DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Renewables
*****************************************************
#Post#: 452--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: November 25, 2013, 11:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
On July 12, 2012 I posted this video arguing that the assumption
that GDP GROWTH needs to TRACK energy use growth is a
misconception. Zero Hedge pundits, TAE Nicole Foss, Professor
Charles Hall (darling of The Oil Drum), several diners and other
energy experts out there have made the same FALSE claim over
and over. I posted this video on page six of the Waste Based
society thread on the Doomstead Diner Forum. Go back and read
what diners had to say, Find out how WRONG they were on
subsequent page comments.
In the last year and a half, everything I claimed about energy
and the cost effectiveness and GREATER EROEI of renewable energy
over dirty energy has been proven right. Have a nice day. ;)
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J-ijPcv1VM&feature=player_embedded
Experimental Phycisist Amory Lovins is still at the Rocky
Mountain Institute and still doing outstanding work.
Here's one of his recent videos. It FURTHER reinforces THE FACT
THAT GDP growth does not have to track energy use! [img width=30
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185701.png[/img]
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XlEwyAmzBQ&feature=player_embedded
A world-renowned energy expert, Amory Lovins, visits the
forefront of Japan's energy shift to propose ways for its energy
future. Lovins has been studying and visiting Japan since 1960s
as he embarked on his profession. Lovins' message: Japan can
lead the world in energy shift, if Japan realizes its potential
for more energy efficiency and utilize its abundant renewable
energy.
[url=
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/index.php]Renewable<br
/>Revolution
HTML http://dl3.glitter-graphics.net/pub/465/465823jzy0y15obs.gif
#Post#: 456--------------------------------------------------
Important: Efficiency Standards for Motors Proposed
By: AGelbert Date: November 26, 2013, 7:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
11/26/2013 11:09 AM
Boring But Important: Efficiency Standards for Motors Proposed
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-036.gif
SustainableBusiness.com News
It may not be exciting to read about a new energy efficiency
standard, but setting ever-more stringent requirements for
appliances and equipment is one of the most powerful tools for
cutting energy use in the US.
This is especially true when it comes to motors - which consume
about 50% of all industrial electricity, according to the US
Energy Information Administration (EIA).
The Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing long-overdue
efficiency standards for electric motors, which operate
everything from fans and pumps used for irrigation and
wastewater treatment plants to elevators and conveyor belts.
Over 30 years, these standards are expected to save 1 trillion
kilowatt hours of electricity - enough to power almost every US
home for a year, along with savings to businesses of $23.3
billion. In terms of carbon emissions, the savings equal taking
82 million cars off the road.
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2013.10.18/elecuse.png[/img]
[img width=640
height=300]
HTML http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2013.10.18/industry.png[/img]
"The wide use of motors across many industries results in a
substantial impact on the demand placed on power grids," says
EIA, which projects that this increased efficiency will offset
that of industrial output, resulting in relatively flat levels
of electricity consumption by machine drives.
And the impact will be felt across the world, where US standards
are influencing overseas manufacturers to improve the efficiency
of their motors, too.
"Rather than trying to set slightly higher standards for
electric motors already covered by two rounds of previous U.S.
standards, we recommended that DOE expand the scope of coverage
to many motor types not previously regulated," says American
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE).
This approach made sense to both manufacturers and environmental
groups, all of which were involved in developing the new
standards. Manufacturers like the fact that they can apply the
proven designs they developed for existing regulated motors to
more kinds of motors.
Efficiency standards for motors now apply to almost all kinds of
motors - from 1-500 horsepower.
When Secretary Moniz took over DOE this year he promised to make
efficiency more of a priority. Since then he's been moving on a
series of efficiency standards that have long been delayed, such
as commercial refrigeration equipment, furnace fans and metal
halide light fixtures.
Last year, the US used less energy than in 1999 and that's with
an economy that's grown more than 25% since then.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-005.gif
In fact, efficiency has contributed more to meeting US energy
demand than all other resources combined over the past 40 years
- more than coal, oil, or nuclear, concludes a report from the
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-062.gif
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25366?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SBGeneralNews+%28SustainableBusiness.com+General+News%29
#Post#: 477--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: November 30, 2013, 4:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]“The misperception that China is not acting should no
longer be seen as a reason for inaction by the U.S. or any other
country,” Joffe said. “This misperception is fed in part by
looking only at the environmental problems China is facing,
[I]while ignoring[/I] positive developments. China faces very
significant environmental challenges, but it is also taking
important steps to address climate change.”[/quote]
HTML http://realitydrop.org/#articles/96968
#Post#: 497--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: December 5, 2013, 2:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
When Lockheed Martin Goes Green , It’s Game Over For Fossil
Fuels [img width=30
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png[/img]<br
/>
When a major defense contractor like Lockheed Martin lays down
some heavy stakes in the green energy field, you know it’s only
a matter of time before fossil fuels lose their headlock on the
global energy market.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/maniac.gif<br
/>Lockheed recently teamed up with the green energy innovator
Concord Blue Energy to take that company’s waste-to-energy
technology global, and here’s where it gets really interesting:
Concord Blue has just announced a new agreement to integrate its
technology with the firm LanzaTech, which specializes in
capturing carbon-loaded waste gas from industrial operations
and converting it to high-value products.
