Foxy,

Planet of the Humans' venial sin was to understate the efficiency of modern solar panels, which barely detracts from its other main arguments.(tho' they naturally lose efficiency and need constant cleaning to reach peak generation)

To pick one of your examples where green politics is winning its way, rather than science and economic sense, consider the bogus claim Scotland is a whisker off being 100% renewable from intermittent sources. Rather than swallowing hype spend a few minutes at http://euanmearns.com/scotlands-wind-exports-to-england-and-the-myth-of-a-100-renewable-scotland/

There is no place on the planet achieving even a version of the claim without the assurance of attachment to the grid. Hypothetically, intermittents could produce enough electricity for the entire need of a community if it gets back from the grid, as needed, what it has already put in. This definition of '100% renewable' is then used by the slippery clueless as the template for every community (Mmmm... what could possibly be the problem with that, I wonder?).

Great to see Carolyn Gramling so conflicted about gas. Renewables are the front for the ongoing dirty business of burning fossil-fuels. There is no storage solution and there's extremely unlikely to be one, tho' the dream sustains the ludicrous renewables fantasy dragging us back to a pre-industrial age.

Josephus,

I must admit I have "never studied, made or designed an electrical circuit that works." Just lucky I guess!

But tell me, how did you know? Was it that obvious? Something I said that gave me away? Now you and everybody else knows.

And what about yourself? What's your story? Other than the fact that you like hiding behind an ancient Jewish historian.

Hi Luciferase,

Coal- and gas-fired power stations produce CO2. Renewables don't produce CO2 except in their construction, transport, assembly, maintenance, component-replacement, decommissioning and replacement, etc.

Presumably the planet can tolerate a certain amount of CO2 production, above and beyond what is taken up naturally by plant-life for its survival. Tree-planting and revegetation programs across the world can soak up much of that excess CO2.

So how much CO2 would be an acceptable level of production in the generation of energy, and from coal/gas-fired power stations, across the world ? In other words, how much fossil-fuelled power generation is quite acceptable ?

Joe

Each to his own, Joe. Make your choice:

http://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/emissions_scenarios-1.pdf

For me, zero gets us where we need to go fastest. Only nuclear gets us anywhwere near it quickly and affordably while we get out of nature's way, maintain a high, urban living-standard extending into what is now the third world, bringing a commensurate levelling of world population.

Do you think I should compromise to appease the sensibilities of those who think otherwise? Nope, we have to stop burning $hit, asap.

Thanks Armchair Critic, and others for your patience.

As someone who has a fair background in engineering and electronics I've stayed up late at night thinking and reading about solving the worlds energy problems.

It often comes down to maths.

Solar panels and storage devices work on a completely different scale to other technologies and hence are relatively inefficient.

Coal and Gas power stations are highly efficient per unit of energy produced have built in storage. Basically a power station consists of very simple but reliable technology that has been tested for about 100 years.

One demonstration of this is in cars where you can have a car that can travel 500 km on a relatively small tank of fuel for twenty years given regular maintenance this doesn't even include the possibility of adding additional tanks. It's hard to get the same mileage out of electric power mainly because of storage despite the fact that electric motors have double the efficiency of petrol engines.

Unfortunately even for knowledgeable people it requires a fair bit of work to discover the subtlties of power systems and their triple bottom line costs.

Elon Musk is someone I respect but not always on the issue of renewable energy. He has made significant investments on renewable energy.

The engineering vs science problem means there is often a thirty year gap between research and practical implementation. Many potential solutions end up going down a research black hole. One example is the war on cancer of the 50's where billions of dollars were spent with no solution.

There are sometimes exceptions and they are inspiring- but sometimes it's important to consider that the resources could be spent in ways that create greater value in the community.

I'm not an expert but I would envisage to design a simple high efficiency hydrocarbon power station needs about twenty years of university degrees in the room- an Electrical Engineer, Mechanical Engineer, Chemical Engineer, Process Engineer, etc, etc. It contains three main parts- storage for the fuel, burner for the fuel, working fluid/ turbine, along with various pipes or conveyers.

Once the plant is built it can last for many years with relatively minimal maintenance.

There are people on this forum that could build a power station from basic components.

If you are interested Foxy try looking at some of these elements like me you'll probably fail but you'll learn a lot.

The article you posted has a lot of subtext that the uninitiated wouldn't pick up on. AC has attempted to highlight some of these.

It's not easy to invent something as important as the wheel.

Engineering/ Science is different than Social Science. As Linus Torvalds says show me the code.