Yes, We Can Live Without Fossil Fuel

On this blog, I’ve promoted use of renewable energy as possible, practical and efficient. Still, the doubters rail on about how it’s not even possible. Here’s the thing. A country that has depended on coal for more than a century managed to live without it for electrical generation for a whole day. Extend that. Multiply that. We get a whole world able to live without coal. Repeat, and we can do it for natural gas and oil too. Leave those things to basic manufacturing processes where they are most valuable, not burning for heat.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.

This entry was posted in politics, technology and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Yes, We Can Live Without Fossil Fuel

  1. oiaohm wrote, “the reason why you cannot learn something might be nothing more than CO2 level.”

    I was in a school once that had been built to a very high sealance. After a few years the interior had to be gutted and rebuilt because mold had taken over. The next system had air-quality monitoring built in and a proper exchange rate of air maintained. What the fools who designed the building accomplished by saving heat they squandered by making a poisonous environment. On top of that, the oil furnace had a leak and most of the soil under the school had to be removed. It was a case of getting the wrong people to design and build a school.

  2. oiaohm says:

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-comfort-level-d_1024.html
    Grece thing to be aware human issues start at 600ppm. 500ppm start forgetting living inside due to there being a 100pmm difference in a well ventilated building compared to outside. Current CO2 growth rate is ~2ppm and increase so unless we turn this around in 50 years our current living style is in trouble.

    Carbon dioxide is not harmful to ordinary things, to human beings, or to animals, or to plants.
    Please drop this crap. The medical data says we have to stay under 600ppm of CO2 general atmosphere to remain healthy and productive with out current living methods.

    So 0.06 percent of atmosphere of CO2 is the human threshold without trouble.

    0.1 percent is 1000ppm this general drowsiness our brains are not able to fully function at this CO2 level. This would effectively make everyone driving machinery drunk drivers. CO2 level is going to-do population control unless we bring it under control. Please note we don’t need 1000ppm general atmospheric before that happens. Just use a CO2 meter inside a car and outside notice quite a large difference. So 0.1-0.25 percent and everyone driving is basically drunk without drinking anything. This is something also nasty as CO2 rates go up the legal acceptable limits for alcohol should reduce.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/claim-co2-makes-you-stupid-as-a-submariner-that-question/
    People attempting school/university having trouble learning does pay to check how well ventilated their class rooms are. Yes the reason why you cannot learn something might be nothing more than CO2 level.

    Yes 0.25 percent CO2 as you can get in some buildings if you do tests on a person who is drunk to the legal limit to drive a car and in 400ppm CO2 they have better response times than someone in 0.25 percent /2500ppm CO2. And the legal limit to drive trucks better than 0.1 percent/1000ppm CO2 in response times as well.

    So a cabin of car/truck doubling atmosphere level of CO2 to inside Cabin level of CO2 is not rare. This is the problem We cross .06 percentCO2 lot of our current trucks will no longer be safe to use. Get to 0.1 percent CO2 none of the current cars we have are safe to use either. Basically we will need self drive because we will not be able to.

  3. DrLoser lost badly with this one, “single solitary ancient old fool who admits to dropping several ATX-based computers with catastrophic consequences on one or more airport runways in the northern end of Canada ….”

    I’ve never dropped a case but luggage handlers do to save their backs. They also cinch straps tightly on planes and pile stuff wherever it will fit. I used to ship in a wooden crate but the extra volume/weight was more expensive than the goods. I paid as much as $5/lb for freight and had bulky items left behind. Those planes are tiny in some locales.

  4. DrLoser says:

    Huh? I drive TLW’s SUV as little as possible and there’s no reason TLW couldn’t live with Solo.

    The least we can expect of you on this one, Robert, is that you do not drive it at all.

    And, since you are insisting that nobody needs fossil fuels, we shall also stipulate that you tell your wife to cease and desist.

    But no, you won’t, will you? Because you’re a pathetic little dweeb who won’t stand up to his wife’s hideous desire for gulping carbohydrates via an SUV, aren’t you?

  5. DrLoser says:

    Imagine a full ATX case that has been beaten up at too many northern airports so that the side panels don’t fit. Ten drive bays some occupied and some PCI-e and PCI cards to add storage and bandwidth. It’s old and can be much more compact using of the recent motherboards with PCI-e and USB 3.

    Okey dokey, Robert, I am prepared to imagine that full ATX case.