;D
HTML http://cleantechnica.com/2013/12/05/lockheed-martin-goes-green-game-fossil-fuels/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29
#Post#: 498--------------------------------------------------
US Government Recommits to Renewable Energy Ramp-up
By: AGelbert Date: December 5, 2013, 3:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
US Government Recommits to Renewable Energy Ramp-up
James Montgomery, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
December 05, 2013
New Hampshire, USA -- Today the Obama administration issued an
executive order re-establishing one of the proclamations from
the climate change plans it issued this summer: significantly
boosting the U.S. federal government's support of renewable
energy to supply 20 percent of its energy consumption by 2020.
The U.S. federal government's broad climate-change initiatives
issued earlier this summer gained a lot of notice for their
emphasis on standards for carbon pollution reductions and energy
efficiency. They also pressed the Department of Interior (DOI)
to expand permitting of renewable energy projects on federal
lands. Now the Obama administration is revisiting and
reiterating another part of that broad climate plan: expanding
the federal government's electricity consumption from renewable
sources to 20 percent by 2020, nearly triple the current 7.5
percent. (It adds the window of uncertainty, though, that such a
target must be "economically feasible and technically
practicable.")
The order maintains the definitions of "renewable energy" as
those laid out in Executive Order 13514 circa 2009: solar, wind,
biomass, landfill gas, ocean (tidal, wave, current, and
thermal), geothermal, municipal solid waste, and new
hydroelectric generation capacity from existing projects
(increasing their efficiency or adding more capacity).
This 20/2020 renewables mandate prioritizes on-site production
or procurement, retaining renewable energy certificates (REC);
followed by purchasing the electricity and RECs, and then just
purchasing the RECs alone. For on-site projects the government
urges a focus on brownfield sites including contaminated lands,
landfills, and mines. There's also a plan to add Green Button
pilots on federal facilities, coordinating efforts among the
DOE, FEMP, and EPA, which will update the Energy Star Portfolio
Manager to include building energy usage data using Green
Button.
Here's the official roadmap being laid out for federal renewable
energy consumption:
•Fiscal 2015: Not less than 10 percent
•Fiscal 2016-17: Not less than 15 percent
•Fiscal 2018-19: Not less than 17.5 percent
•Fiscal 2020: Not less than 20 percent
Note the U.S. military arms already are under a legal mandate to
reach 25 percent renewable energy consumption by 2025, which
will amount to 1 GW of new installed capacity each for the Army,
Navy, and Air Force.
What's missing, of course, is any direction or definition on how
agencies and federal facilities should build or obtain all this
new capacity, what is the overall mix among renewable sources,
how much money this effort will save, or how it will be paid
for.
Nevertheless, "this is a landmark moment in our nation's
history," proclaimed Rhone Resch, president/CEO of the Solar
Energy Industries Association (SEIA). The solar industry is
already doing its part, with more than 10 GW of installed
capacity and representing nearly all the nation's new
electricity generation. He also urged the administration to set
up a more modernized procurement process that lets agencies
adopt long-term power purchase agreements (PPA).
Back in June the Union of Concerned Scientists' Mike Jacobs
suggested those 20/2020 goals shouldn't be too difficult given
that many states are already approaching or even exceed that
number.
We'll keep updating this story as more details and analysis
becomes available.
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/12/us-government-recommits-to-renewable-energy-ramp-up?cmpid=rss
#Post#: 532--------------------------------------------------
Debate with a Fossil Fueler about Wind Power
By: AGelbert Date: December 10, 2013, 9:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Debate with a Fossil Fueler about Wind Power and the future of
renewable energy:
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif
[quote]
Quote from: agelbert on Today at 01:09:31 PM
Wind energy will be available AND cheap as long as the earth
rotates and the sun shines.
[/quote]
[quote]Lets discuss this for a minute, from the perspective of a
power engineer running some portion of the grid somewhere for a
moderate sized city.[/quote]
I would love to. However what you want to discuss is not my
statement, since that is not challengeable.
What you want to DISCUSS is the Amount of Energy available
Instantly 24/7. You want to discuss that because you labor under
the view that wind power cannot deliver X number of MW when your
community, all of a sudden, from 10PM to 2AM Thursday night,
needs them.
The issue of the rate is a separate one you cannot seem to let
go of because you are STUCK in a paradigm of varying rates
according to demand. This paradigm of yours is fossil fuel base
load logic based and is going the way of the dodo bird.
Fossil Fuel (FF) plants have, say 80% base load capability 24/7.
