Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt 3

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 27 Aug 2022, 15:14:34

C8 wrote:The only way to cut through NIMBY opposition is to give them a financial cut of generated power


On the one hand, when Detroit Edison got the state to declare eminent domain on the ROW for their high tension power lines back in the 1970's my family was involved because one of the properties condemned belonged to my maternal grandmother. She got a small check but was already living in a nursing home by then so mostly it meant we had to get everything off the property the family wanted to keep. I still have a china cabinet from her old house that was passed down to me and her rare white lilac bush was transplanted to my families house to try and save it, unfortunately it died the next year from the stress. Anyhow more importantly most of the land around there was agricultural and while the farmers 'lost' and were compensated for the ROW land through the fields what it meant in practice is unless a line broke or was upgraded about every 30 years they kept right on farming up to the bases of the high tension towers but no longer had to pay property taxes because technically they no longer owned the property inside the right of way boundaries. For most of the ROW they went either through third growth woodlot or agricultural land, my grandmothers house just happened to be on the edge of the woodlot they were crossing by the shortest route. The number of actual residential properties affected was kept to the absolute minimum to keep as many people happy as possible.

On the other hand while residential owners were mostly avoided and farmers actually came out ahead in one way of looking at it DTE had the state backing to clear the ROW of any human opposition in the shortest time frame possible and as a state regulated utility back when that actually meant regulated people were generally given reasonable compensation. The state was still going to have those high tension lines strung however because the decision had been made to locate two new generation stations on the coast of Lake Erie, one that produces 3,000 MWe and a second that produces 1,100 MWe and was originally planned to produce 2,200 MWe before the second reactor was cancelled in the early 1980's. The only way to get all that power distributed was to build new grid interconnection routes and the state was not going to take NIMBY for an answer. Once the lines were up we learned a few things that most don't seem aware of. One thing is, the lines hum constantly, a steady background drone with a low pitch. It is low frequency and doesn't carry a long way but if you get with about 100 meters of the ROW you can start hearing it and it is unavoidable when you are directly below the lines. The second thing is the high voltage actually ionizes the air a little bit, you can carry and old fashion fluorescent tube, one of the 4' kind, under the lines and it will light up just as bright as if you had it in a fixture with the switch on. It was cool when I was younger but I have to wonder what all that ambient EM field does to anyone or anything that stays exposed constantly.

Now when we are talking about solar fields like the ones getting NIMBY reactions C8 suggests the local population just needs a little compensation to be accepting of the changes. I am not so sure that would/will work because it is easily disputable that the solar fields are necessary for the UK to become a carbon neutral nation. Most Americans do not realize it but the entire island of Great Britain if placed on the west coast of North America would stretch from Vancouver island, BC to about 60 miles north of Juneau, Alaska. Just like Juneau and Vancouver it rains. A lot of rainy cloudy days. So many rainy days that solar efficiency is seriously impacted. And being so far north while the rare sunny summer day has 16 hours of daylight that means the December day is lucky to get 8 hours of daylight and most of those are rainy or light snow that sticks to the solar panels until enough sun warms them up above freezing.

Point being the UK is a terrible place to be investing heavily in solar photo-voltaic energy. The passive solar stuff like well designed housing with solar gain in winter is all still a great idea to cut utility costs, but pretending the UK can go 100% solar without major issues is just laughable if you look at the facts. The folks living in the UK who have installed solar on their homes and what-not as personal ventures have proven this well enough to have very convincing arguments against massive or even small scale solar fields being installed. Heck there is one of these in BG Ohio about a mile east of I-75 and at a certain time of day on a sunny day the glare that thing puts off is dazzling. I wouldn't want one built anywhere close by either and here we are several hundred km south of the southernmost tip of the UK.