    And, you know what, I will even imagine somebody who is not a total klutz (ring a bell here) who didn’t drop said ATX case on the tarmac in one (or possibly more) northern airports. I mean, it’s a little embarrassing, but hey, who’s counting? A single solitary ancient old fool who admits to dropping several ATX-based computers with catastrophic consequences on one or more airport runways in the northern end of Canada ….

    Gotta say, laddie: I admire your honesty.

  6. Grece wrote, “I’d surely like to see an image of this “beast” if you would so kindly indulge us.”

    See Upgrading the old Beast back in 2009. That mobo died but I replaced with a new one with similar features and move cards over. http://mrpogson.com/2009/02/01/upgrading-the-old-beast/
    Imagine a full ATX case that has been beaten up at too many northern airports so that the side panels don’t fit. Ten drive bays some occupied and some PCI-e and PCI cards to add storage and bandwidth. It’s old and can be much more compact using of the recent motherboards with PCI-e and USB 3. The Armada 8040 looks good but there are also some nice RK3399 and another board I forget. So I have choice while I wait for payday. Sometime this summer I will choose two or three.

  7. Grece says:

    A year in the making, perhaps two, and yet still today, there is no sign of a replacement board for your Beast server. I’d surely like to see an image of this “beast” if you would so kindly indulge us.

  8. “Come back after you did.”

    I reserve the right to discuss past, present and future. Crawl back into your hole.

  9. Deaf Spy says:

    (posted from my smartphone).

    And how is this exactly a thin client?

    I have two ARMed devices in the queue.

    Please. You will.This is the style of Russian mass-media. In Russia, all good news are always in the queue, always in future tense. “Russian scientists will…”, “Pensions in Russia will raise…”, etc.

    Come back after you did.

  10. Deaf Spy wrote, “most of your environment is thick-client.”

    [SARCASM]Yeah, an Atom, two Android ARMed smartphones, and one lousey notebook besides Beast.[/SARCASM]. I have two ARMed devices in the queue. (posted from my smartphone).

  11. Deaf Spy says:

    I’ve helped a lot of people

    Yet TLW drives a SUV, uses an Intel laptop with a flock of idling cores wasting energy and destroying the environment, you still use x86 on your Beast, and most of your environment is thick-client.

    Not very convincing, Robert.

  12. The Wiz wrote, “imposition by fiat of FOSS”, instead of people choosing FLOSS, as if people were powerless. I’ve helped a lot of people have choice not fiat. e.g. at Easterville people had the choice of N PCs with TOOS or N PCs , 6 servers, four scanners, 8 printers, 6 cameras, a network and a lot more capability for the same money. They chose FLOSS.

  13. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “You are wilfully ignorant”

    No, you ARE a hypocrite – You have no problem applauding the imposition by fiat of FOSS, yet you whine about the fact that people still use windows and windows, both FOSS and commercial applications when they have desktop computers.

    Fortunately for all, you are in the end nothing more that a retired schoolteacher blogging to relieve his boredom.

  14. Deaf Spy wrote, “you are one monstrous hypocrite”.

    You are wilfully ignorant.

  15. Deaf Spy says:

    I drive TLW’s SUV as little as possible and there’s no reason TLW couldn’t live with Solo.

    Replace SUV with Intel, thick-client, idling cores and there we go again. Robert preaches, TLW doesn’t listen and does all she wants, and Robert doesn’t even follow his own advice.

    Robert, you are one monstrous hypocrite.

  16. oiaohm wrote, “There is a lot a talk about CO2 regulation not enough talk about methane reduction that can help reduce green house gas level by reducing methane to CO2.”

    I still think it’s silly to burn any hydrocarbon. Even without considering global warming, hydrocarbons are a limited resource. If we didn’t burn the damned stuff we’d have in-ground supplies for millenia for making plastics or other chemicals. It’s like the folks I met on reserves up north. A very small minority would be given a house in which to live and instead of harvesting a renewable supply in the forest for heating, they disassembled the house from the inside for firewood. It’s just not the right thing to do.

  17. Grece wrote, “Carbon Dioxide is plant food and is non-polluting”.

    Well, that’s true in smaller concentrations, but it’s acidifying the ocean and contributing to the death of coral. The greater danger for humans is that CO2 traps infrared radiation from Earth heated by Sun. It’s like a giant plastic sheet over the planet. That’s why they call it a greenhouse gas. It’s cross-section is huge compared to oxygen and nitrogen so just a small amount has a big effect.

