Solar to provide 20% of energy by 2027

[DanKegel]

Thanks, Pete!

[solar pete]

Ok guys I just deleted a few posts that I thought were going to far. Lets keep it civil, dont mind disagreement and arguments but I dont see why it needs to get nasty. Peace, out

[DanKegel]

Not sure what behavior you're talking about. I'm usually polite, respectful, accurate, and careful with what I write.

[Sunking]

Cheap internet might still happen. Heck, Google Fiber shook some big ISPs out of their slumber, and now I have a 50Mbps connection out of sleepy Time Warner for $50/month or so; that feels like I'm almost getting my money's worth. But my coworker in Spain gets about 10x more for his money.

In Panama we pay $35 for gigabit fiber which includes phone with LD and any CATV channels you want. I only pay for 500/Mbs. USA has piss poor communication infrastructure and way behind the world in technology. What Google is doing is smart biz. They and others are buying up all the DARK FIBER we at Worldcom laid down in the 90's and early 2000's. They are paying roughly 3 -cents on the dollar for the fiber cables.

However Google is at a huge disadvantage and will loose the game. They do not have the infrastructure, experience, man power, or resources of ATT, local CATV, and TELCO

[DanKegel]

And that, is how one looses all credibility, by actually believing all the BS some blogger is pimping because it's "green".

Tree style roof top wind turbines, solar roads, hydrogen as fuel, cheap internet in the USA...

Whew, thought you had drunk the koolaid there. Sorry for doubting you.

The first two, I agree, are just pretty ideas that aren't likely to be practical for ages. I cannot believe France is falling for the solar road thing ( see http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/deta...ysis_100027057 for a righteous takedown ).

Hydrogen as fuel, well, that was a bet placed back before batteries got awesome, and seems to be continuing by inertia.
Still, what seems like and probably is irrational exuberance about fuel cells is leading to some cool technology, so in 30 years we might look back and be glad some poor fool made that investment.

Cheap internet might still happen. Heck, Google Fiber shook some big ISPs out of their slumber, and now I have a 50Mbps connection out of sleepy Time Warner for $50/month or so; that feels like I'm almost getting my money's worth. But my coworker in Spain gets about 10x more for his money.

[J.P.M.]

OK, I guess you don't want to talk about it. Looking forward to jflorey2's response.

Not with you. Simply responding to your question in as respectful a manner as is due. Be careful what you ask for.

[Mike90250]

I rather doubt that. I checked a bit, and wasn't able to find any evidence those reactors had been licensed or sold yet.

Oh no, you are not a believer, the article specifically stated

Miniature Nuclear Reactors to be on Sale Within 5 Years
Michael Asher (Blog) - November 10, 2008 5:28 AM

So a little math shows they have been sold for [ 2008 + 5 = 2013 ] about 3 years now. It says it's so. Not maybe, it says Reactors to be on Sale Within 5 Years.

And that, is how one looses all credibility, by actually believing all the BS some blogger is pimping because it's "green".

Tree style roof top wind turbines, solar roads, hydrogen as fuel, cheap internet in the USA, with a smidgen of scientific knowledge, 4th grade math, and common sense, it's nearly all a fraud, or a science experiment never planed to go outside a lab.

[DanKegel]

OK, I guess you don't want to talk about it. Looking forward to jflorey2's response.

[J.P.M.]

Glad to hear you care about climate change. Well, ok, I'm sure I got that wrong, and you don't care about climate change. Or you do, but not in the way I mean. There simply is no way to restate anything you say without you objecting

In the interest of finding common ground, did I get you right when I wrote "Sounds like you strongly believe a high penetration (say, 70% by 2035, or 90% by 2050) is unlikely"?

I only object to your B.S. and only then when I think it is misleading, inaccurate and useless, non productive junk. I consider most of your stuff the latter.

Lest you take any non response as tacit agreement, IMO, there is probably little common ground we both occupy. As for predictions about the future, with my crystal ball still in the shop. I have no idea of what the future holds. That's a lot different from seeing what I can do to improve things and acting accordingly to have as much of a positive impact as possible up to a perfect solution while keeping in mind wishing doesn't make it so. Doing something that actually produces what's thought to be positive results is a start along with the essentials of being persistent and professional about the execution.

If a number will make you happy, I'd like at least 110 % of the planet's energy use supplied by any source(s), renewables or otherwise, provided the mix is the most cost effective and environmentally benign. Until those goals are met, I say we ain't done yet.

The reality will probably be a bit different depending on the time frame, but the future's not been written yet.

Try thinking out of the box for solutions and ways to a better world that may include something other than what you already think you may know or what you have already concluded is the best way to go.

[DanKegel]

Also, don't try to assume or imply I'm unconcerned about the state of things like climate

Glad to hear you care about climate change. Well, ok, I'm sure I got that wrong, and you don't care about climate change. Or you do, but not in the way I mean. There simply is no way to restate anything you say without you objecting

In the interest of finding common ground, did I get you right when I wrote "Sounds like you strongly believe a high penetration (say, 70% by 2035, or 90% by 2050) is unlikely"?

[J.P.M.]

QUOTE=J.P.M.;n337449]
A fraction beyond about 20%, maybe 25 % carried by renewables other than hydro seems unlikely to me for the foreseeable, near term - say 20 or so years

Sounds like you strongly believe a high penetration (say, 70% by 2035, or 90% by 2050) is unlikely, and that the whole idea is a fool's errand.
Nothing wrong with that opinion, you're welcome to it.

Meanwhile, I'm interested in looking at the roadblocks to high penetration, and how each of them might be whittled down. The cost of continuing to burn fossil fuel is so high for our childrens' health and the country's future economy that it behooves us to keep working the problem.

[/QUOTE]

Don't assume you know what my opinions are. I initially changed careers to engineering about 40 years ago because of renewable energy. It's been more than a hobby and less than a job since then. I believe I know something of the subject. Or at least know B.S. when I smell it.

Also, don't try to assume or imply I'm unconcerned about the state of things like climate, or that I'm anti progress.

Additionally and FWIW, not that you may care or even understand, I've designed and engineered a lot of industrial scale equipment that went into refineries, chemical, pharmaceutical and power plants that's gone a long way to actually cleaning up some of the mess left behind before the EPA was created and environmental awareness came into vogue. I've consulted and I believe added to the body of knowledge relating to waste effluent remediation and air quality improvement.

I'm rather proud of those things.

What have you done besides finger point and repeat tree hugger platitudes relating to things you know little about ?

IMO, things would get better for the environment if folks with attitudes and lack of knowledge like yours would simply get out of the way and let those who know what they're doing get on with it.

In any case, don't try to paint me as an environmental or R.E. Luddite. You have no idea.

[DanKegel]

A fraction beyond about 20%, maybe 25 % carried by renewables other than hydro seems unlikely to me for the foreseeable, near term - say 20 or so years

Sounds like you strongly believe a high penetration (say, 70% by 2035, or 90% by 2050) is unlikely, and that the whole idea is a fool's errand.
Nothing wrong with that opinion, you're welcome to it.

Meanwhile, I'm interested in looking at the roadblocks to high penetration, and how each of them might be whittled down. The cost of continuing to burn fossil fuel is so high for our childrens' health and the country's future economy that it behooves us to keep working the problem.

[DanKegel]

small reactors - in the kitchen ...
and this one, you bury under your basement, 27 Mw baby ...
They have been made and sold around the world for the last 3 years according to the article.

I rather doubt that. I checked a bit, and wasn't able to find any evidence those reactors had been licensed or sold yet.

[J.P.M.]

Sorry for not taking part much in the latest discussions. The wife and I are taking a few days of R&R at a nice quite beach resort in Panama City Florida. Cold but very quite so I wont' be taking any sides of this discussion or others that may get my blood pressure (which is usually 115/60) raised.

Have fun. I will be back and hopefully relaxed enough to enjoy the discussions in a few days.

Chicken !! No guts no glory !!

[SunEagle]

Sorry for not taking part much in the latest discussions. The wife and I are taking a few days of R&R at a nice quite beach resort in Panama City Florida. Cold but very quite so I wont' be taking any sides of this discussion or others that may get my blood pressure (which is usually 115/60) raised.

Have fun. I will be back and hopefully relaxed enough to enjoy the discussions in a few days.