give us a safe and friendly environment we make unsafe, it gives us a hostile and dangerous environment we then make safe. Try and give me a single example of a scientifically demonstrated consequence of the climate changing we can't deal with today.
trekrich 7y ago
And Germany has spent so much money on wind and solar, and has not done a very good job of it.
ThomPete 7y ago
Correction 3-4% in 2040! In other words not even close to being a realistic alternative.

CalRobert 7y ago

Shame they couldn't buy it from France.

himlion 7y ago
That's why a lot of big power lines between European nations are being upgraded so the grid will become more flexible in the future.

adrianN 7y ago

Solar growth projections vs reality: https://steinbuch.wordpress.com/2017/06/12/photovoltaic-growth-reality-versus-projections-of-the-international-energy-agency/ https://steinbuch.wordpress.com/2017/06/12/photovoltaic-grow... Electricity can be used to replace all uses of energy we have today more or less economically. AFAIK anything but airplanes has replacements that are as good or better than the fossil fuel variant. Problematic are things like concrete and steel production, where we don't have good replacements yet.

manfredo 7y ago
Bear in mind that solar capacity and actually fulfilling electricity demand from that capacity are two very different things. The capacity factor of solar is between 20-30% as compared to >50% for fossil fuels and >90% for nuclear [1]. Hydrogen powered aircraft are hypothesized, but require lightweight hydrogen vessels. Maritime vessels can only be feasibly powered by nuclear power. The energy density of batteries is orders of magnitude less than fossil fuels, and sail boats cannot feasibly fulfill demand for shipping. There's a very strong aversion to nuclear energy, so we'll probably be burning fossil fuels in ships for a long time. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Capacity_factor_of_renewable_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Capacity_facto...
- adrianN 7y ago
  Ships can probably be run off hydrogen, and if that is impossible for some reason you can always make synthetic fuels. Airplanes could also run off synthetic fuels, but since airplane emissions are actually a lot worse than just their CO2 output, that is not a good solution.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    Hydrogen has good energy per kilogram, but bad energy per square meter even in its liquid form [1]. Liquid hydrogen is less than 10 times as dense as water. Synthetic fuels either require considerably greater arable land and water consumption to grow biofuel, or the use of things like algae cultivation and accelerated decomposition. It's probably more effective on a $ / CO2 mass basis to just sequester carbon and keep using refined fossil fuels. Airplanes account for a single digit fraction of the CO2 emissions from transportation, though, as their mass and drag are both tiny as compared to cargo ships. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#/media/File:Energy_density.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#/media/File:Ene... Reply to your post below, HN is not letting me respond: Those synthetic fuels are effectively the same as biofuels. You're using energy to sequester carbon out of the atmosphere (or a body of water, in the case of algae based biofuels) and using that carbon to power a machine. You can either do this by using electricity generated from another artificial power source, as in your example. Or you can do this by harnessing natural energy, like setting up transparent pipes to collect solar energy into algae or by farming biomass on land. Since most energy decarbonization plans assume modest energy consumption growth, and sometimes even an overall energy consumption reduction the former plan is less feasible than harnessing naturally occurring energy.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      With synthetic fuels I don't mean biofuels, which I think are a terrible idea, but instead something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-diesel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-diesel
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  Thank you for mentioning nuclear ships, they are a very important and totally ignored piece of the puzzle. We already have a large nuclear fleet of ships, but they are mostly warships and ice breakers. But as soon as you mention that giant containerships should be nuclear people go ballistic! They also miss the fact that a nuclear container ship would be 2-3 times faster as fuel economy is a non-issue. That means it would go a long way in replacing air freight and land freight, where you don't need shipment in a day but can't wait a month. By the looks of it's due to public fear, we will end up using synthetic fuel. You might have a point on offsetting normal fuel by sequestation, but in terms of policing and managing abuse, synthetic fuel might be easier.
ThomPete 7y ago
No, it can't be used for that and the size of the batteries even for those things it can be used for is a giant issue (and thus cost) Solars capacity factor is around 20-30 or something like that. It's not even close to being a realistic deliverer and wind doesn't change that either. I am not joking here. If you can point me to any solution that can economically power ex. the shipping industry using electricity please point me to it so I can invest in it right away. The reality is that we are decades if not longer away from anything close to the dream scenario you read about everywere around you which becomes very very obvious the second you start looking for investment opportunities and is a good reason why it's primarily driven by politicians, not the market. Investments in solar and wind are declining too because china is reducing its investments. If it was so great why wouldn't the private market just take over? My guess is that in 5 years a lot of people are going to get a rude awakening when they finally realize they've been told dreams rather than reality. But as I said. If you can point to actual solutions to these problems then please let me know so I can invest.
- adrianN 7y ago
  You say "economically" as if there was an alternative to stopping global warming. The shipping industry won't survive catastrophic climate change. That being said, if you google around a bit you find a number of studies showing how 100% or close to 100% renewable energy can be achieved with today's technology. There is for example http://energywatchgroup.org/new-study-global-energy-system-based-100-renewable-energy http://energywatchgroup.org/new-study-global-energy-system-b... or this (just for Germany) https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/Fraunhofer-ISE_Energiesystem-Deutschland-2050.pdf https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/p...
  - ThomPete 7y ago
    I don't need to google around, I know the litterature and I know the difference between what can be speculated and what can be demonstrated :) So don't worry about that. Fusion is theoretically possible that doesn't mean we are even close to it and neither wind nor solar will be able to deliver anything close to the amount of energy (not just electricity) we need. Again point me to a concrete solution that is currently being developed and I will invest instantly. With regards to climate change then, first of all, it's not going to be catastrophic not even IPCC thinks that. Second of all the climate has always been changing and giving us challenges with fossil fuel we've managed to combat most of that. You live in a rich society BECAUSE of its use of fossil fuels not despite of it. Nature doesn't give us a safe and friendly environment we make unsafe, it gives us a hostile and dangerous environment we then make safe. Try and give me a single example of a scientifically demonstrated consequence of the climate changing we can't deal with today.

trekrich 7y ago

And Germany has spent so much money on wind and solar, and has not done a very good job of it.

ThomPete 7y ago

Correction 3-4% in 2040! In other words not even close to being a realistic alternative.