The UK is currently building new large EPR fission power reactors and has recently announced an additional site for further construction. These are Generation III+ designs with enhanced passive safety measures that are also designed for 100% MOX fueling to use up the civilian plutonium stockpile to produce energy. While the UK is decommissioning their older reactors the old units are generally between one third and one half as much power as the new EPR units so the new reactors replace them on a 2.5:1 ratio. I have always been a Fission plus Renewables advocate but I want renewables built where they make sense, not just where government subsidies boost them into existence. Plopping rooftop solar all over southern California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and West Texas where the sun shines a lot makes plenty of good sense economically and practically. Planting solar farms in Juneau, Alaska or Edmonton, Canada or anywhere on the island of Great Britain does not make economic sense and when the subsidies die out and the replacement cycle comes around those systems will just get scrapped because the people who own them won't have any economic benefit from replacing them.
Solar intensity map UK, Image
Solar intensity map USA, Image
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16842
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postby C8 » Sun 28 Aug 2022, 23:14:00

Tanada wrote:
C8 wrote:The only way to cut through NIMBY opposition is to give them a financial cut of generated power


On the one hand, when Detroit Edison got the state to declare eminent domain on the ROW for their high tension power lines back in the 1970's my family was involved because one of the properties condemned belonged to my maternal grandmother. She got a small check but was already living in a nursing home by then so mostly it meant we had to get everything off the property the family wanted to keep. I still have a china cabinet from her old house that was passed down to me and her rare white lilac bush was transplanted to my families house to try and save it, unfortunately it died the next year from the stress. Anyhow more importantly most of the land around there was agricultural and while the farmers 'lost' and were compensated for the ROW land through the fields what it meant in practice is unless a line broke or was upgraded about every 30 years they kept right on farming up to the bases of the high tension towers but no longer had to pay property taxes because technically they no longer owned the property inside the right of way boundaries. For most of the ROW they went either through third growth woodlot or agricultural land, my grandmothers house just happened to be on the edge of the woodlot they were crossing by the shortest route. The number of actual residential properties affected was kept to the absolute minimum to keep as many people happy as possible.

On the other hand while residential owners were mostly avoided and farmers actually came out ahead in one way of looking at it DTE had the state backing to clear the ROW of any human opposition in the shortest time frame possible and as a state regulated utility back when that actually meant regulated people were generally given reasonable compensation. The state was still going to have those high tension lines strung however because the decision had been made to locate two new generation stations on the coast of Lake Erie, one that produces 3,000 MWe and a second that produces 1,100 MWe and was originally planned to produce 2,200 MWe before the second reactor was cancelled in the early 1980's. The only way to get all that power distributed was to build new grid interconnection routes and the state was not going to take NIMBY for an answer. Once the lines were up we learned a few things that most don't seem aware of. One thing is, the lines hum constantly, a steady background drone with a low pitch. It is low frequency and doesn't carry a long way but if you get with about 100 meters of the ROW you can start hearing it and it is unavoidable when you are directly below the lines. The second thing is the high voltage actually ionizes the air a little bit, you can carry and old fashion fluorescent tube, one of the 4' kind, under the lines and it will light up just as bright as if you had it in a fixture with the switch on. It was cool when I was younger but I have to wonder what all that ambient EM field does to anyone or anything that stays exposed constantly.

Now when we are talking about solar fields like the ones getting NIMBY reactions C8 suggests the local population just needs a little compensation to be accepting of the changes. I am not so sure that would/will work because it is easily disputable that the solar fields are necessary for the UK to become a carbon neutral nation. Most Americans do not realize it but the entire island of Great Britain if placed on the west coast of North America would stretch from Vancouver island, BC to about 60 miles north of Juneau, Alaska. Just like Juneau and Vancouver it rains. A lot of rainy cloudy days. So many rainy days that solar efficiency is seriously impacted. And being so far north while the rare sunny summer day has 16 hours of daylight that means the December day is lucky to get 8 hours of daylight and most of those are rainy or light snow that sticks to the solar panels until enough sun warms them up above freezing.