They WANT people to use that baseload but, of course, people
DON'T during slack periods. Consequently, the FF utility tries,
by super low rates during slack periods, to get people to use
it. WHY? If you REALLY know anything about power usage, you know
that, below baseload, a lot of SHUNTING (throwing MW AWAY)
happens. The FF PIGS don't like that. They studied the
communitee and built their pollution factory to get as high a
base load 24/7 as possible. They never gave a flat **** about
the needs of the community, just their ****ing bottom line and
YOU KNOW IT!
When baseload is exceeded and they are in prime rate quickstart
gas power plant territory, they are happy as pigs in poop to
provide it. They have power sharing agreements with surrounding
grid blood sucking utilities to get MORE power if they are maxed
out above base and peak power plant capability. EVERYTHING
ROTATES around PROFIT for the FF utility, NOT SERVICE.
That's what YOU live and die by. That's what YOU think is
logical. That's what YOU think energy distribution is all about.
That's why YOU JUST DO NOT UNDERSTAND WIND POWER.
Wind, like your ****ed up FF poison factories, is ALSO tied into
the grid, which consequently, with the new electronics and
computer monitoring, increase or decrease power output
IRRESPECTIVE of some baseload criteria.
Baseload, beyond initial infrastructure design according to the
community size, will NO LONGER be an issue although there will
probably be a rate penalty for high use irrespective of the time
you are using it.
The new renewable energy paradigm will NOT BE ABOUT THE COST OF
ENERGY; It will be about the COST OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICE
AND MAINTENANCE. For all practical purposes, the FUEL cost of
energy itself will be ZERO so people are going to pay for the
infrastructure as a service package with a TOP limit on energy
use monitored by smart meters based on ENVIRONMENTAL
considerations, not the baseload bottom line of the utility
predatory capitalist "business model".
There isn't going to BE any "externalized cost" BULL**** for the
environment to please "investors". The new business model will
work more like a bond issue with the coupon based on a projected
moderate profit from installation and maintenance of
infrastructure, PERIOD.
I know, I'm speaking GREEK to you. Fine.
For an in depth look at the future of energy use and
distribution, read this article. The author is an expert that
knows far more about grid nuances than I do so you can argue
with him about details.
What Happens When Energy Prices Are Zero?
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
[img width=30
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png[/img]<br
/>
Originally published on RenewEconomy.
Numerous studies tell us that 100% renewables is possible, and
cost-effective. But how to structure an energy market where
there is no fuel cost? Germany is already grappling with this
dilemma, and the world is watching with interest. This is part
of a series of articles on Germany Energiewende. More can be
found in our Insight section.
One of the big questions about scenarios for 100 per cent
renewable energy production is how to structure the energy
market.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1402.gif
We now know that having electricity supplied to a major economy
entirely by renewable energy sources is possible, and most
likely no more expensive than building new fossil fuel
generation.
What we don’t know is how to structure the energy market so it
provides the right incentives: If the marginal cost of solar and
wind energy is close enough to zero (because there is no fuel
cost), then the energy price in a 100 per cent wind and solar
market is going to be zero – at least in the current market
structure. But who would invest?
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1402.gif
Full article Here:
Read more at
HTML http://cleantechnica.com/2013/12/10/happens-energy-prices-zero/#0XGcSzaKjjh4L6er.99
HTML http://cleantechnica.com/2013/12/10/happens-energy-prices-zero/#0XGcSzaKjjh4L6er.99
My Comment on the above article: :icon_sunny:
[quote]agelbert
• 20 hours ago
Well, consider this. Without artificial scarcity or price shocks
from fossil fuels,[size=12pt] two things happen:
1) The power to buy politicians and undermine democracies is
lessened which, in turn, saves trillions of dollars in war
profiteering and human misery.
2) A world at peace has a much more reliable infrastructure and
investment climate. Stability attracts investors for a
predictable, stable yield for Renewable Energy infrastructure
bond issues.
The two factors above translate to the yield on the investment
being a function of the price people pay for the infrastructure
that brings them the energy, period. All this machinery has MTBF
cycles and can be depreciated in a thirty or forty year
accounting cycle.
People will pay for service, not the energy itself, even though,
of course, the target for all of us is to be carbon-neutral so
the environmental consideration will always affect the pricing
structure to possibly penalize high energy cost based purely on
environmental considerations, not the energy cost or the
infrastructure.
I bring this up because Homo Sapiens is smart enough to set up a
100% renewable energy economy and proceed to overwhelm it
through over use of this "free" energy. There is a biosphere out
there we can no longer neglect. This time the environmental
cost, and there always will be one, must be paid as we use that
energy. We do not want a repeat of the greed gluttony of the
fossil fuel industry and utility company "investor" profits that
encouraged polluting energy and overuse of energy as well.
Just my two cents.
Remember what Thomas Edison said in 1931. He was a wise man but
we did not do what he proposed because of greed, not because we
couldn't develop the technology. We must look at energy as a
part of life, to be used prudently, not as an unlimited "fuel"
to be used willy nilly.
