When Will Renewables Win the Race?

CA - a state that is virtually bankrupt is pissing more money down the drain! And borrowing the money to throw away by mandating this type of stuff! It will be built out of state most likely as well.

Traditional methods of power generation will rule for many years to come.

Compressed hot air supply using solar heat is applicable to cities.There by reducing the demand on clean energy,fossil fuel etc.

Better chance of BS being the source - at least there you can get methane.

This concept is 20 to 50 years away if ever.

Read David Mackay's "Without the Hot Air" if you want some balanced perspective on "when renewables will win the race".

Not likely...

Thanks for that reference! It looks like a pretty good book, and it appears to be online: Sustainable Energy - without the hot air. I assume it's online legally.

I've started reading parts of it--Chapter 31, and then I started at Chapter 3 and am up to Chapter 7. Overall, I think its a good book from what I've seen so far. I have some quibbles with some of his estimates, and would love to see his book put on a wiki (perhaps with his original text "immutable") but space for others to make comments and maybe to develop some consensus in areas where is estimates or approaches don't approach consensus.

(I know, someone will object to my use of the word consensus--I'm not going to try to defend it here except to say he is using assumptions to make estimates--has he picked the correct assumptions and made the best estimates--there is roof for disagreement and I think it would be profitable to do so.)

Also, his book is specifically aimed at the UK, which is fine, but, again, some of his assumptions could be adjusted for a different country (like the US), and his use of the metric system, entirely appropriate for the UK, makes it less accessible to a wide US audience. (OTOH, haven't we (the US) been a metric country since an act of congress sometime in the 1970s? Or was that repealed, or maybe it never passed both houses of congress and got signed?

In lieu of the wiki I suggested above, perhaps it would be interesting to take his book, and somehow put a question on CR4 for each chapter of the book (perhaps spreading it out with one chapter every 3 to 7 days) and getting comments from all of CR4.

The chapter wouldn't be posted on CR4, but questions could either be of the nature "do you agree with Chapter 3", or could be more specific--MacKay estimates the average English driver uses 40 kw/day of energy for driving--what would be an equivalent estimate in the US. (And / or, Mackay makes the estimate of driving energy per driver, not per person--does that make the most sense?)

I suspect chapters 1 and 2 should possibly be held to the end, as, without reading them, I suspect they make use of some summarization of the details in some of the other chapters. I'd want to try to see agreement (to the extent possible) on the details before attempting to get agreement on anything like an overview or summarization.

Update: I've now (quickly) read more of the book (that is Chapters 1 thru 32 and Technical Chapter A). I still think it's a good book, and would like to prompt more discussion on it and then, to the extent that some group of "we" believes that he has his facts straight (and that they also fit the USA), I'd like to do more to "publicize" the book (or alternate facts vetted by a group of interested engineers, presumably here at CR4).

But, I'm not going to apply for a blog immediately. Among other things, I plan to contact the author (David MacKay) and see if he is interested in authoring (or co-authoring) a blog here, or if he has interest in supporting it in any way (I don't mean financially, I mean things like being willing to participate).

I'm also interested in then (or before) expanding from there, and perhaps addressing other points of view (expressed in books or elsewhere), like Bjørn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist".

I'll be back, but not today, nor probably this week. ;-)

How do you mention McKay & Bjørn Lomborg in the same post - Lomborg is generally on a fools errand with a message to match - his only claim to fame.

The reason I bring up Lomborg is because MacKay mentions in his book, as being one who has a different opinion. One of MacKay's goals in the book is to help decide who is right. I tried reading a little about Lomborg (Wikipedia and some other articles) and their seems to be some controversy.

As long as somebody like Lomborg is out there, and has people apparently believing him, it seems like it would help if he and his book were addressed (and, presumably, disproved).

McKay was being generous - He is a quite open type putting facts (as he understands them) on the table but not looking to go on TV shows and the like - interested in the science and engineering.

Lomborg on the other hand seems to use a few facts to build up a mythical case and loves publicity. Facts and science take a back seat with him.

People that believe Lomborg are not likely to be interested in a rational discussion.

This is one of the topics where yelling and screaming are easily started.

I see you still have your own GA Troll

Hi Garthh -

This is the reason it would be difficult to have such an exchange here. It would turn into a large pissing contest.

99% of people commenting on climate change give virtually no thought to the topic and simply parrot what their favorite radio talk show host tells them. That includes engineers though the percentage there would be lower - maybe only 90% would reply without thought.

The fact that the talk show host doesn't have the faintest idea what he is jabbering about never occurs to them.

Russ

Yeah, and you have gotten off to a good start by pissing on Bjorn Lomborg, without actually addressing any of his arguments. I don't necessarily think he is always right, and further evidence might make him even less so. But your characterization was just plain scurrilous.

Of course, the issues are contaminated by simplistic pronouncements from both (or all) sides, whether "greenies" drooling over every PES-Wiki article, or right-wing talk-show hosts with no grasp of science. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

MacKay's blog may lean to one side at the moment, but he seems to be trying to get to the truth, and trying to weed out overblown enthusiasms. That's my impression so far, and I would be interested if a CR4 blog is done on it.

