what are y'all saving from the wild to deal with coming crisis?

[HenOnAJuneBug]

The technology exists to power small groups of homes... As in three or four hundred... A single generator buried centrally that will run Automatically without input for about fifty years.

The Chinese are in the forefront of power Innovation... including storage.

What technology is that?

The Chinese are currently planning the construction of about 1000 coal plants around the world, with about half in their own country. That is why the Paris Agreement was such a joke - China was under no constraint to curb CO2 emissions. Where China might be in the forefront is the development of generation 4 nuclear technology. If it's as safe as it sounds, that really would be a game changer.

 

[clembone]

NASA (actually the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in NYC) is not a reliable source. They corrupt science by changing the data to make the past look cooler and the present look warmer. That division of NASA needs to be defunded and shutdown.

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/06/tampering-past-the-tipping-point/

.

Responding to citation to a single blog posting cite:
Citations to the deplorable science blog are hardly a peer review standard. More like the aluminum foil helmet support group.

Dear Readers:

Please consider the sources of information carefully. For example, here is a statement in a peer reviewed publication:

"A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Turkish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognize the IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/292/5520/1261"

Next:

Here is a statement from the Royal Society [the independent scientific academy of the UK and the Commonwealth, dedicated to promoting excellence in science]: "Recent estimates of the increase in global average temperature since the end of the last ice age are 4 to 5 °C (7 to 9 °F). That change occurred over a period of about 7,000 years, starting 18,000 years ago. CO2 has risen by 40% in just the past 200 years, contributing to human alteration of the planet’s energy budget that has so far warmed Earth by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F). If the rise in CO2 continues unchecked, warming of the same magnitude as the increase out of the ice age can be expected by the end of this century or soon after. This speed of warming is more than ten times that at the end of an ice age, the fastest known natural sustained change on a global scale."

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/


There are literally dozens of statements of this sort from accredited, reliable, peer reviewed sources that are available.

Consider the content, the number, and the quality of the citations in post 332 above. Weigh the evidence and consider the source of the evidence. Remember also that the tobacco companies funded bogus material for years that they knew was false, in support of the idea that smoking was either harmless or even beneficial. The same sort of thing happened with the fossil fuel industry. Look for academic credentials, peer review, and consider the source in weighing the evidence.

 

[LaserDeathChicken]

How is the energy stored for grid use? The largest battery in the world in South Australia can only power the grid for something like 15 minutes.

By not relying on a single point of failure.

Distributing solar and wind generators and battery banks disperses not only the generation source but the bank source. This means, while potentially introducing a lot of little points of failure, it makes the overall grid incredibly stable in that it becomes increasingly difficult to bring it down in large sections. This turns out to be a significant improvement to the infrastructure in the sense it is inherently protected from moderate to large scale disasters.

Additionally, renewable energy can be generated in wind farms and panel farms, but the real benefit is home generation; while the initial cost to set it up may be expensive the long term cost to maintain is comparatively less so. Our house generator runs off propane and will burn through $500 worth of gas in about a week. I don't know if there are home coal-based generators that will power a house, but the costs here are prohibitive.

Further, solar alone can generate enough power for a household. The goal is not to make some kind of central source of renewable energy but to provide that energy to people. Sticking to a single distribution model is not necessary. Individual home solar generates more than enough, and can put that power back onto the grid for others to use at credit. It is very rare that both the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine at the same time.

And beyond that, it is a misrepresentation of the idea that we abandon fossil fuels entirely and immediately. Chemical fuel sources are necessary in the event of backup when renewable sources inevitably do run into an issue. If you want to think the darkening of the skies like The Matrix or something then I'm not going to tell you not to worry about that, but the sun doesn't generally hide from the world so long that it will become a major issue that can't be resolved by the parts of the grid still producing energy. If it does, we have stored chemical fuel.

This is really *not* a technical problem whatsoever.

 

[NoodlesMama]

How is the energy stored for grid use? The largest battery in the world in South Australia can only power the grid for something like 15 minutes.

It isn’t in America because people cling to fossil fuels. However, in places that invested in solar they are using it 24/7 some with surplus. I won’t say I understand how they manage to do it but they do and I assume you can research it just as well as I can. I know that the tech is there for wide scale use and storage of alternative energy sources both including and beyond solar and wind people just have to let it spread instead of clinging to a past we know is not sustainable. Climate change aside fossils fuels are a non renewable resource and we should be looking to the future. If the grid did crash how long do you thing you would be able to get gasoline to run a generator? It’s dumb to not look at as many sources of energy as a possible.

 

[NoodlesMama]

By not relying on a single point of failure.

Distributing solar and wind generators and battery banks disperses not only the generation source but the bank source. This means, while potentially introducing a lot of little points of failure, it makes the overall grid incredibly stable in that it becomes increasingly difficult to bring it down in large sections. This turns out to be a significant improvement to the infrastructure in the sense it is inherently protected from moderate to large scale disasters.

Additionally, renewable energy can be generated in wind farms and panel farms, but the real benefit is home generation; while the initial cost to set it up may be expensive the long term cost to maintain is comparatively less so. Our house generator runs off propane and will burn through $500 worth of gas in about a week. I don't know if there are home coal-based generators that will power a house, but the costs here are prohibitive.

Further, solar alone can generate enough power for a household. The goal is not to make some kind of central source of renewable energy but to provide that energy to people. Sticking to a single distribution model is not necessary. Individual home solar generates more than enough, and can put that power back onto the grid for others to use at credit. It is very rare that both the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine at the same time.

And beyond that, it is a misrepresentation of the idea that we abandon fossil fuels entirely and immediately. Chemical fuel sources are necessary in the event of backup when renewable sources inevitably do run into an issue. If you want to think the darkening of the skies like The Matrix or something then I'm not going to tell you not to worry about that, but the sun doesn't generally hide from the world so long that it will become a major issue that can't be resolved by the parts of the grid still producing energy. If it does, we have stored chemical fuel.

This is really *not* a technical problem whatsoever.

Thank you for explaining it far better than I could.

 

[HenOnAJuneBug]

However, in places that invested in solar they are using it 24/7 some with surplus.

Why don't you provide an example because I don't believe you. There is some work with solar-thermal storage, but they are not proving to be very successful.

 

[Shadrach]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/renewable-energy-electricity-surpasses-coal-in-us-for-the-first-time/

 

[Maugwa]

I'll never understand looking at the sky and not seeing the land around us, and figure the answer is up there in the clouds somewhere. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, we all have our beliefs, and most minds are made up. The bigger problem that I see is on the ground, and I just don't understand how those who are looking into the clouds miss seeing it. Every time I travel this country away from my home area, I see it getting worse. 6 lane, 8 lane, 10 lane highways. Cities are growing together, farm land is becoming housing divisions, huge parking lots are everywhere. Ranches are divided into ranchettes a few hundred feet apart. I used to drive South out of Cheyenne into Denver through a series of smaller towns, now I can drive South beyond Denver, 3/4s of the way across Colorado, and not be able to tell where one town ended and the next began. I've lived all of my life in the least densely populated state in the US, but still can't think of a single small town that hasn't doubled or quadrupled in size in the last 40 years. Even here we are assigned parking places if we go to one of our many lakes in the Summer now - very few vehicles there will have Wyoming plates. There are parking lots in the mountains in places in Colorado, so many nature lovers can visit at the same time. Biodiversity doesn't live in the clouds, but what is happening to the land below may have an affect on the sky. This place is full, there were plenty of us here many years ago. Everyone finds the benefits of "economic development," but nobody mentions the cost. I'm not so sure that we profit from "more" of everything in the long run. The next time you are studying clouds, maybe consider what is going on below them - that's where we are really losing the environment.

I'm all for getting off grid, and using solar and wind and firewood for energy, and producing a large portion of my own food. I'm not into that because I think that I, or thousands like me will save the world, I'm just in it to get out from under the thumb of those intent of taking more from those of you still dependent on "them". I doubt that I'll be around 50 years from now, but I wish I could be there when you all look back and say, "That Y2K, Mayan Calendar, and Global Warming business sure turned out to be a bunch of BS, didn't it"?

 

[HenOnAJuneBug]

I know that the tech is there for wide scale use and storage of alternative energy sources both including and beyond solar and wind people just have to let it spread instead of clinging to a past we know is not sustainable.

The tech is there for power generation, but not enough to power an industrialized society. Germany has spent well over one-half trillion dollars on renewables and produces almost as much CO2 as it did before while doubling or tripling the cost of electric power. They're opening up new coal mines because they need the backup for unreliable renewable power. Basically, their renewables program is a huge failure.

btw, renewables are not sustainable because they require mineral resources to make. It's extractive just like oil extraction is. Rare earth mining for wind power is destroying the environment in China, and solar panel manufacturing is extremely polluting.

 

[HenOnAJuneBug]

By not relying on a single point of failure.

Distributing solar and wind generators and battery banks disperses not only the generation source but the bank source. This means, while potentially introducing a lot of little points of failure, it makes the overall grid incredibly stable in that it becomes increasingly difficult to bring it down in large sections. This turns out to be a significant improvement to the infrastructure in the sense it is inherently protected from moderate to large scale disasters.

Additionally, renewable energy can be generated in wind farms and panel farms, but the real benefit is home generation; while the initial cost to set it up may be expensive the long term cost to maintain is comparatively less so. Our house generator runs off propane and will burn through $500 worth of gas in about a week. I don't know if there are home coal-based generators that will power a house, but the costs here are prohibitive.

Further, solar alone can generate enough power for a household. The goal is not to make some kind of central source of renewable energy but to provide that energy to people. Sticking to a single distribution model is not necessary. Individual home solar generates more than enough, and can put that power back onto the grid for others to use at credit. It is very rare that both the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine at the same time.

And beyond that, it is a misrepresentation of the idea that we abandon fossil fuels entirely and immediately. Chemical fuel sources are necessary in the event of backup when renewable sources inevitably do run into an issue. If you want to think the darkening of the skies like The Matrix or something then I'm not going to tell you not to worry about that, but the sun doesn't generally hide from the world so long that it will become a major issue that can't be resolved by the parts of the grid still producing energy. If it does, we have stored chemical fuel.

This is really *not* a technical problem whatsoever.

First off, renewables make the grid unstable. Anything above about 10% starts to introduce instability. So it does not improve the infrastructure, but it does make everything more expensive because dispatchable generation (coal, gas, nuclear, hydro) has to run in "spinning backup".

Secondly, home generation can't power an industrialized society that runs 24/7. Nor can home solar run a house and power an electric car. Also, that's a very expensive proposition compared to simply paying 10-15 cents/ kWh. The vast majority of people are not able to afford a home solar system.

Thirdly, electric energy can only be transmitted so far before line losses make a super-wide area grid like you're suggesting unfeasible. This is kind of bizarre and inconsistent because on one hand you're proposing that localized power generation is the answer, and on the other that a super large grid is the answer.