Point being the UK is a terrible place to be investing heavily in solar photo-voltaic energy. The passive solar stuff like well designed housing with solar gain in winter is all still a great idea to cut utility costs, but pretending the UK can go 100% solar without major issues is just laughable if you look at the facts. The folks living in the UK who have installed solar on their homes and what-not as personal ventures have proven this well enough to have very convincing arguments against massive or even small scale solar fields being installed. Heck there is one of these in BG Ohio about a mile east of I-75 and at a certain time of day on a sunny day the glare that thing puts off is dazzling. I wouldn't want one built anywhere close by either and here we are several hundred km south of the southernmost tip of the UK.

The UK is currently building new large EPR fission power reactors and has recently announced an additional site for further construction. These are Generation III+ designs with enhanced passive safety measures that are also designed for 100% MOX fueling to use up the civilian plutonium stockpile to produce energy. While the UK is decommissioning their older reactors the old units are generally between one third and one half as much power as the new EPR units so the new reactors replace them on a 2.5:1 ratio. I have always been a Fission plus Renewables advocate but I want renewables built where they make sense, not just where government subsidies boost them into existence. Plopping rooftop solar all over southern California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and West Texas where the sun shines a lot makes plenty of good sense economically and practically. Planting solar farms in Juneau, Alaska or Edmonton, Canada or anywhere on the island of Great Britain does not make economic sense and when the subsidies die out and the replacement cycle comes around those systems will just get scrapped because the people who own them won't have any economic benefit from replacing them.
Solar intensity map UK, Image
Solar intensity map USA, Image


YOU may not want those glaring solar panels Tanada but that is b/c you do research, apply logic and don't see the cost benefit in cloudy England. But the average Brit is a bloke who just wants cash. The glaring panels outside mean nothing b/c he will be indoors watching the telly. If the venture doesn't work out, he will still be paid and the tax payer will be on the hook.
User avatar
C8
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2013, 09:02:48

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postby Shaved Monkey » Wed 28 Sep 2022, 05:59:57

The world’s largest pumped hydro storage site just got announced today in Qld
Qld is massively reliant on coal and exports tonnes of the stuff all over the world mainly China and Japan

Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk has unveiled what she described as a “revolutionary” energy plan pitched to end coal-power reliance in Australia’s most dependent state by 2035, and deliver the world’s largest pumped hydro storage site near Mackay.
The expected $62 billion public and private investment will also include funding for a charter and jobs security guarantee for state-run power workers, ensuring they have the opportunity to continue their careers with publicly owned energy businesses.

The state’s eight coal-fired power stations will be transitioned to “clean energy hubs” between 2027 and 2035 – up to a decade earlier than expected – while a new “gas to hydrogen” station will be built at Kogan Creek.

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politi ... 5blk1.html

It is just one part of a $62 billion Queensland Energy and Jobs Plan that includes:

70% of Queensland’s energy supply from renewables by 2032

80% by 2035

Two new pumped hydros at Pioneer/Burdekin and Borumba Dam by 2035

A new Queensland SuperGrid connecting solar, wind, battery and hydrogen generators across the State

Unlocking 22GW of new renewable capacity – giving us 8 times our current level

Publicly owned coal fired-power stations to convert to clean energy hubs to transition to, for example, hydrogen power, with jobs guarantees for workers

Queensland’s publicly-owned coal-fired power stations to stop reliance on burning coal by 2035

100,000 new jobs by 2040, most in regional Queensland

11.5GW of rooftop solar and 6GW of embedded batteries

95% of investment in regional Queensland

Building Queensland’s first hydrogen ready gas turbine

https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/96233
Ready to turn Zombies into WWOOFers
User avatar
Shaved Monkey
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2412
Joined: Wed 30 Mar 2011, 01:43:28

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Wed 28 Sep 2022, 18:29:11

And the estimated cost per KWH of this pumped storage final product is?
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14718
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postby eclipse » Mon 14 Nov 2022, 06:45:39

Anyone here familiar with the Australian National University's Blakers team? They publish papers with interesting titles like:

For $100 billion, Australia could have a low cost and reliable zero emissions grid
https://reneweconomy.com.au/for-100-bil ... 6039864049

But then you read into it, and there's this.

Roughly speaking, construction of enough wind, solar, transmission and storage to drive all oil, gas and coal out of the economy by 2050 entails the capital expenditure of about $12 billion per year (all of which will be recovered through normal energy tariffs).