I have read enough of him (Lomborg) to see that he has some touch with reality - though it is often difficult to find. I think he is a fool - I am supposed to say otherwise so you won't think my characterization oh him is scurrilous?

I don't think it needs to be a proper blog

post a thread for each chapter & links to previous threads, everytime new thread is started

A proper blog would have the potential for abuse [see the mighty penguin hunters{pink} blog], where as threads have to stand on their own merits

for any one who wasn't around in 07 might have a look at Masu's blog,

these are great, he tended to at least do some of the math

I like your idea of a serial discussion on CR4 of the chapters in this important book. Maybe a succession of summary blog entries that recapitulate the main points and give links to the complete David MacKay chapter and other supplementary material.

Popular delusions such as "we have all the technologies we need" are not simply a result of inadequate education. There is a wrong orthodoxy that is enforced by screaming down any discussion of topics which might tend to disturb the ignorant certainty of the fools of the cap-and-trade offset derivatives promoters. At CR4 there might at least be a discussion by some real experts on the merits (with off-topic remarks collapsed so they do not pollute the dialogue). This might become an enduring record for policymakers to consult, and a framework for a technology classification and vetting program that the DOE and the EPA can get started with.

Re: I like your idea of a serial discussion on CR4 of the chapters in this important book.

Thanks!

Re: Maybe a succession of summary blog entries that recapitulate the main points and give links to the complete David MacKay chapter and other supplementary material

I think that might be the result rather than the starting point. Well, what I'm trying to say is I might recap some of all of his points with the idea of flushing out opposing points and then coming to a resolution / agreement on the facts.

Another Update: I've joined a mail list hosted at that site, but so far have seen no posts--doesn't seem very active. (I'm not even sure my subscription became active--I was supposed to get a confirmation or similar, and I don't recall receiving it. Here's the address: http://lists.uit.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uit-science-and-energy-newsletter. On 2nd glance, I guess that is just for announcements which explains (perhaps) why I've seen no activity.)

I've also found that there is a wiki devoted to something like (part of) what I had intended to do, that is, to update MacKay's numbers so as to apply to countries other than the UK (like the US). That doesn't seem to be quite happening.

Here's is MacKay's blog.

Finally, at least for the time being, I don't plan to start a blog on the subject here at CR4. If anyone else is interested, please feel free. I will almost certainly "participate".

The wiki looks like a good source for discussion on the book- I have only briefly looked at it, but what I see seems rational...

A good read - well put together and explained in everyday language.

It is online legally as that was McKay's stated intention and it is written on the first page I believe - there is a RSS feed for comments as well http://withouthotair.blogspot.com/

New and cleaner technologies will come. It is nice of CA to demonstrate for the rest of us how self destructive mandates can be.

Problem is..............they are broke. Living in NC, it's easy to think, so what, their stupid mandates won't effect me. I wish it were true. Unfortunately, the rest of us, through our taxes, will be paying for their eventual bail out.

On a happier note, California's policies will indeed reduce energy demand within the state.

http://foxandhoundsdaily.com/blog/joseph-vranich/7861-california-business-exodus-now-triple-last-years-rate

$$ wins every time. When "renewables" are cheaper than other forms of energy, they will "win". What a "duh" question.

By the way, solar energy is NOT renewable.

I hate the term renewable energy. Oil is a renewable resource. So is coal. You will just have to wait a little longer. Call them alternative energy sources, clean energy sources, anything but renewable.

It is just unscientific to say that we (humans) will not solve the "clean energy" problem. We must (and will) continue to fund research until a solution is developed. A very encouraging process for generating clean energy was demonstrated in Italy in January 2011. Please see the article at this URL:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator

The process seems to be fusion of Nickle into Copper, and mere micrograms are needed to produce enormous amounts of steam at 101 degrees Celsius. It is not "cold" fusion since it runs at 500 degrees Celsius, but that sure beats the sun-like temperatures that LLNL needs to get a few seconds of hydrogen-to-helium fusion!

There is some concern over the legitimacy of the claims of the Italian inventors, similar to the reaction to Fleischmann amd Pons, resulting from thier approach to announcing their "breakthrough"- hitting the public media first, rather than pursuing a more normal peer-reviewed publication. One hopes there is some validity to their work, but proceed with caution...

This process has been way, way more public and visible than the U. of Utah cold fusion debacle of 30 years ago. In fact, there is an argument going on over who really invented it, since another scientist published his findings on this earlier. A search of "Focardi Rossi cold fusion" will reveal dozens of articles with history.

None-the-less, the factory in Greece will be the proof of the pudding. They are going to make "furnaces" for homes using this process.

Better hurry and invest - time to get in on the ground floor before it gets blown wide open as a scam.

I did a search for Focardi Rossi cold fusion and the first entry was for newenergyandfuel.com - a site that I refuse to go to as I consider the blogger as nothing more than blowing smoke.

Not one real article or reference on the first search page so I quit looking.Articles one would be interested in would need some depth to them - not a simple blurb by a blogger.

I might point out that a few years ago there was a girl playing on a university football team.