    If you could ramp up growth of plants to absorb all the CO2 we are releasing by combustion Grece would have an argument but the rain forests are shrinking and Nature can’t respond quickly enough on its own. The system is being overwhelmed. I just took a walk around my yard and the typical tree I’ve planted only grew about six inches, so it’s not happening in my yard despite planting hundreds and the damned rabbits and mice and deer really did a number on them. Many are starting over replacing stolen growth from last year. At the rate we are going it will be a decade before our trees can keep up with TLW’s squandering of petroleum. She uses more in a month than I do in a year… Still, she leaves late and drives faster to get where she’s going and loves the acceleration of the gas-guzzler…

  18. Grece says:

    Nope. Nature has dealt with those over billions of years. This CO2 dump is happening over a century. It’s 400 ppm now.

    400ppm? That is nothing, considering that CO2 is like .1% of the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is plant food and is non-polluting. The Clean Air Act was enacted by U.S. Congress way back in 1970, and it regulates the emission of “pollutants” – that’s the term in the statute. Now, what is a pollutant? A pollutant is a subject that is harmful to human beings or to animals or to plants. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is not harmful to ordinary things, to human beings, or to animals, or to plants. It’s actually needed for plant growth. All of us are exhaling carbon dioxide right now. So, if it’s a pollutant, we’re all polluting.

  19. oiaohm says:

    Methane would be a good one to be involved if Canada starts using biogas to produce power. This is one of the issue of not dealing with food products correctly. 1 you miss out on producing power 2 you release a green house gas stronger than CO2.

    There is a lot a talk about CO2 regulation not enough talk about methane reduction that can help reduce green house gas level by reducing methane to CO2.

  20. DrLoser wrote, “Say, CO2 or NO2 or methane, etc. I’m pretty sure that any or all of these are going to be involved in fuelling either TLW’s SUV, or in fuelling Robert’s nonexistent plastic tricycle via electricity generated from who knows where.”

    Huh? I drive TLW’s SUV as little as possible and there’s no reason TLW couldn’t live with Solo. In 2015, 99.6% of Manitoba Hydro’s production was renewable.

  21. DrLoser says:

    I dare say Robert, shouldn’t we be focusing on Nitrogen and Oxygen emissions, as those two comprise 99% of the atmosphere?

    Er, no, they do not, Dougie.

    But even if they did, this is piss-poor science you are offering up. I’d almost believe that you are a “climate change denier.”

    It would be a more profitable avenue for you to explore, should you consider the actual molecules involved. Say, CO2 or NO2 or methane, etc. I’m pretty sure that any or all of these are going to be involved in fuelling either TLW’s SUV, or in fuelling Robert’s nonexistent plastic tricycle via electricity generated from who knows where.

    I’m glad we both agree that Robert is a monstrous hypocrite in this regard, Dougie. But please let us not traduce the basic facts.

  22. DrLoser says:

    I intend to buy renewable generation equipment, not securities. Returns should be around 15% per annum if I feed it to my Solo EV. ~$30K should provide me all my transportation and $free electricity for decades.

    Ludicrously over-optimistic, And out of interest, how much gold are you prepared to sacrifice for this dream of yours?

    Now, to the main point. Does your wife drive an SUV. or does she not?

    Because we need to see some evidence here for “We can live without fossil fuel.” The simplest definition of “we” in this case is you, Robert, and your wife, TLW.

    If only 50% of us can “live without fossil fuel,” then you are talking bollocks, aren’t you?

  23. Grece wrote, “shouldn’t we be focusing on Nitrogen and Oxygen emissions, as those two comprise 99% of the atmosphere?”

    Nope. Nature has dealt with those over billions of years. This CO2 dump is happening over a century. It’s 400 ppm now. It was 200 only a couple of centuries ago. The huge ramp-up started about the time of great increase in usage of automobiles and natural gas post WWII.

    The other very important factor is the ability of CO2 to block infrared radiation from Earth radiating into space. You can see the cross-section for CO2 is huge compared to O2 and water. Thus, a tiny proportion of CO2 is very important. It’s about the shape/size of the molecule rather than numbers. To the infrared radiation, the molecule looks huge being tuned to a wide band of frequencies. Water absorbs microwave radiation really well but only at a precisely tuned frequency of a magnetron oscillator, not the wide range of frequencies of the “white noise” from heated molecues. You can get an idea of this by considering the ways molecules spring, bend and rotate. For nitrogen and oxygen there are just a few important modes of vibration that matter. For CO2, there are an order of magnitude more ways to dance (because there are more partners, it’s a mob instead of a waltz), each being able to interact with radiation in a narrow band of frequencies. The result is a huge band taken out.

  24. Grece says:

    I dare say Robert, shouldn’t we be focusing on Nitrogen and Oxygen emissions, as those two comprise 99% of the atmosphere?

  25. oiaohm wrote, “Coal for steel production is kind of required Coal for power production really bad choice.”

    In the short term, coal still makes sense if the source of coal is close to the thermal generating plant. Most mining these days is quite automated and efficient. It’s the transportation that’s a killer on the price. Compared to a natural gas pipeline or oil pipeline, trucks and trains are very expensive modes. Some people use slurried coal for transporting in a pipeline but that has overhead: pulverization, mixing with water, pumping and then dewatering. Coal is just a losing technology that Trump/Kelly are promoting. Coal tends to deliver all kinds of particulates into the atmosphere along with undesirable CO2. That’s the long term negative. Putting billions of years accumulation of carbon into the atmosphere in centuries is just silly. It may not have been a concern of the ignorant but we are intelligent aware people, unlike Trumpists.

  26. oiaohm says:

    Kurkosdr coal is not that cheap.
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/hunter-valley-coals-annual-health-bill-600-million-doctors-groups-say-20150222-13lfch.html

    Coal is only cheap while you ignore the illnesses it causes.

    Over populated countries burning coal will reduce their population long term if they do not have the medical to deal with the side effects.

    http://reneweconomy.com.au/india-cancels-four-major-new-coal-plants-in-move-to-end-imports-27494/
    India is waking up that coal is too expensive of an option long term.

    Kurkosdr Pakistan is a bad example they are ahead on deploying biogas production and usage.

    Even Nigeria is more into biogas usage than the USA and the UK. Everyone is attempt to cut coal usage where they can. Coal total bill is just not cost effective. You can ignore the carbon tax. It when you look at black lung and other coal contamination illnesses and dealing with that. Coal makes nuclear look safe. Coal for steel production is kind of required Coal for power production really bad choice.

  27. DrLoser wrote, “diversify your money from (I believe) gold into, say, more ecologically sound investments such as Wind and Solar”.

    I intend to buy renewable generation equipment, not securities. Returns should be around 15% per annum if I feed it to my Solo EV. ~$30K should provide me all my transportation and $free electricity for decades.

  28. DrLoser wrote,”TLW is the only one of the two of you who is presently earning money”.

    If my multiple pensions keep multiplying that won’t be close to true next year. My self-directed doubled last year. It came close to quadrupling but for a sudden dip after Christmas. My annuity is based on the balance at Dec. 31. Should have sold earlier but …

  29. DrLoser says:

    I’d put my money into wind/solar if TLW didn’t have any say.

    Thankfully for you, Robert, TLW is the only one of the two of you who is presently earning money. And I applaud your implicit belief that TLW should spend the money earned by TLW by buying TLW, say, a gas-guzzling SUV.

    I do think that you have a perfect right to stand up for your beliefs and diversify your money from (I believe) gold into, say, more ecologically sound investments such as Wind and Solar.

    Do you have any plans to divert your annuities in that general direction?

  30. Grece says:

    I’d put my money into wind/solar if TLW didn’t have any say.

    At least she has more sense, then say YOU.

  31. Kurkosdr wrote, “advanced countries are making a mistake signing CO2 emission reduction treaties, instead of using whatever kind of energy is cheaper, be it coal, nuclear or renewables.”

    Certainly biomass might not be the lowest cost option since some handling has to be done but solar and wind and tidal are very low maintenance and once on line they just keep producing, breaking even and returning a healthy profit. Even I can see a return on investment for investing in solar panels, inverters, battery and wiring in five years when equipment should function for 20 years or even longer. Do the maths. Because a few demonstration projects were priced higher to induce development doesn’t mean they all are. My province is very happy with investments in wind. I’d put my money into wind/solar if TLW didn’t have any say.