28 years times $12 bn = $336 to displace all fossil fuel electricity and oil. Are these simply 2 figures - one for cleaning up the grid, and one for cleaning up ALL energy? Is that how you read it?
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that convert nuclear 'waste' into 1000 years of clean energy for America, and can charge all our light vehicles and generate "Blue Crude" for heavy vehicles.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
User avatar
eclipse
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 14 Nov 2022, 08:38:49

Tanada,

You make good arguments. And I can see exactly what you mean in my experience, and I also see how hard it is to educate people.

The sail cruising community is interested in renewable, both solar and wind. UT they are locating specific applications. Here in the Caribbean both wind and solar work well, but you need both; at times there is enough cloud cover to make solar inadequate, usually there is enough wind to bridge the gap. Now take that exact same boat to the Chesapeake and you need supplemental power as in generator or shore side hook up. Alternatives for heat is out of the question, that is either shoreside power or diesel.

I contend that midlatitude living is a luxury because of the high energy cost and low alternative availability. We need a certain number of folks living in temperate zones to grow food and extract resources. We don't need most services living here, the energy cost is too high.

Nuclear can modify that situation, it is the cost for the privilege of living here.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 17616
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Mon 14 Nov 2022, 10:46:56

eclipse wrote:Anyone here familiar with the Australian National University's Blakers team? They publish papers with interesting titles like:

For $100 billion, Australia could have a low cost and reliable zero emissions grid
https://reneweconomy.com.au/for-100-bil ... 6039864049

But then you read into it, and there's this.

Roughly speaking, construction of enough wind, solar, transmission and storage to drive all oil, gas and coal out of the economy by 2050 entails the capital expenditure of about $12 billion per year (all of which will be recovered through normal energy tariffs).


28 years times $12 bn = $336 to displace all fossil fuel electricity and oil. Are these simply 2 figures - one for cleaning up the grid, and one for cleaning up ALL energy? Is that how you read it?

Well that would work out to just $0.50 per capita per year. Some how that sounds to good to be true.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14718
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 14 Nov 2022, 13:35:16

eclipse wrote:Anyone here familiar with the Australian National University's Blakers team? They publish papers with interesting titles like:

For $100 billion, Australia could have a low cost and reliable zero emissions grid
https://reneweconomy.com.au/for-100-bil ... 6039864049

But then you read into it, and there's this.

Roughly speaking, construction of enough wind, solar, transmission and storage to drive all oil, gas and coal out of the economy by 2050 entails the capital expenditure of about $12 billion per year (all of which will be recovered through normal energy tariffs).


28 years times $12 bn = $336 to displace all fossil fuel electricity and oil. Are these simply 2 figures - one for cleaning up the grid, and one for cleaning up ALL energy? Is that how you read it?
Yes. The $100 billion figure is just for replacing current electricity demand. The $336 billion figure is for providing enough electricity to cover all energy demand including electricity, transportation, heating, mining, etc. Replacing all energy use with renewables is a much bigger challenge than simply replacing electricity demand alone. So they ran two scenarios.

In an expanded electricity system in which all energy required for land transport, buildings, manufacturing and mining comes from solar and wind electricity then the amount of electricity required is doubled.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4759
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 14 Nov 2022, 13:43:49

vtsnowedin wrote:
eclipse wrote:Anyone here familiar with the Australian National University's Blakers team? They publish papers with interesting titles like:

For $100 billion, Australia could have a low cost and reliable zero emissions grid
https://reneweconomy.com.au/for-100-bil ... 6039864049

But then you read into it, and there's this.

Roughly speaking, construction of enough wind, solar, transmission and storage to drive all oil, gas and coal out of the economy by 2050 entails the capital expenditure of about $12 billion per year (all of which will be recovered through normal energy tariffs).


28 years times $12 bn = $336 to displace all fossil fuel electricity and oil. Are these simply 2 figures - one for cleaning up the grid, and one for cleaning up ALL energy? Is that how you read it?

