Electrician Talk banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
RIP 1959-2015
Joined
·
39,618 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,497 Posts
"The greatest barriers to a conversion are neither technical nor economic. They are social and political. Thus, effective polices are needed to ensure a rapid transition. "

Why do we need rapid transition?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,221 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Why do we need rapid transition?
This study presents roadmaps for each of the 50 United States to convert their all-purpose energy infrastructure (for electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, industry) to ones derived entirely from wind, water, and solar (WWS) power generating electricity and electrolytic hydrogen after energy efficiency measures are accounted for. The numbers of devices, footprint and spacing areas, energy costs, numbers of jobs, air pollution and climate benefits, and policies needed for the conversions are provided for each state. The plans contemplate all new energy powered with WWS by 2020, about 80-85% of existing energy replaced by 2030, and 100% replaced by 2050. Electrification plus modest efficiency measures would reduce each state’s end-use power demand by a mean of 37.3% with ~85- 90% due to electrification, and stabilize energy prices since WWS fuel costs are zero. In all states, after energy efficiency measures are taking into account, remaining all-purpose 2050 end-use demand could be met with onshore and/or offshore wind; utility-scale, residential, and commercial/government photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), geothermal, wave, tidal, and/or hydroelectric power. These percentages will shift upon implementation. Regulations would govern facility siting. Over the U.S. as a whole, converting would require 5.1 million 40-year construction jobs and 2.6 million 40-year operation jobs for the energy facilities alone. It would also, decrease ~59,000 (18,000- 109,000) air pollution premature mortalities/year, and avoid $534 (166-980) billion/year in health costs, or 3.3 (1-6.1) percent of the U.S. 2012 gross domestic product, along with $730 billion/year in global climate change costs. Because the fuel costs of fossil fuels rise over time, whereas the fuel costs of WWS energy resources are zero, WWS energy in 2050 will save the average U.S. consumer $3400/person/year compared with the 2050 energy cost of fossil fuels to perform the same work. Health and climate cost savings due to WWS will be another $3100/person/year, giving a total cost savings due to WWS of $6500/person/year. The new footprint over land required for converting the U.S. to WWS for all purposes is equivalent to 0.65% of the U.S. land area. The spacing area between wind turbines, which can be used for multiple purposes, including farmland, ranchland, grazing land, or open space, is equivalent to 1.8% of U.S. land area. Grid reliability can be maintained in multiple ways. The greatest barriers to a conversion are neither technical nor economic. They are social and political. Thus, effective polices are needed to ensure a rapid transition.
 

·
RIP 1959-2015
Joined
·
39,618 Posts
This study presents roadmaps for each of the 50 United States to convert their all-purpose energy infrastructure (for electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, industry) to ones derived entirely from wind, water, and solar (WWS) power generating electricity and electrolytic hydrogen after energy efficiency measures are accounted for. The numbers of devices, footprint and spacing areas, energy costs, numbers of jobs, air pollution and climate benefits, and policies needed for the conversions are provided for each state. The plans contemplate all new energy powered with WWS by 2020, about 80-85% of existing energy replaced by 2030, and 100% replaced by 2050. Electrification plus modest efficiency measures would reduce each state’s end-use power demand by a mean of 37.3% with ~85- 90% due to electrification, and stabilize energy prices since WWS fuel costs are zero. In all states, after energy efficiency measures are taking into account, remaining all-purpose 2050 end-use demand could be met with onshore and/or offshore wind; utility-scale, residential, and commercial/government photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), geothermal, wave, tidal, and/or hydroelectric power. These percentages will shift upon implementation. Regulations would govern facility siting. Over the U.S. as a whole, converting would require 5.1 million 40-year construction jobs and 2.6 million 40-year operation jobs for the energy facilities alone. It would also, decrease ~59,000 (18,000- 109,000) air pollution premature mortalities/year, and avoid $534 (166-980) billion/year in health costs, or 3.3 (1-6.1) percent of the U.S. 2012 gross domestic product, along with $730 billion/year in global climate change costs. Because the fuel costs of fossil fuels rise over time, whereas the fuel costs of WWS energy resources are zero, WWS energy in 2050 will save the average U.S. consumer $3400/person/year compared with the 2050 energy cost of fossil fuels to perform the same work. Health and climate cost savings due to WWS will be another $3100/person/year, giving a total cost savings due to WWS of $6500/person/year. The new footprint over land required for converting the U.S. to WWS for all purposes is equivalent to 0.65% of the U.S. land area. The spacing area between wind turbines, which can be used for multiple purposes, including farmland, ranchland, grazing land, or open space, is equivalent to 1.8% of U.S. land area. Grid reliability can be maintained in multiple ways. The greatest barriers to a conversion are neither technical nor economic. They are social and political. Thus, effective polices are needed to ensure a rapid transition.
Link Please....:whistling2:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,221 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·

·
RIP 1959-2015
Joined
·
39,618 Posts

·
Retired Account
Joined
·
39,697 Posts

·
RIP 1959-2015
Joined
·
39,618 Posts
So would you rather be oily or green Harry...?


~CS~
I'll take the OIL and Gas And Nuclear over the greenie stuff any day.

I heat my house with OIL not windmills.

My truck runs on gasoline not solar panels.

I should not be forced to buy a new truck just because billionaires want me to.

I should not be forced to turn down my T-stat just because billionaires want me to freeze my ass off while THEY do as they please.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,612 Posts
SO, instead of sucking oil from the ground, we will cover the earth with solar panels to rob the crust from the energy it needs to sustain life. Then we will throw up windmills and steal all the energy from the wind which will decrease CO2 supply to crops impacting rates of photosynthesis and growth, yadda yadda

What's better? On the scale that we need energy..neither.

Should I be on this guy's side


or this guys?

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,612 Posts
The real problem is does not entirely entail a solution of so called "green energy"...whatever that is anyhow. The problem with human kind is that we like to do everything at maximum capacity instead of maximum efficiency. Everything we do is based on a belief that we should be able to eat like gluttons, buy cars, and live in fancy mansions. Not that there is anything morally wrong with it, but that idea alone is not sustainable. Maximum output is not sustainable. The long lasting solution is to re-evaluate our lives and say "do we need all the stuff?". Throwing windmills up is just going to prolong our ultimate demise.

You live somewhere on the cost of BC - guessing Vancouver - which is arguable the most fertile growing area in the whole province. If we really cared, we wouldn't be plunking our houses in the middle of the best farm land on the west coast. We would reserve that for growing food and live our lives in the most desolate places of the world. Places like deserts (Kamloops comes to mind) should be where we hang our hat instead.

Plus, we have rattlesnakes and cactuses here - who wouldn't like that?
 

·
Homer to Jebus
Electron Flow Consultant
Joined
·
828 Posts
Annual savings per person= $6000 I'm calling bs on that whole site. My power bill was only $40 a month. :whistling2:
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top