1931: Edison Advocates for Solar Energy over Fossil Fuels
In a conversation with fellow inventors and entrepreneurs Harvey
Firestone and Henry Ford, Thomas Edison says of renewable energy
sources: "We are like tenant farmers chopping down the fence
around our house for fuel when we should be using nature’s
inexhaustible sources of energy—sun, wind, and tide.… I’d put my
money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I
hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we
tackle that." [US History, 2013; About Thomas Edison, 8/19/2013]
It's time to stopped chopping the fence around the house of ALL
the earthlings we share this planet with. As self aware beings
responsible for 100% of the environmental degradation, if we
keep putting ourselves first, we are guilty of criminal
negligence.
[/size][/quote]
By the way, in your energy demand calculus you also left out the
FACT that there will be NUMEROUS Renewable Energy technologies
ALL LINKED from geothermal to solar to wind to biomass to ocean
currents using various new storage technologies in addition to
the old ones from hydropower to a plethora of battery,
compressed air and inertia systems. It's NOT going to be about
making energy SCARCE to charge people more. That's OVER. But I
know you don't agree.
It's going to be about PRUDENT (as in, respecting the needs of
the biosphere) energy use, not how much you can "afford" to buy.
For over a century, you fossil fuelers have gone WAY OUT OF YOUR
WAY to destroy new energy technologies by hook or by crook. In
the video are a few examples. Some might be pie in the sky but
MOST of them are for real and are the DEATH KNELL of the war
profiteering, murderous, "energy is scarce so we have to fight,
kill for and hoard"
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png<br
/>****ED UP world view the "apex predator" Intelli-MORONS among
us
love to CON we-the-people with.
Have a nice day.
[embed=640,380]
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K2wm8tn088#[/embed]
#Post#: 535--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: December 11, 2013, 8:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=1450]
HTML https://s3.amazonaws.com/mosaic-landing/World_US_RPS_3_1250w.jpg[/img]<br
/>
[i]Attribution for the above graphic is to joinmosaic.com[/I]
In the 21st century, many countries are moving away from
dependence on fossil fuels for their energy needs. A number of
smaller countries have already reached 100% renewable energy,
and many others are close to complete independence from fossil
fuels. Some of the more notable achievements in our global
pursuit of a future free of fossil fuels are:
•Iceland, which is 100% free of fossil fuels, got 26% of its
energy from geothermal sources in 2009.
•At the end of June 2013, Germany’s total installed solar PV
capacity was 31.19 GW, the highest in the world. Despite this
solar success, however, Germany still remains dependent on some
of its energy from fossil fuels.
•China’s spending to free itself from fossil fuels and develop
more renewable energy may total 1.8 trillion yuan ($323 billion)
in the five years through 2015 as part of the nation’s efforts
to counter climate change.
•Nicaragua, which has set a goal to be 94% free of fossil fuels
by 2017, aims to reduce its reliance on foreign oil from 70% to
6% by that time.
•Paraguay, one of the leading countries in the world claiming
independence from fossil fuels, is 100% renewable but also
exported 90% of its generated electricity (54.91 TWh) in 2008.
•By 2016, solar energy will bring electricity to 2 million
Peruvians who currently do not have access to it and rely on
dirty fossil fuels for cooking, lighting, and other energy
needs.
•In the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region, solar power’s
energy potential far exceeds global electricity demand, yet this
region still primarily remains dependent on fossil fuels.
•In the U.S., 29 states, plus Washington, DC, and 2 territories,
have a Renewable Portfolio
Standard (RPS), meaning they will need to increase production of
energy from renewable sources in the next 10-20 years in order
to decrease reliance on fossil fuels.
Infographic created by Aven Satre-Meloy
Learn More:
•Mosaic President Billy Parish on the fastest way to 100% clean
energy.
•Get the scoop on impact investing.
•Why you should care about crowdfunding.
HTML https://joinmosaic.com/blog/end-fossil-fuels
[img width=145
height=120]
HTML http://images.ame4u.com/Animated_Clipart/Animated-Solar/sun_shining_solar_panel_hg_clr__st.gif[/img][img<br
/>width=45
height=100]
HTML http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/6/7/1/12065737551968208283energie_positive_Wind_Turbine_Green.svg.hi.png[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/8.gif
#Post#: 552--------------------------------------------------
Agelbert Renewable Revolution INSTITUTE 2035 U.S. Energy use Pro
jections
By: AGelbert Date: December 14, 2013, 9:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A fossil fueler called 🦖 MKing brought an interesting
2009 U.S. energy use graphic which uses "quads" for the energy
units. When I told him the 2009 global energy demand was 18TW, I
was not talking about QUADS but let's deal with the 2009
graphic.
[center]2009 [/center]
[img
width=640]
HTML http://memberfiles.freewebs.com/64/55/76875564/photos/undefined/Central%20power%20losses.png[/img]
About 39% of the 2009 US ENERGY USE (IN QUADS) total was
electrical, further "justifying" MKing's "perspective".
