Biden spoke today

[Markk]

We did not have technology 30 years ago Res, not even remotely close. And we are not close technology wise for a energy efficient world. WE need to wean and assimilate to green power and it will take 50 years of so to even get close.

Then you need to talk to china and other alike nations…they are opening coal plants like we open Starbucks. It is a one step forward two steps back scenario.

https://time.com/6090732/china-coal-pow ... emissions/

We never bothered to invest in Green Energy to the extent that was needed until Obama/Biden, and you're wrong about not having the technology today. We could carve out 100 sq miles out of the Mohave desert and use the free sunlight to power our entire country. But that takes bold initiatives which Republicans, who've been addicted to oil for decades, refuse to support.

A similar project is in the works to use the North African desert's sunlight to power all of Europe.

Kevin there is a huge solar plant in Vegas and it took years to construct, it was before Obama. Wind power has been in Palm Springs since at least the 80’s…we will get there, but if you think it’s worth destroying our economy and peoples lives then okay, I don’t.

And putting all power in one place, even if practically possible, might not be a very good idea Kevin . One attack or natural disaster, like a major earth quake…would cripple our nation instantly.

[¥akaSteelhead]

Technology has existed for decades to cheaply wean the power grid off of hydrocarbons. There has been no will to do so, and the petro companies have a lot of $$$$s to buy congresscritters and good will with the public. Which is funny as a lot of those $$$ are a result of multiple forms of subsidies to the industry.

https://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploa ... Energy.pdf

As to all in one place - there are under a dozen high capacity interconnects that if attacked - would bring the US power grid to it's knees and result in a lot of little islands of energy without the ability to share power across regions. CA is remedying this in their state by going to massively distributed micro generation. Basically you can't build new residential and many forms of new commercial in CA now without it it essentially being self sufficient via solar.

[¥akaSteelhead]

The accessible geothermal resource, based on existing extractive technology, is large and contained in
a continuum of grades ranging from today’s hydrothermal, convective systems through high- and
mid-grade EGS resources (located primarily in the western United States) to the very large,
conduction-dominated contributions in the deep basement and sedimentary rock formations
throughout the country. By evaluating an extensive database of bottom-hole temperature and regional
geologic data (rock types, stress levels, surface temperatures, etc.), we have estimated the total EGS
resource base to be more than 13 million exajoules (EJ). Using reasonable assumptions regarding how
heat would be mined from stimulated EGS reservoirs, we also estimated the extractable portion to
exceed 200,000 EJ or about 2,000 times the annual consumption of primary energy in the United
States in 2005. With technology improvements, the economically extractable amount of useful energy
could increase by a factor of 10 or more, thus making EGS sustainable for centuries.

https://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploa ... Energy.pdf

[Res Ipsa]

Replacing coal with natural gas is a significant step. But replacing oil with natural gas isn't as big a step, especially given what we're finding: that more methane is being discharged in the process that had been assumed in the past.

Assimilated to what? None of what you describe represents reduction of fossil fuels as an energy source. But when legislation was introduced to get rid of the clouds of smog, all kinds of people claimed it would "ruin the economy." Do you remember the non-stop belly aching over catalytic converters? People said the same kind of thing about regulations on coal stacks to stop the formation of acid rain. And when we banned use of CFCs to stop destruction of the ozone layer. Conservatives have cried wolf so often that this change or that change will "destroy the economy" that it's a wonder anyone still takes it seriously.

We've taken almost no steps to accelerate a transition away from fossil fuels. And if we left it to the market, what's happening right now is what that process would look like. No one would switch over until the cost of fossil fuels became painfully high. Then people have a strong economic incentive to find alternative power sources. Given your level of resistance to doing anything to transition away from "the lifeblood of the planet," it sounds like all you're willing to support is kicking the can down the road to your kids and grandkids solve it -- only after having spent a metric buttload of money on the consequences of climate change.

The point is we are cleaning up our act and assimilating to a better place…with cleaner burning fossils fuels. We will get to renewables, but it will take a long time and more advancements in technologies. It’s going to take time.

It’s a reality that our grandkids are going to have to handle some of it, and there kids and so on. You can preach liberal values in this all day long, but in the end you rely on oil and no matter how much you preach about it, that will not change. You said because of where you live solar is not practical, what source is available…where do you live?

You're conflating different things: the "cleaning up our act" stuff is particulate pollution. The need to transition from fossil fuels is greenhouse gases.

[Markk]

The point is we are cleaning up our act and assimilating to a better place…with cleaner burning fossils fuels. We will get to renewables, but it will take a long time and more advancements in technologies. It’s going to take time.

It’s a reality that our grandkids are going to have to handle some of it, and there kids and so on. You can preach liberal values in this all day long, but in the end you rely on oil and no matter how much you preach about it, that will not change. You said because of where you live solar is not practical, what source is available…where do you live?

You're conflating different things: the "cleaning up our act" stuff is particulate pollution. The need to transition from fossil fuels is greenhouse gases.

And??? My point is and always been we can assimilate into a better environment…it does not happen over night…especially when it is th e life blood of the modern world. I did not create this mess, nor did you, but being a pragmatist we need to see what we are up against, weigh the costs, understand the realities, and then move forward.

I look at this the way I do the Calvinist argument, and the Arminian argument…both are right for what the preach and teach according to the Bible, yet both are equally wrong for what they deny. I am not sure if you will get that, if your are versed in this classic theological debate, but I honestly believe the Right and the Left’s ideologies can fall into that description.