  32. Kurkosdr says:

    The data presented in the previous comments is the reason I think advanced countries are making a mistake signing CO2 emission reduction treaties, instead of using whatever kind of energy is cheaper, be it coal, nuclear or renewables. Unless those advanced countries force overpopulated Islamic countries that glorify overpopulation (and have to increase their coal burning significantly because of that) to cut their emissions, advanced countries are not really solving the problem, they are just making their electricity more expensive. If the climate change problem is the deadly threat Greenies tell us it is, then I guess the use of force by advanced countries is justified to avert it. If not, then there is no reason to sign any treaties. Right?

    Which btw is the reason some US citizens voted for Trump. Some Trump voters are just people tired of seeing their electricity become more expensive just to see any progress made during the Obama administration in CO2 emission reduction be nullified at a global level by countries like Nigeria, Pakistan and India.

  33. Grece says:

    The vast majority of those folks will likely not use any fossil fuel. They are rural poor.

    Nigeria is about the poorest of poor, but yet Nigeria is expected to generate 1000 mega watts of electricity from coal by year 2020. In India, coal is the bulk of primary energy contributor, following behind U.S. and China.

    I am most certain that if Canada built a coal plant next to Robert and offered him free electricity, he would refuse it out of principle, due to his stubborn nature.

  34. DrLoser says:

    Fossil provides only 62% of their [Pakistan’s] electricity.

    Still quite a high number, really.

    And unless I am mistaken, you have (as usual with facts that are inconvenient to your insane propositions) completely failed to address the rather large issue of PRC coal consumption as projected out to 2040.

    Never mind, there’s only 1.2 billion of the buggers.

  35. Grece wrote about Pakistan, ignoring advances in renewables. PK has wind, solar, tidal projects as well as some nuclear. Fossil provides only 62% of their electricity.

  36. Grece wrote, ” a damn near extra billion humans burning fossil fuels. A carbon tax will never, ever be able to compete against those numbers.”

    The vast majority of those folks will likely not use any fossil fuel. They are rural poor. China, for instance, is rolling out huge renewable energy projects.

  37. DrLoser says:

    This “back-up” SUV of yours, Robert. (I assume it was bought either by or for TLW.)

    Can you enlighten us all as to which particular variety of fuel it uses?

  38. Grece says:

    Lets start with, India with a 467 million projected population increase, Nigeria a 231 million projected increase and Pakistan with a 101 million increase. That is 800M that could be removed, a damn near extra billion humans burning fossil fuels. A carbon tax will never, ever be able to compete against those numbers.

  39. Kurkosdr says:

    Well, duh. Advanced countries like the UK will cut back on fossil fuels and go for renewables and nuclear, while overpopulated Islamic crapholes like Pakistan will remain dependent on fossil fuels and even increase their dependence to take care of their rapidly increasing population, erasing any progress the UK made at great cost.

    Which means that, if we assume that climate change is a real threat for the UK that must be neutralised at all cost (as Greenies tell us it is), the only way the UK can truly neutralise the threat of climate change is to impose fossil fuel quotas on those Sunni Islam countries that glorify overpopulation (and some even prohibit contraception) even by force. Aka, perform a kind of imperialism.

    (walks away)

  40. From Grece’s link:
    (1)
    “Coal imports were 66 per cent lower as
    generators’ demand for coal fell 59 per cent to a record low.
     
    Renewable electricity capacity was 34.7 GWh at the end of 2016, a 13.7 per
    cent increase (4.2 GWh) on a year earlier.
     
    Provisional estimates show that carbon dioxide emissions fell between 2015 and 2016 by 7 percent; the key factor leading to this decrease was the switch in generation from coal to gas.”

    Things are proceeding well, despite his pessimism.

    Grece wrote, “if anything, reduction of rejected energy should be a high priority over anything else, as 60% of energy transformed is wasted as heat.”

    Then we agree. We should all be driving electrically within five years.

  41. Grece says:

    Total UK energy consumption for 2016 was ~5 quads. In the U.S. for the same year, it was ~97 quads. if anything, reduction of rejected energy should be a high priority over anything else, as 60% of energy transformed is wasted as heat.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604690/Energy_Trends_March_2017.pdf

    https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/energy/us/Energy_US_2016.png

  42. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawson_Station

    Storage is key to Wind power. Mawson Station hits the upper limit of 70% power from Wind with min volume of storage. The temperature there makes things a bit hard.

    DrLoser UK has other options. http://www.renewableuk.com/page/WaveTidalEnergy

    Still at this stage the Tidal is not that exploited. 20 percent of UK core power demand can come from that. Yes this is power you can 100 percent depend on all the time as a base load. Off shore wind turbines around the UK are possible todo up to 70 percent. Biomass to biogas could be used effectively can fill in the gaps of peak loads as it can be stored when it not need to be burnt.