So what's the problem with MKing's "irrefutable" logic pointing
to Renewable Energy being a DROP IN THE ENERGY BUCKET? (I seem
to have had this SAME conversation with Nicole Foss about a year
and a half ago...)
1) The US is not the whole planet. In fact our energy "policy"
DOES NOT EXIST on a national scale. That puts the fossil fuel
corporations in De Facto control of energy [s]policy[/s]
piggery.
That FACT makes us DIFFERENT and technologically and
scientifically BEHIND every other developed country in the WORLD
(including fossil fuel loving Russia!) in regard to energy
policy and piggery in the light of global warming caused by the
burning of fossil fuels.
The U.S. is NOT an example of the global energy trends (I'm
CERTAIN MKing is aware of this). Using it as an example shows
the deliberate intent to use an extreme of fossil fuel use as
the planetary norm to undermine the facts about exponential
Renewable Energy growth (when they aren't claiming that
Renewable energy growth is LINEAR and therefore will take 500
years or so to replace fossil fuels!) and paint the fossil fuel
driven economy as the be all, end all of a workable
civilization.
It's quite clever. But it is false because it lacks perspective,
not because the facts of the year 2009 for the U.S. are "false";
They are accurate.
However, 2007 to 2009 was the apex of fossil fuel piggery and
projections for the U.S.! There was LESS before and LESS after
in an increasing downward slope!
You would stare open mouthed if you could see the same pie chart
above in 1940. Renewable Energy from hydropower reached 33% of
our electrical grid penetration, a percentage we have yet to
reach again (but a lot of good people are working on it!).
2) In 2009 the situation in Europe was the antithesis of the one
in the U.S. as to Renewable Energy. MKing was obligated to show
the rest of the planet but did not. If we are going to discuss
planetary energy use, we need to include the whole ball of wax.
8)
Now let's see what happened AFTER 2009:
[img
width=640]
HTML http://haysvillelibrary.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/energy-use-projected-to-2035.jpg[/img]
Fossil Fueler wet dreams as projected to 2035 when the above
graphic was enthusiastically prepared (and shown proudly at THE
🦖 OIL DRUM web site, NO DOUBT! 😈) to make sure
us treehugging renewable energy freaks "understood the REAL
world". ::)
Yes, unfortunately, PART of the above is coming to pass because
of the Chinese energy explosion. But look what is happening in
MKing's example (the U.S.) of fossil fuel energy love (see
below).
[img
width=640]
HTML http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/02/27/blogs/dotchinaco2new/dotchinaco2new-blog480.jpg[/img]
[b]And with the massive pollution problem in China, you KNOW
that China line is peaking and will begin its inexorable descent
if China, and the rest of the biosphere too, is to survive this
climate mess.
Yes, MKing, I'm aware of the fact that the graph has CO2
emissions, ::) not energy use. But when you are talking about
fossil fuel use, CO2 emissions correlate exactly with burning
fossil fuels. Don't try to pretend otherwise.
But your fossil fuel pals are LOATHE to project trends any way
but the way they want them to go. THIS IS YOUR PERSPECTIVE
PROBLEM.
You scoffed at cost not being germane in the North Sea Platforms
because THE PEOPLE, NOT BIG OIL, were made to pay for it. Your
"perspective" is that IF you can get away with gaming the costs
so YOU don't pay them, you have a viable business model.
BULLSHIT!
The mafia has been around for a long, long time because, even
they learned, like you fossil fuelers never seem to, that
rampant, calloused predation will backfire on you and destroy
your business.
Since it hasn't happened to your "business model" YET, you think
it won't. Yeah, it's ALL ABOUT DISTORTED AND ARROGANT flawed
perspective. But ,hey, you use renewable energy so I guess you
have something going for you. ;)
Dear readers, you saw that fossil fueler wet dream projection
from 2007 to 2035 above, right?
Well, these fine fellows have made an adjustment to their
prevaricating projections (see below).
[img
width=580]
HTML http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2012.01.24/AEO2012EnergyConsumption.png[/img]
Note the attempt to make the energy total in general (and fossil
fuel use[i][b] descent in particular) look like a hiccup!
BULLSHIT![/b][/i]
In order to give fossil fuelers a reality check and a bit of
heartburn too, I have consulted with the top scientist at the
Agelbert Renewable Revolution Institute. He is a very learned
man! ;D I see him regularly whenever there is a mirror around.
Anyway, he used his top secret quantum computer to show what the
U.S. energy consumption and breakdown of sources is projected to
be from now to 2035.
Fossil Fuelers and Nuke Pukes will scoff publicly :P but they
will [img
width=30]
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-231218145827.png[/img]<br
/>sweat bullets privately! [img
width=50]
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-210818163126-16771578.gif[/img]
But this isn't about whether "it would be nice but we just can't
swing it due to fossil FOOL corporation power and piggery"; This
is a matter of national security and national survival. We DO
THIS or we ARE HISTORY, PERIOD. Pass it on. The planet you save
may be your own.