Right or wrong I hope you understand my view on this.

[Markk]

We did not have technology 30 years ago Res, not even remotely close. And we are not close technology wise for a energy efficient world. WE need to wean and assimilate to green power and it will take 50 years of so to even get close.

Then you need to talk to china and other alike nations…they are opening coal plants like we open Starbucks. It is a one step forward two steps back scenario.

https://time.com/6090732/china-coal-pow ... emissions/

We never bothered to invest in Green Energy to the extent that was needed until Obama/Biden, and you're wrong about not having the technology today. We could carve out 100 sq miles out of the Mohave desert and use the free sunlight to power our entire country. But that takes bold initiatives which Republicans, who've been addicted to oil for decades, refuse to support.

A similar project is in the works to use the North African desert's sunlight to power all of Europe.

Kevin,

Please give me a cf for the North African project and/or Plan. I am interested how they would deal with things like voltage drop and conductor size?

I googled it with no luck


Thanks

[Jersey Girl]

Elmed interconnector aims to bring solar power from the Sahara to Europe
https://www.my wife.com/en/elmed-interconnec ... rgy%20link.


Why carbon-free Europe will still need North African energy
https://www.politico.eu/article/why-car ... an-energy/

[Res Ipsa]

You're conflating different things: the "cleaning up our act" stuff is particulate pollution. The need to transition from fossil fuels is greenhouse gases.

And??? My point is and always been we can assimilate into a better environment…it does not happen over night…especially when it is th e life blood of the modern world. I did not create this mess, nor did you, but being a pragmatist we need to see what we are up against, weigh the costs, understand the realities, and then move forward.

I look at this the way I do the Calvinist argument, and the Arminian argument…both are right for what the preach and teach according to the Bible, yet both are equally wrong for what they deny. I am not sure if you will get that, if your are versed in this classic theological debate, but I honestly believe the Right and the Left’s ideologies can fall into that description.

Right or wrong I hope you understand my view on this.

Thanks for the analogy. I know enough to appreciate the point,

[Markk]

Elmed interconnector aims to bring solar power from the Sahara to Europe
https://www.my wife.com/en/elmed-interconnec ... rgy%20link.


Why carbon-free Europe will still need North African energy
https://www.politico.eu/article/why-car ... an-energy/

Thanks

I was looking for the plant that would supply “all” of Europe, these plants would only supplement parts of Europe, primarily the Mediterranean region.

In comparison, the largest solar plant in the world until recently, near the Ca. Nev. state line, only helps San Francisco, much less all of California which might be a comparison to what Kevin has implied.

There are pros and cons to the plant, and interesting facts. It heats up salt to generate the steam to turn the generators. A con is it takes natural gas to “start its motor” each morning. Another con is it does not employee a lot of folks for what it does. I have driven by this many many times and it is both really cool, impressive, yet a huge scar in an environmental since.

Very interesting read…!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_S ... r_Facility

To Kevin’s assertion of carving out a 100 square miles of desert out here, and just build a plant large enough to supply power for the US is a very big bit to chew on.

Kevin, is there actually a plan for this or did you just come up with this? I would also ask what would be the best way, if the plant was built, to feed the grid and actually get the power to the folks and businesses. One would have to disassemble all th e power sources. We have, and basically connect to the out feeders of these plants…so basically we would have to install a spider web of new feeder towers, or under ground conduits, all over the nation.

These are all fair question that we should think about and discuss. Also do you think the environmentalists would “cut out and destroy a 100 square miles of desert, note that the Atlanta area is just over 130 square miles.

How many years would it take to do all the planning and environmental impact reports? Then go out to actual design, create the RFP’s, go out to bit, and the actual durations of construction. Did you take any of this into consideration?

Take the high speed rail project in California, if you want to have a fun read about just who our government works…google it.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_S ... r_Facility

[K Graham]

Kevin, is there actually a plan for this or did you just come up with this?

I misspoke about the 100 sq miles, I meant to say 100 mile x 100 mile quadrant could be cut out of the southern desert and that would be enough to power the entire country. I didn't come up with the idea, Elon Musk did when he tweeted a response to Bill Gates after he called solar energy "cute."

20eb115b0ffe296c8b2af2ddd6e7f3a0.jpg

I would also ask what would be the best way, if the plant was built, to feed the grid and actually get the power to the folks and businesses. One would have to disassemble all th e power sources.

I doubt it would require all that. Current home solar systems already tap into their public energy provider and in most states, those providers take any unused electricity and pay the homeowner for it. But naturally there would need to be more infrastructure involved that spans the country.

As far as all energy in one place, I don't see the problem with having a hybrid system. If the primary source shuts down for whatever reason, we can use the backup that relies mostly on natural gas. And as yack already stated, the bulk of our energy is already consolidated in relatively few spots which if attacked, would serve the same purpose of bringing the country to its knees.

Also do you think the environmentalists would “cut out and destroy a 100 square miles of desert, note that the Atlanta area is just over 130 square miles.

It would be 10,000 sq miles, but that's still a tiny fraction of all the unused open space we have in the South West. Look at the image above to get an idea what I'm talking about.

How many years would it take to do all the planning and environmental impact reports?

The impact on the environment should be a forgone conclusion. The time it would take to do this would all depend on how quickly we could fund it. Imagine a world where your monthly electric bill is always under $20 bucks.