Posted on 03/09/2014 12:37:41 PM PDT by matt04
One of the greatest promises of the high-tech future, whether made explicitly or implicitly through shiny clean concept sketches, is that we will have efficient energy that doesn’t churn pollutants into the air and onto the streets.
But here in the present, politicians and even many clean energy advocates maintain that a world run on hydrogen and wind, water and solar power is not yet possible due to technical challenges like energy storage and cost.
Yet Stanford University researchers led by civil engineer Mark Jacobson have developed detailed plans for each state in the union that to move to 100 percent wind, water and solar power by 2050 using only technology that’s already available. The plan, presented recently at the AAAS conference in Chicago, also forms the basis for The Solutions Project nonprofit.
“The conclusion is that it’s technically and economically feasible,” Jacobson told Singularity Hub.
The plan doesn’t rely, like many others, on dramatic energy efficiency regimes. Nor does it include biofuels or nuclear power, whose green credentials are the source of much debate.
The proposal is straightforward: eliminate combustion as a source of energy, because it’s dirty and inefficient. All vehicles would be powered by electric batteries or by hydrogen, where the hydrogen is produced through electrolysis by using natural gas. High-temperature industrial processes would also use electricity or hydrogen combustion.
The rest would simply be a question of allowing existing fossil-fuel plants to age out and using renewable sources to power any new plants that come online. The energy sources in the road map include geothermal energy, concentrating solar power, off-shore and on-land wind turbines and some and tidal energy.
(Excerpt) Read more at singularityhub.com ...
Even nuclear energy is ultimately solar in nature.
Someday soon there will be a lot of new jobs created tearing those inefficient, bird killing monstrosities down.
Perhaps they can rip the guts out of the generators and convert them into low income housing with spectacular views of Mojave and Altamont pass.
Our current fleet of naval vessels will all have to be scrapped to accommodate alternate energy power plants. Nuke power plants come to mind.
>>It seems most alternate energy enthusiasts are ignorant of the Laws of Mechanics that [fatally] limit the “output” of their-wind-turbines...
The number of proponents of the above, who are also engineers who truly understand Thermodynamics and energy system, is vanishingly small from what I can tell.
I don't blog about that kind of thing anymore. I never enjoyed blogging about energy, anyway, because for too many people "alternate energy" is more about religion than about physics. They believe that if we are just creative enough, we can overcome fundamental physical limitations -- and it's not that easy.
In order for "alternate energy" to become feasible, it has to satisfy all of the following criteria:
If it fails to satisfy any of those, then it can't scale enough to make any difference. Solar power fails #3, and currently it also fails #5. (It also partially fails #2, but there are ways to work around that.)
The only sources of energy available to us now that satisfy all five are petroleum, coal, hydro, and nuclear.
My rule of thumb is that I'm not interested in any "alternate energy" until someone shows me how to scale it to produce at least 1% of our current energy usage. America right now uses about 3.6 terawatts average, so 1% of that is about 36 gigawatts average.
Show me a plan to produce 36 gigawatts (average, not peak) using solar power, at a price no more than 30% greater than coal generation of comparable capacity, which can be implemented at that scale in 10-15 years. Then I'll pay attention.
Since solar power installations can only produce power for about 10 hours per day on average, that means that peak power production would need to be in the range of about 85 gigawatts to reach that 1%.
Without that, it's just religion, like all the people fascinated with wind and with biomass. And even if it did reach 1%, that still leaves the other 99% of our energy production to petroleum, coal, hydro, and nuclear...
Thanks, but no thanks. My "conservatism" on this subject is due to my understanding of the laws of physics and the principles of engineering
I have been following fuel cell technology and its more of a chemical reaction than true combustion. The hydrogen molecules will only bond with oxygen molecules.
Stealthy and very low cost without requiring much wood.
rocket stove mass heater
http://www.richsoil.com/rocket-stove-mass-heater.jsp
Some techs. are working on developing related, low cost stoves with mass and masonry heaters for those who need to pass inspections.
There are many modifications for the above and many more kinds of projects in the works. Sometimes, we should acknowledge a negative and ongoing political and economic reality and choose to adapt and overcome. As for regulations, there are always ways to abide by them if needed or to less regulated counties to build in.
Agreed on the subsidized, government-linked commercial projects, BTW. Many of them cost more than they’re worth. But then too much of this economy is acting on recirculating debt.
They are so FOS —
Renewables will never exceed 10%
And in order for fossil fuels to fall to their liberal target range of 25% nuclear power and hydroelectric power would have to double — and there aren’t enough rivers left to dam for that to happen.
Chow for paragraph eater.
Which is driven by gravity in the end. Weird old world.
Fight the Free Sh☭t Nation
Unless I’m mistaken, most of the talk is about using hydrogen as fuel in an IC engine.
Fuel cells are great in theory, but my understanding is that they aren’t ready to run a vehicle.
“hydroelectric power would have to double — and there aren’t enough rivers left to dam for that to happen.”
Especially since the focus is on removing dams, not building them.
Global Warming on Free Republic
The second most terrifying nine words in the English language: I’m from the university and I’m here to help.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/hurricane-winds-turbine-022614.html
Offshore Wind Farms Could Tame Hurricanes Before They Reach Land, Stanford -led Study Says
Targeted News Service (USA) - Wednesday, February 26, 2014
STANFORD , Calif., Feb. 26 — Stanford University issued the following news release:
For the past 24 years, Mark Z. Jacobson (https://engineering. stanford .edu/profile/ jacobson ), a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford , has been developing a complex computer model to study air pollution, energy, weather and climate. A recent application of the model has been to simulate the development of hurricanes. Another has been to determine how much energy wind turbines (http://www. stanford .edu/group/efmh/winds/index.html) can extract from global wind currents.
In light of these recent model studies and in the aftermath of hurricanes Sandy and Katrina, he said, it was natural to wonder: What would happen if a hurricane encountered a large array of offshore wind turbines? Would the energy extraction due to the storm spinning the turbines’ blades slow the winds and diminish the hurricane, or would the hurricane destroy the turbines?
don’t worry, there is free energy from the gravity field..just as Tesla had tapped into. Coming soon to the world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.