[img
width=640[
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141213214511.png[/img]http://[img<br
/>width=640]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141213203245.png[/img]<br
/>
#Post#: 554--------------------------------------------------
History of Scientifc Predictions Based on Status Quo Linear Proj
ections
By: AGelbert Date: December 15, 2013, 6:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Space travel is bunk.” — Sir Harold Spencer Jones,
Astronomer Royal of the UK, 1957 (two weeks later Sputnik
orbited the Earth).
“The earth’s crust does not move”- 19th through early 20th
century accepted geological science.
“Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are
impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” — William Thomson,
Lord Kelvin, British scientist, 1899.
“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will
ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be
shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932
“The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in
explosives.” — Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project
“If I had thought about it, I wouldn’t have done the experiment.
The literature was full of examples that said you can’t do
this.” — Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique
adhesives for 3-M “Post-It” Notepads.
“Stomach ulcers are caused by stress” — accepted medical
diagnosis, until Dr. Marshall proved that H. pylori caused
gastric inflammation by deliberately infecting himself with the
bacterium.
“That virus is a ****cat.” — Dr. Peter Duesberg,
molecular-biology professor at U.C. Berkeley, on HIV, 1988
“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” —
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
“Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence
and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the
southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the
armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global
temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.” — Climatologist George J.
Kukla of Columbia University in Time Magazine’s June 24th, 1975
article Another Ice Age?[/I].[/quote]
So the next time you hear about Scientifically, fastidiously,
mathematically, data driven, empirical evidence projections of
ENERGY USE BY SOURCE based on the STATUS QUO percentage
breakdown in the PRESENT GAMED ENERGY "playing field" dominated
by fossil fuel bought and paid for energy use projection
modelers in and out of government, you might want to remember
that just being an expert, or even having a consensus of
experts, doesn’t necessarily mean that a claim is true.
[img width=520
height=420]
HTML http://www.whydidyouwearthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7j9nik8Wf1qaxxwjo1_5001.jpeg[/img]
Agelbert's 2035 projection is Fartium, Hopium and UNSCIENTIFC
TOO!
You might also consider that the derision and scorn directed at
"outlier" projections like [i]THIS ONE[/COLOR][I]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141213203245.png<br
/>
HTML http://dl3.glitter-graphics.net/pub/465/465823jzy0y15obs.gifthat<br
/>MKing and his Fossil Nuke pals consider story telling
(mendacity) fartium and hopium, is based on the [i]status quo
perception limitations that can even affect intelligent and far
seeing people like Einstein.
Sure, the derision among the fossil fuelers is based on FEAR too
but good luck getting them to admit that. They don't operate in
the reality based community; They firmly believe they can create
their own reality, totally ignoring inconvenient things like the
laws of thermodynamics and entropy.
They are used to ****ting where they eat. Up until now, the
biosphere has accommodated all their industrial toxins without
putting a dent in their profits. But people like Agelbert and
many, many other humans out there realize that these predatory
fools are heading for a Seneca Cliff. That is why my energy use
modeling shows a parabolic descent of the use of fossil fuels.
I could show several historic examples of disruptive technology
doing the same thing but MKing and his Predatory Fossil Fueler
friends won't buy it because of the old "This time it's
different TRICK". ::) They falsely believe they can play
whack-a-mole with Renewable Energy now like they did several
decades ago.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
They corked it in the 1980s and, like a pot of water on high
heat, it is boiling over, throwing the lid of bribes, violence
based repression, corruption and mendacious fossil fuel energy
bull**** to the four winds. Anybody with a lick of sense can see
the transition is NOT going to be linear; it's going to be
somewhere between parabolic and exponential for the INCREASE in
Renewable Energy share of the total demand as well as the
DECREASE in the fossil and nuclear poison fuel use.
MKing cannot envisage this because he is OWNED by the perception
of the status quo. So he scoffs and asks for minutiae and
detailed analysis about a FUTURE that his pals want to
continually game.
He won't admit that, of course. He is smug and sure that they
WILL succeed in keeping Renewable Energy to a niche. He won't
admit big oil gamed the last 50 years; why should he accept
publicly the FACT that they want to game the next 50? No, he
will claim it was all done in a level energy cost/supply
cost/benefit playing field.
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif<br
/> Talk about story telling FARTIUM AND HOPIUM!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif
To show you how discomfited our pet fossil fueler that drives a
Volt is by my 2035 projection, notice he did not even COMMENT
that MY energy project TOTAL USE for the U.S. is essentially the
SAME as the original chart by the "experts" that MKing respects.
Why did I accept their figures for the total? Because I think
they recognized that the growth of total energy use is DEAD IN
THE WATER because of so many new efficiencies brought on by new
technology (see Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute for
DETAILED scientific reports and analysis of this quantum leap in
energy savings - that MKing doesn't talk about ;)).
At any rate the modeling by "respected" status quo supporting
GANGS of scientists is, by the 2035 U.S. Energy Use projection
chart, admitting ONE NEW and SIGNIFICANT CHANGE in the energy
use paradigm. :o That is that GDP GROWTH does NOT HAVE TO TRACK
ENERGY TOTAL DEMAND.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
This is
a HUGE admission for the "[color=red]growth is IT
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png"<br
/>view of the predatory capitalist mindset.
I simply CORRECTED the blind spot these status quo bean counters
displayed.
What's that? The Renewable Energy Explosion tidal waving over
the Fossil and Nuclear fuel industries Seneca Cliff.
I find that is a rational, realistic and highly probable
scenario. I think most people reading this DON'T but, around
2017, take another look at this chart. [img width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/>
Mking and friends will say it was a lucky shot on my part. The
quantum computer I have between my ears is no match for big oil
and all the scientists working for them in and out of government
so I'm just farting in the wind! [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>
Finally, let's talk a little about the erroneous predictions
from serious scientists above. What's the common denominator?
The common denominator is NOT mendacity or bought and paid for
bull****. These people really believed what they were saying and
really were serious, dedicated scientists dealing in empirically
reached conclusions only.
What happened was twofold:
1) Status Quo linear type projection thinking instead of rapid
change from disruptive technology (parabolib, exponential and/or
Seneca Cliff).
2) The ETHICAL thought process of these scientists (If we have
something that works to do this or that, it is costly/stupid to
replace it with this new stuff).
Other considerations like career positions and personal
financial holdings certainly would prejudice even the best,
clear thinking individual but that is not the common denominator
UNLESS we are talking about mendacious propaganda (New Ice Age,
anyone?).
Einstein was the smartest of the above bunch, wouldn't you
agree? Einstein understood physics pretty well, I would say.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
He KNEW
that messing with radioactivity and making a bomb and using
fission to boil water was a low probability event that, though
remotely possible, didn't make any sense whatsoever from a
military or energy for civilization standpoint.
He was right. He still is right!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
But the MKing PERSPECTIVE of the predatory capitalist "war
profiteering, externalize the pollution and concentrate the
profits in a few hands" was not something Einstein dealt in.
He was a REALITY BASED person. He had ETHICS. They dominated his
view of a proper military and energy future. Only when he
thought Hitler could get the bomb first did he relent.
Even so, that God Damned Bomb provided work for about 100,000 to
400,000 people in the USA during the height of the Depression
when the money was sorely needed to help the starving, hard
working millions victimized by Wall Street and the Bankers.
That's just fine for the MKings of this world. The BOMB created
the cabal of fascists (protected from public scrutiny by the
secrecy of atomic energy) that joined with Big Oil to fnish the
transition of this country into a Fascist Police State.
That's cool for the MKings of this world too.
The massive negative inertia of pure calloused behavior and
arrogance toward fellow humans with less power that this new
technology created in the USA business establishment was the
worse thing that ever happened to this country. It brought us
the MIC, game theory, unbridled belief in might is right far
beyond what the robber barons had believed in and a general
disdain for socially humane solutions to human problems. MKing
has no problem with that either. He may admit, as Bill gates
does, that it is "unfortunate" that the poor get shafted as
result of capitalism but that's just the way the cookie crumbles
in REAL LIFE.
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/hae51.gif
Now you may say that I am not a realist and neither was
Einstein, someone I can never compare with mentally but I DO
compare with ethically.
Einstein WAS a realist. So am I.
I'm telling you, as I'm sure Einstein would as well, that all
this fossil fuel and nuclear crap destroying democracy and
playing king of the ****ing hill is TEMPORARY. :o That is the
historical record in meteoric climbs to power.
The descent FROM power is just as meteoric. MKing doesn't see
that. Fossil fuelers don't see that. The MIC doesn't see that.
MKing thinks it's strory telling fartium and hopium to project
the rapid end of COSTLY and TOXIC fuel industries. It's not.
It's the MOST probable scenario because that is how it has
ALWAYS GONE in the historical record when ossified, centralized,
elite power has run into decentralized, distributed power. The
fact that the dynamic is now thermodynamic as well as political
just adds inertia to the rapidity of the CRASH ahead for dirty
energy.
I don't give a flat **** what you think, MKing. However, I am
gratified that you honored my chart with some ridicule. It shows
I touched the RIGHT BUTTONS.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/5yjbztv.gif
Have a nice day.
To all readers, don't hesitate to pass this on with or without
attribution. Let the status quo worshippers know that that they
are cruising for a bruising from Renewable
Energy.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif
Give them HELL! [img width=80
height=90]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2mo5pow.gif[/img]http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/10172/Bored-cute-big-smiley-animated-066.gif[img<br
/>width=80
height=90]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif[/img]
It's what they deserve. This is what happens when these bankrupt
energy paradigm true believers argue with you:
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2544.gif
[move]Fossil Fueler and Nuke Puke STATUS QUO based linear
(ignoring parabolic, exponential and Seneca Cliff historically
documented effects of disruptive technology) Projection to 2035
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif
[/move]
[img width=610
height=380]
HTML http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2012.01.24/AEO2012EnergyConsumption.png[/img]
[move]High Probabilty Future due to tyranny overkill by
predatory capitalist crooks suppressing cheaper Renewable Energy
Technology for over 40 years up until now.
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb029.gif
[/move]
[img width=640
height=980]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141213203245.png[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gif
#Post#: 564--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth
By: AGelbert Date: December 16, 2013, 8:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
MKing said (after the silly attempt at ridicule, disparagement
and IQ lowballing of Agelbert. :icon_mrgreen:) [quote]
Religious dogma?
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
Renewable zealotry?
HTML http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/10172/Bored-cute-big-smiley-animated-066.gif
Call it what you'd like, but the economists
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png<br
/>who built the model for the IEA certainly have answers
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-032.gif
for
these kinds of questions. [img width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/> [/quote]
[color=purple]My dear fossil fueler, I never said these worthy
economists did NOT have the answers; I SAID they were making
faulty projections, as the list of serious scientists I gave you
in the last post but are SILENT about, DID.
They were RADICALLY mistaken because they projected the status
quo into the future linearly. Do you have difficulty seeing that
error? YEP! In fact, in regard to your following list of
questions, you are avoiding the central issue here. And that is
a COMPARISON of the two technologies at odds with each other.
The other day you said my "perspective" was wrong because I
reasoned as to whether some technology (e,g. building North Sea
Oil Drilling platforms) should, or should not have been built
based on COST. Today, you are back to asking about cost. That's
a bit contradictory, old bean. 8)
I would prefer you were a bit more consistent in your demands
for scientific, rational, empirical and THEREFORE credibie chart
data. Your calculus seems to be a moving target based on "other"
factors like who has the biggest gun (see your "rapacious is
good :evil4:" comments).
Now you do agree, do you not, that you cannot have it both ways?
Either your fossil fuel paradigm is held together with political
power born of bribes, corruption, threats and violence
[b]because it cannot compete on an HONEST EROI energy playing
field or it never needed any of that heavy handed **** because
it is such a "blessing" (as in wonderful, cheap, superior
concentration of energy, HIGH EROI, etc.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gif<br
/>).
So what do you call the big oil bull**** and propaganda lie a
minute machine (nuke pukes too)? INSURANCE?
Why do you find my conclusion that the FACT that they spend
millions each year to bribe, bully and produce pie in the fossil
fuel sky projections like the ones you worship (with all the
appropriate economic terms and buzzwords for the APPROVED
formulation designed to provide CREDIBILITY), is DE FACTO proof
that fossil fuels are NOT COMPETITIVE
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/maniac.gifwith
Renewable Energy
so RELIGOUS and IRRATIONAL?
Look in the mirror for closed minded, rigid, status quo
projecting erroneous assumptions, PAL! YOU are the zealot here,
not me! Every time I have zeroed in on the gaming, you dance
around the low EROI and claim that the rapacious predatory ****
is just fine and dandy.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif[/b]
[move]
Fossil Fueler DEMANDS some NUMBER CRUNCHING from Agelbert!
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gif
[/move]:
[quote]
Hell, how about just a cost of supply curve for the renewables
involved?
Income elasticities would be nice to see.
Assumptions on Chinese vehicle growth, and efficiency?
How about non-OECD GDP projections, and assumptions of
elasticity there?
Capital availability for the development of your renewable
scenario?
Do you have these in tables Agelbert, or perhaps a spreadsheet?
And the model, do you have some documentation written up and
available for review parked somewhere? [/quote]
When you explain to my satisfaction WHY you feel the heavy
handed tactics of Big Oil are not MENS REA because they have an
INFERIOR ENERGY PRODUCT as compared with Renewable Energy, I
will be glad to shower you with detailed data, discuss cost,
supply, elasticity, present value, sunk costs, various
depreciation mechanisms and anHONEST application of GAAP
(Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) AND thermodynamics in
formulating a reality based EROI.
But, until you DO THAT, the answers to those questions are for
me to know and you to find out. [img width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/> [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]
WHY?
Because I REALLY want to get OUT OF THE WAY the stupid, false
and misleading idea that fossil fuels are a better deal than
Renewable Energy, not 10 years from now or twenty, but ALWAYS!
At that point we may found common ground in agreeing that, given
certain predatory capitalist/fascist police state tactics, they
very well might strong arm Renewable Energy out of prime time by
all sorts of low down corrupt tactics.
However, I feel THAT FUTURE up to 2035, as the chart you so
respect attempts to justify as the most probable scenario, is an
outlier, is irrational and reflects a low probability and
environmentally catastrophic, future.
Sure, the elite may go for that because the world popuiation can
be chopped in half or more that way.
But that has NOTHING to do with sound economics, elasticity,
cost/supply, EROI or CFS. IT has EVERYTHING TO DO with
rapacious, power mad insanity.
But it could happen. You had better hope it doesn't.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page