    DrLoser all the power UK needs is there in materials the UK wastes or sources not exploited well. Particularly when you consider how much food is wasted every year in the UK and how much power that would produce is processed into biogas. Its just having a cost effective way of exploiting and storing it. Sections of Russia are harder where you don’t have tidal and good wind to exploit in the winter months.

    The biggest problem is using cleaner methods is more costly than just land filling the stuff. Biogas is in fact quite a big one lots of places don’t do. Third world countries are getting ahead on this having all their cooking and heating done by home generated biogas.

    http://www.greenpower.gov.au/Homes/Common-Questions/~/media/0C3D457D6322447E91611BD4DA2045BE.pdf
    Serous-ally waste including human. This one of Melbourne Australia water treatment plant. Its a power positive process. That it generates more power from the collected waste that what it takes to supply the water.

    DrLoser in the UK I know of one water treatment plant doing this. Really if we were serous about being green countries need to pass doing the basics in biogas recovery as mandatory requirements. So all treatment plants have to-do it. Remember biogas can be stored and burnt for peak power usage.

  43. DrLoser says:

    But let us not be unfair about this.

    Russia (via its proxies in the Donetsk region of the Ukraine) is a noted consumer of low-grade, highly polluting, coal. Not to mention very dangerous mining conditions for the poor sods digging it out. Never mind. Vladimir Putin is so much better than actual democratic leaders, isn’t he?

    The Peoples’ Republic of China, source of all things cheap and nasty and therefore good, is of course doing better:

    As a share of the source of electricity generation, coal is projected to decline steadily falling to 45% in 2040

    Ooh, I can hardly wait.

  44. DrLoser says:

    DrLoser wrote, “Get back to us when that works on, say, a random day in January”.

    At the rate wind and solar are being installed, fossil will be severely cut back in a decade or so.

    Like I say, dimwit, I live in the country under discussion. You do not. I have followed the local (UK) discussions on hydro — we’re not Sweden, so practically nothing except storage — wind — when it falls to nothing is basically peak winter demand — and biomass. You are as usual a completely clueless pitifully uninformed imbecile, totally out of your depth, and without anything other here than a single “feel good” news factoid on a single day in the UK.

    Get back to us when that works on, say, a random day in January.

    Not gonna happen in the next twenty years, Robert.

  45. Grece says:

    The base load can be met by hydro, tidal, biomass, nuclear, geothermal, etc. I happen to have lots of

    See, that where you fail, your instance is not applicable to everyone else. The same thing could be said about IT, not everyone wants to be a cheapskate and whine incessantly about the so-called monopolies of Intel and Microsoft.

  46. DrLoser wrote, “Get back to us when that works on, say, a random day in January”.

    At the rate wind and solar are being installed, fossil will be severely cut back in a decade or so. This matter of base will be solved with wind distributed over continental grids and solar with global grids. The arctic actually would be great for solar during the long days of summer. Imagine oceans of tankers delivering hydrides instead of oil.

  47. Grece wrote, “Solar and wind, DOES NOT have enough base-load capacity to supply our energy needs”.

    Sure, keep saying that even if it doesn’t matter. The base load can be met by hydro, tidal, biomass, nuclear, geothermal, etc. I happen to have lots of wind and hydro on my grid and almost zero fossil. Solo makes sense even for fossil power because of greater efficiency over ICE.

  48. Grece says:

    Solar and wind, DOES NOT have enough base-load capacity to supply our energy needs. For every one-gigawatt needed, you would need to build out ten-gigawatts of solar and wind. Then fools like you want everyone to use electric cars, which places more demand on energy making the requirement to replace one gigawatt plant almost twenty-fold.

    Additionally, energy must be stored for days with no sunlight and no wind for obvious reasons.

    Now that is the energy market, let’s explore textiles and fertilizer production. I guess all those man-made products are going to be tossed out as well eh? Do you want to freeze during the winter and have no food to eat? I suppose so, as living sans fossil fuels is more important for the environment, then supporting mankind.

  49. DrLoser says:

    A whole day, eh? And a day with enough wind to keep the towers rolling. (I lived through that day, and believe me, solar power wasn’t doing all that much.)

    Get back to us when that works on, say, a random day in January.

    Or when you move to the UK and get yourself a clue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *