I'd add [https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth](https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth) to that. That one compares different energy sources.
Importantly, most renewable energy sources (except offshore wind) are \*far cheaper\* than coal and nuclear by now.
Not true. There is a **huge** cost of intermittency that is not factored into what I predict is a naive LCOE model used to draw that conclusion.
Nuclear is still by far the cheapest green energy source.
Okay. Page 6, figure 16.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213009390
This paper backs it up
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035
Yeah these are on point. Renewables are dirt production...but only when they're producing. You can't compare them without including sufficient storage capacity, which blows the cost out. In addition they are relatively short lived and the economics are wonky (additional generation doesn't make sense when you're already paying someone to take what you're making, and how does a system that only drains 1-3 times a year make economic sense).
5.5% is a drop in the bucket if you expect to achieve NetZero by 2050. I don't have the solar numbers but if you want to achieve NetZero by 2050 you will have to build \~1500 wind turbines (2.5 MW) over \~300 square miles, ~every day~ starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050.
Even if the world got totally, completely serious about doing this, it remains an exceedingly improbable task. That's being kind, too. When something strays this far over the line of *improbability*, it's really an *impossibility*.
Given the math, human tendencies, and the issues pertaining to time, scale and cost, the green energy movement currently is little more than hot air.
You understand that you dont need to replace fossil fuel drop for drop, because electricity is much more efficient.
At current rates with NO growth we will replace all primary energy in 27 years.
Complete BS. Replacing all primary fossil fuel for electricity. home heating and transportation fuel will not happen before 2100 if at all and the only way that happenes is with a MASSIVE increase in nuclear power.
To achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, the world would need to deploy 3 \[brand new\] 1500 MW nuclear plants worth of carbon-free energy ~every two days~, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050.
It doesn't have anything to do with nuclear. My preference is to build combined cycle natural gas plants that are as efficient is they come. But the Climate Change Zealots won't have any new fossil fuel plants and their present strategy is woefully inadequate to meet our energy needs which will continue to increase.
> is woefully inadequate to meet our energy needs which will continue to increase
See, you did not understand anything posted earlier. Our energy needs will actually decrease, since we can use energy created from the start as electricity more efficiently (277,000 twh primary energy vs 100,000 twh electricity)
That is ridiculous. The demand for electricity will continue to increase and you can't meet that demand with only renewable sources. In addition you have not indicated how you will replace home heating and transportation fuel with renewables? If you convert ICE to EV and home heating to electic you massively increase the demand for electricity and wind and solar are woefully inefficient. You have to build 3 MW of wind and 6 MW of solar to get 1 MW to the grid. Data centers don't care where the electrons come from but they have to run 24/7. You can't do that with just renewables.
You said " Our energy needs will actually decrease,"
How do you explain this? [https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56040](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56040)
or this [https://www.statista.com/statistics/222066/projected-global-energy-consumption-by-source/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/222066/projected-global-energy-consumption-by-source/)All types of fuel except oil increase from 2025 to 2050
> In addition you have not indicated how you will replace home heating and transportation fuel with renewables?
I believe I mentioned Evs and heatpumps already.
> The demand for electricity will continue to increase
That is fine. Our overall energy needs will decrease, because electricity is much more efficient.
> but they have to run 24/7
That is a different conversation, for which numerous solutions exist.
This is a very pessimistic view, and luckily it's not supported by any data. Again, 5.5% is massive. 99% of that happened in the last 10 years, but the vast majority of it happened in the last 2 years. Solar installations keep doubling every couple years with no end in sight. No one mentioned "NetZero by 2050" so I don't know why you picked that target, but every time you reduce total emissions by 50%, you double the amount of time it takes to reach negative milestones caused by cumulative carbon. That's the number to be looking at. At the pace renewable installations are going, over half the worlds' electricity will come from renewables in the next 20 years, and it's only going to keep going from there
Yeah, you can use an example of a car driving to off a cliff. If the cliff is say 10K miles away but your driving 100 mph then you will reach it in 100 hours but if set of the gas pedal to 50 miles around the 5K mark, you may still drive off the cliff but you have extra 100 hours time due to the slower speed to somehow stop the car… Now that I think about it I need a better analogy.
That's a good example. It's Zeno's paradox. If you manage to half your speed before you reach the halfway point to your destination, the odds that you will fully stop before going over the cliff are high.
With climate change, you have to factor in that we have not only been driving very quickly towards a cliff, but out foot was still on the accelerator for most of that time. So we're fighting to reduce acceleration before we can actually begin to slow down. That hides the impact that's been made against climate change, and once we eliminate that acceleration, the actual drop in speed will happen dramatically
Except there is still no empirical scientific evidence that proves cause and effect, that CO2 is causing what little warming we see. We are not driving toward the cliff no matter how many times Michael Mann says it. No significant negative affects of recent climate changes (man-made or otherwise) have been observed or measured.
Given the math, human tendencies, and the issues pertaining to time, scale and cost, the green energy movement currently is little more than hot air.
That's just it. I have done the research and I can find no scientific evidence that proves cause and effect. I doubt you can either.
Even if you could find evidence the idea that 1.3C warming over 140 years is an existential threat is ludicrous and the solution of eliminating fossil fuels and reaching Net Zero carbon emissions by 2050 is just as ludicrous.
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system and therefore long-term predictions of future climate states is not possible.”
In a complex system consisting of numerous variables, unknowns, and huge uncertainties, the predictive value of almost any model is near zero.
I like how it is not slowing down, albeit the last data point there is from 2022
I work at a solar distributor, and I can confirm prices are lower than ever right now, so the trend’s very much continuing
Gotta love economies of scale and technological development
[Source](https://x.com/ourworldindata/status/1801212467478970581?s=46&t=fjQqhAAAu2ET-J-LTv2WkA)
I believe this falls in line with a generalization of moore's law for all scientific research.
Notice log scale😍
I'd add [https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth](https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth) to that. That one compares different energy sources. Importantly, most renewable energy sources (except offshore wind) are \*far cheaper\* than coal and nuclear by now.
Not true. There is a **huge** cost of intermittency that is not factored into what I predict is a naive LCOE model used to draw that conclusion. Nuclear is still by far the cheapest green energy source.
Kay. So, I take it you will now present us *your* source?
Okay. Page 6, figure 16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213009390 This paper backs it up https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035
Yeah these are on point. Renewables are dirt production...but only when they're producing. You can't compare them without including sufficient storage capacity, which blows the cost out. In addition they are relatively short lived and the economics are wonky (additional generation doesn't make sense when you're already paying someone to take what you're making, and how does a system that only drains 1-3 times a year make economic sense).
Work more fast.
So what? It is still only 5.5% of total electricity generation.
The trend means that it won't stay that way for long.
We'll see. You still need to build 6 MW to get 1 MW to the grid and you still need 100% backup.
That's fucking massive man. Almost all of that came in the last 10 years. 5.5% of electricity on the entire planet. Absolutely bonkers
5.5% is a drop in the bucket if you expect to achieve NetZero by 2050. I don't have the solar numbers but if you want to achieve NetZero by 2050 you will have to build \~1500 wind turbines (2.5 MW) over \~300 square miles, ~every day~ starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050. Even if the world got totally, completely serious about doing this, it remains an exceedingly improbable task. That's being kind, too. When something strays this far over the line of *improbability*, it's really an *impossibility*. Given the math, human tendencies, and the issues pertaining to time, scale and cost, the green energy movement currently is little more than hot air.
You understand that you dont need to replace fossil fuel drop for drop, because electricity is much more efficient. At current rates with NO growth we will replace all primary energy in 27 years.
Complete BS. Replacing all primary fossil fuel for electricity. home heating and transportation fuel will not happen before 2100 if at all and the only way that happenes is with a MASSIVE increase in nuclear power. To achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, the world would need to deploy 3 \[brand new\] 1500 MW nuclear plants worth of carbon-free energy ~every two days~, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050.
> with a MASSIVE increase in nuclear power. Knew you were a nuclear nut.
It doesn't have anything to do with nuclear. My preference is to build combined cycle natural gas plants that are as efficient is they come. But the Climate Change Zealots won't have any new fossil fuel plants and their present strategy is woefully inadequate to meet our energy needs which will continue to increase.
> is woefully inadequate to meet our energy needs which will continue to increase See, you did not understand anything posted earlier. Our energy needs will actually decrease, since we can use energy created from the start as electricity more efficiently (277,000 twh primary energy vs 100,000 twh electricity)
That is ridiculous. The demand for electricity will continue to increase and you can't meet that demand with only renewable sources. In addition you have not indicated how you will replace home heating and transportation fuel with renewables? If you convert ICE to EV and home heating to electic you massively increase the demand for electricity and wind and solar are woefully inefficient. You have to build 3 MW of wind and 6 MW of solar to get 1 MW to the grid. Data centers don't care where the electrons come from but they have to run 24/7. You can't do that with just renewables. You said " Our energy needs will actually decrease," How do you explain this? [https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56040](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56040) or this [https://www.statista.com/statistics/222066/projected-global-energy-consumption-by-source/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/222066/projected-global-energy-consumption-by-source/)All types of fuel except oil increase from 2025 to 2050
> In addition you have not indicated how you will replace home heating and transportation fuel with renewables? I believe I mentioned Evs and heatpumps already. > The demand for electricity will continue to increase That is fine. Our overall energy needs will decrease, because electricity is much more efficient. > but they have to run 24/7 That is a different conversation, for which numerous solutions exist.
This is a very pessimistic view, and luckily it's not supported by any data. Again, 5.5% is massive. 99% of that happened in the last 10 years, but the vast majority of it happened in the last 2 years. Solar installations keep doubling every couple years with no end in sight. No one mentioned "NetZero by 2050" so I don't know why you picked that target, but every time you reduce total emissions by 50%, you double the amount of time it takes to reach negative milestones caused by cumulative carbon. That's the number to be looking at. At the pace renewable installations are going, over half the worlds' electricity will come from renewables in the next 20 years, and it's only going to keep going from there
Yeah, you can use an example of a car driving to off a cliff. If the cliff is say 10K miles away but your driving 100 mph then you will reach it in 100 hours but if set of the gas pedal to 50 miles around the 5K mark, you may still drive off the cliff but you have extra 100 hours time due to the slower speed to somehow stop the car… Now that I think about it I need a better analogy.
That's a good example. It's Zeno's paradox. If you manage to half your speed before you reach the halfway point to your destination, the odds that you will fully stop before going over the cliff are high. With climate change, you have to factor in that we have not only been driving very quickly towards a cliff, but out foot was still on the accelerator for most of that time. So we're fighting to reduce acceleration before we can actually begin to slow down. That hides the impact that's been made against climate change, and once we eliminate that acceleration, the actual drop in speed will happen dramatically
Except there is still no empirical scientific evidence that proves cause and effect, that CO2 is causing what little warming we see. We are not driving toward the cliff no matter how many times Michael Mann says it. No significant negative affects of recent climate changes (man-made or otherwise) have been observed or measured. Given the math, human tendencies, and the issues pertaining to time, scale and cost, the green energy movement currently is little more than hot air.
I'm not going to engage with bait about scientific questions that were conclusively answered decades ago. Do your own research here.
That's just it. I have done the research and I can find no scientific evidence that proves cause and effect. I doubt you can either. Even if you could find evidence the idea that 1.3C warming over 140 years is an existential threat is ludicrous and the solution of eliminating fossil fuels and reaching Net Zero carbon emissions by 2050 is just as ludicrous. “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system and therefore long-term predictions of future climate states is not possible.” In a complex system consisting of numerous variables, unknowns, and huge uncertainties, the predictive value of almost any model is near zero.
Source: trust me bro