Well that would work out to just $0.50 per capita per year. Some how that sounds to good to be true.
Those values are just for Australia, not the whole world.
So it would be 100,000,000,000 / 25,740,000 = $3,885 / 28 years = $139 per person per year for electricity alone or
336000000000 / 25740000 = $13,053 / 28 years = $466 per person per year for all energy
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4759
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Mon 14 Nov 2022, 16:10:37

kublikhan wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:
eclipse wrote:Anyone here familiar with the Australian National University's Blakers team? They publish papers with interesting titles like:

For $100 billion, Australia could have a low cost and reliable zero emissions grid
https://reneweconomy.com.au/for-100-bil ... 6039864049

But then you read into it, and there's this.

Roughly speaking, construction of enough wind, solar, transmission and storage to drive all oil, gas and coal out of the economy by 2050 entails the capital expenditure of about $12 billion per year (all of which will be recovered through normal energy tariffs).


28 years times $12 bn = $336 to displace all fossil fuel electricity and oil. Are these simply 2 figures - one for cleaning up the grid, and one for cleaning up ALL energy? Is that how you read it?

Well that would work out to just $0.50 per capita per year. Some how that sounds to good to be true.
Those values are just for Australia, not the whole world.
So it would be 100,000,000,000 / 25,740,000 = $3,885 / 28 years = $139 per person per year for electricity alone or
336000000000 / 25740000 = $13,053 / 28 years = $466 per person per year for all energy

I must have dropped some zeros doing the calculation. Your figure is correct. So for a family of four you get 466*4/12=155 per month in higher electric bills or hidden in higher prices for goods produced in OZ.
That is bad enough to believe.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14718
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postby jato0072 » Mon 14 Nov 2022, 21:22:08

Youtube - How Much Mining to Power the World with Wind and Solar? - 8 minutes

The video is a great primer on why so called "green energy" will never replace fossil fuels.

Another video on the same topic:

Assoc Prof Simon Michaux - The quantity of metal required to make just one generation of renewable tech units to replace fossil fuels. - 70 minutes

Both are highly recommended.
"On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."
User avatar
jato0072
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed 04 Aug 2021, 16:47:30
Location: NV

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postby careinke » Sun 20 Nov 2022, 22:03:30

jato0072 wrote:Youtube - How Much Mining to Power the World with Wind and Solar? - 8 minutes

The video is a great primer on why so called "green energy" will never replace fossil fuels.

Another video on the same topic:

Assoc Prof Simon Michaux - The quantity of metal required to make just one generation of renewable tech units to replace fossil fuels. - 70 minutes

Both are highly recommended.


Thanks Jato, I found the information VERY informative. Interestingly enough I heard a podcast recently that claimed it could possibly solve this problem using Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). Surprisingly enough it all starts with Bitcoin mining... :roll:

OK, full disclosure here for EVERYONE I have NOT done my due diligence on this as I only heard about it a couple of days ago. But honestly, it sounds very intriguing, and I would appreciate your take on it.

This is a long trail ending with Meteor mining in space, so please bear with me!

First, here is the website of the company that is selling this idea. The site is very sparse ending with a way to contact the company for more info. The site does have a cool concept graphic, explains their mission and gives a little background on the Founders:
https://www.oceanbitenergy.com/

Bitcoin Miners always go to the cheapest sources of energy and Oceanbit believes using OTEC the energy costs for mining and cooling will be free. The plan is to base the BTC mining operation on a barge located along the equator (+/- 5 degrees) out past the continental shelves. It will use a sealed ammonia based turbine system to generate electricity as ammonia gasifies at the surface temperatures along the equator. Cool water will be pumped up from the ocean floor to turn the amonia back to liquid state and provide cooling for the miners as well. Initially, the sole purpose for the barge will be to mine bitcoin, they believe they have assembled a viable product using tested components, cheaply enough, to make it the best option for bitcoin miners. the story continues..

If you would rather listen to the founders of the company being interviewed than my more condensed summary here is the link. I will definitely be listening again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bNhy2g9G4k

Back to the story, They chose the equator for several reasons:

1. The weather and seas are usually calm with only very,very, rare, typhoons/hurricanes etc due to the Coriolis force.

2. the temp differential is the highest near the equator.

3. There is no need to "ship" the electricity anywhere, so all of that cost is eliminated.

4. It would be done in international waters so the barge can chose the most crypto friendly flag to fly under.

5. There is fast internet available to off load your bitcoin to your private wallet. So nothing gained by attacking the ship for its BTC (It's on the blockchain).

6. The power is a baseline power source, like nuclear, coal, lpg etc., that is readily available, just not locally.

The founders likened these BTC mining rigs/barges to pioneer plants in the ecosystem. They are able to self sustain, and with returning some of their surplus, provide extra free energy for local use, let's say to physically mine manganese nodules (or polymetallic nodules) replacing onshore mining and all its attendant problems.

While we were at it, we could move manufacturing to the energy to produce your metals using high powered electric kilns and furnaces.

The equator is also the best place to build a space elevator and with over 8TW of energy available for basically free, why not? With a space elevator, it opens up a huge amount of space for collecting earths mineral needs.

Earth is saved, because of Bitcoin!!!! :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

Let the arrows fly!

PEACE
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
User avatar
careinke
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4363
Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postby careinke » Sun 20 Nov 2022, 23:12:49

I forgot to mention "externalities" from the above thread. Like sucking up the water from the ocean floor you also bring up a lot of detritus i.e. organic shit. Guess what eats it? algae followed by krill, followed by, well you know the rest of the story, hopefully with good management the return of a viable marine ecosystem.

How about producing certain petrochemicals by using the CO2 and CH3 out of the atmosphere. Win Win. Incredibly energy intensive, but if the energy is free??? Eventually capping oil wells for future use if ever needed. Talk about a SPR.

I have to say the pundits are BTC maximalists, and their vision would work better without Nation State coercion, using a completely voluntary trustless monetary system. If not, there are ways to make them irrelevant.

Peace
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
User avatar
careinke
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4363
Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 20 Nov 2022, 23:28:57

Deep Geothermal may overcome the limits of other renewable energy sources

deep-geothermal-drillers-deeper-faster-and-hotter

New technology promises a way to drill very deep wells. This opens the door to "deep geothermal" energy.

If you drill deep enough ....miles deep.....the earth is hot enough EVERYWHERE to produce virtually unlimited geothermal energy.

Using plasma drills and other new sci-fi methods it should theoretically be possible to drill deep enough to generate geothermal energy anywhere. You need electricity in New York? Drill a deep well. You need electricity in Mexico City? Drill a deep well. etc. etc.

Its not here yet, but deep geothermal might possibly be the limitless renewable carbon free energy source the world needs right now.

Image

Cheers!
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 25844
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postby careinke » Sun 20 Nov 2022, 23:48:20

Plantagenet wrote:Deep Geothermal may overcome the limits of other renewable energy sources

deep-geothermal-drillers-deeper-faster-and-hotter

New technology promises a way to drill very deep wells. This opens the door to "deep geothermal" energy.

If you drill deep enough ....miles deep.....the earth is hot enough EVERYWHERE to produce virtually unlimited geothermal energy.

Using plasma drills and other new sci-fi methods it should theoretically be possible to drill deep enough to generate geothermal energy anywhere. You need electricity in New York? Drill a deep well. You need electricity in Mexico City? Drill a deep well. etc. etc.

Its not here yet, but deep geothermal might possibly be the limitless renewable carbon free energy source the world needs right now.

Image

Cheers!


El-Salvador is using similar tech to build out their economy all without IMF Vampire loans. Their economy is strong, crime is down, and one of their official currencies is BTC, with lightning used extensively. Fast Cheap and Secure.

The US on the other hand is begging Venezuela, Iran, and Saudi Dictatorships for cheap oil while shipping record amounts to other countries.

Peace and Sovereignty
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
User avatar
careinke
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4363
Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Pacific Northwest

Previous

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests