A Rational Look at the "Settled Science"

[TimG]

Breakthrough, where ya been? Been around for years. Solar panel + storage battery + inverter. Pretty simple.

And I am sure you have costed this out? What would be the price of installing 1 GWh of batteries (1 GWH is enough to provide power to a city of 1 million for 1 hour).

Also, I am curious about the environment impact of all of those metals that go into batteries. Do they just not matter?

[On Guard for Thee]

And I am sure you have costed this out? What would be the price of installing 1 GWh of batteries (1 GWH is enough to provide power to a city of 1 million for 1 hour).

Also, I am curious about the environment impact of all of those metals that go into batteries. Do they just not matter?

Do I have to do all the work here? At least I brought you up to date that solar power can be stored.

[TimG]

Do I have to do all the work here? At least I brought you up to date that solar power can be stored.

Ah - no. All you did is show how woefully ignorant you are. I had simply assumed that you would know that grid scale electrical storage is not a remotely viable option at this point in time. I have since adjusted my expectations for your knowledge downward. Edited December 11, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Ah - no. All you did is show how woefully ignorant you are. I had simply assumed that you would know that grid scale electrical storage is not a remotely viable option at this point in time. I have since adjusted my expectations for your knowledge downward.

You're the one that seemed to not know how solar can be stored. However my expectations for your knowledge haven't moved one bit.

[poochy]

You're the one that seemed to not know how solar can be stored. However my expectations for your knowledge haven't moved one bit.

Do you have the slightest idea the scale that the kind of storage you are talking about would have to be? It is unviable. In other words, not real, not happening.

[On Guard for Thee]

Do you have the slightest idea the scale that the kind of storage you are talking about would have to be? It is unviable. In other words, not real, not happening.

There are of course challenges to integrating renewables on the main grid, but as always they are only insurmountable if you are the type who likes to sit on their hands. I happen to know a number of people who are either completely, or nearly completely off the grid. It is viable and it is happening.

[Keepitsimple]

You're the one that seemed to not know how solar can be stored. However my expectations for your knowledge haven't moved one bit.

You're embarrassing yourself. Quit while you're behind. Storing solar energy in batteries to run cities? Or did I somehow miss some tongue-in-cheek humour?. Didn't think so.

[On Guard for Thee]

You're embarrassing yourself. Quit while you're behind. Storing solar energy in batteries to run cities? Or did I somehow miss some tongue-in-cheek humour?. Didn't think so.

You probably missed a lot. But don't embarrass yourself.

[Mighty AC]

Do I have to do all the work here? At least I brought you up to date that solar power can be stored.

Ah - no. All you did is show how woefully ignorant you are. I had simply assumed that you would know that grid scale electrical storage is not a remotely viable option at this point in time. I have since adjusted my expectations for your knowledge downward.

A start up formed by a group from MIT is currently in the real world testing phase of a cheap, liquid, battery capable of grid level storage. It is capable of on demand charging and discharging and the chemistry is already stable enough for very long term use. The promising technology has received investment cash from some heavy hitters, including Bill Gates.

Eventually, this type of technology will balance the intermittent production of renewable sources, but it has value now as well. The current system is designed to meet peak demand, which we only actually need about 5% of the time. On demand storage systems like this will allow us to meet peak demand with far less generation capacity.

[TimG]

A start up formed by a group from MIT is currently in the real world testing phase of a cheap, liquid, battery capable of grid level storage.

Lots of research going on. Some may turn into something viable. Most will not. Governments and businesses don't make decisions based on hypothetical technology.

Eventually, this type of technology will balance the intermittent production of renewable sources, but it has value now as well.

That remains to be seen. A lot depends on how many resources are spent creating/maintaining the storage. If it takes too much energy to create the storage then renewable will still not produce enough surplus power to make the useful for running a modern technological society. That said, game changing tech appears all of the time and when such tech appears I will change my opinion. Until then: renewable are expensive toys that can only exist because fossil fuels produce enough surplus power to keep the world running. Edited December 12, 2014 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

Until then: renewable are expensive toys that can only exist because fossil fuels produce enough surplus power to keep the world running.

Renewables only seem expensive, currently, when we hide the true cost of hydrocarbons. That's why we have to transition towards the real cost.

[bush_cheney2004]

The real cost of renewables is higher for less energy density. Advantage fossil fuels.....

[On Guard for Thee]

Maybe if we just shifted the government subsidies away from fossil's and toward renewables we'd see some progress. The fat farts with their asses stuck to a chair at Exxon Mobil etc. may actually have to pay attention but perhaps we might progress a bit faster to what has to happen inevitably when that last barrel of ooze gets sucked out of some scummy hole somewhere.

[Mighty AC]

The real cost of renewables is higher for less energy density. Advantage fossil fuels.....

Millions of premature deaths and medical visits due to hydrocarbon derived energy. Massive military expenditures. Forced ties to evil regimes like Saudi Arabia. Contaminated environment and wildlife. Costs of sea level rise, increased storm activity and ocean acidification. Eroding the living standards of our children and grandchildren. The real cost of hydrocarbons is off the charts...Advantage renewables.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Mighty AC

[bush_cheney2004]

Millions of premature deaths and medical visits due to hydrocarbon derived energy. Massive military expenditures. Forced ties to evil regimes like Saudi Arabia. Contaminated environment and wildlife. Costs of sea level rise, increased storm activity and ocean acidification. Eroding the living standards of our children and grandchildren. The real cost of hydrocarbons is off the charts...Advantage renewables.

Don't care....and markets don't care. The cost/price is already factored in.

Blood is a renewable resource.

[TimG]

Millions of premature deaths and medical visits due to hydrocarbon derived energy.

And millions of people who don't die because access to food, shelter and medical care is affordable. It is dishonest to attribute harms like these to fossil fuels while ignoring the benefits.

Forced ties to evil regimes like Saudi Arabia.

So instead you would rather depend on evil regimes like China which provide the "low cost" solar panels?

increased storm activity

A complete falsehood that is not backed up by any scientific data.

Eroding the living standards of our children and grandchildren.

Unsubstantiated opinion but as a general rule: access to low cost energy is the key element in prosperity. Renewables are high cost which means any attempt to force the use of them will result in a lower standard of living for future generations.

[Mighty AC]

Don't care....and markets don't care. The cost/price is already factored in.

No it isn't. The public picks up the tab.

[bush_cheney2004]

No it isn't. The public picks up the tab.

That's right...the price/cost is readily paid. The "public" is part of the economic system.

[TimG]

No it isn't. The public picks up the tab.

The "public" picks up the tab for lots of things like transit, roads, police. Should we be moving to a user pay system for everything that provides a public benefit?

[On Guard for Thee]

The "public" picks up the tab for lots of things like transit, roads, police. Should we be moving to a user pay system for everything that provides a public benefit?

Then why don't we start picking up the tab for an energy system that isn't wrecking the planet? Mind you if you are looking for water front in Miami I hear prices are falling rapidly. But don't forget to figure in the cost of a lot of sump pumps.

[Mighty AC]

That's right...the price/cost is readily paid. The "public" is part of the economic system.

The "public" picks up the tab for lots of things like transit, roads, police. Should we be moving to a user pay system for everything that provides a public benefit?

Now that we're clear the public is subsidizing fuels that are doing serious harm to people, wildlife, the environment and the prosperity of future generations we can move on to shifting those subsidies to clean energy.

[bush_cheney2004]

Now that we're clear the public is subsidizing fuels that are doing serious harm to people, wildlife, the environment and the prosperity of future generations we can move on to shifting those subsidies to clean energy.

Only if and when it is economical to do so. Serious harm is outweighed by the serious benefit(s). Motor vehicles do serious harm to people around the world, but millions more are manufactured each year.

[TimG]

Now that we're clear the public is subsidizing fuels that are doing serious harm to people, wildlife, the environment and the prosperity of future generations we can move on to shifting those subsidies to clean energy.

No. Everything you say is sensationalist BS with no connection to reality. I was pointing out the logically inconsistency in your "public cost" argument. Fossil fuels are a net benefit to society. If you want to replace them we need something that provides the same benefits at the same cost. So far we have no alternatives. Edited December 13, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

No it isn't. The public picks up the tab.

And in fact, Metro Vancouver has a referendum question next spring. 'Increase PST by .5% to subsidize public transit'. Motor vehicles are a huge contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/pst-hike-of-0-5-proposed-for-metro-vancouver-transit-referendum-1.2870043

It will be interesting to see how the lower mainland votes on this issue. Will they put their money where their mouth is?

[On Guard for Thee]

No. Everything you say is sensationalist BS with no connection to reality. I was pointing out the logically inconsistency in your "public cost" argument. Fossil fuels are a net benefit to society. If you want to replace them we need something that provides the same benefits at the same cost. So far we have no alternatives.

Fossil fuels are a net drain on society because of the heavy subsidies. Then there is the environmental damage which could be staggering when we have to start moving people from beaches as the SL rises. And yes, we do have alternatives.