The United Nations and I both believe in renewable energy.

[JohnDBarrow]

https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/raising-ambition/renewable-energy#:~:text=Renewable energy sources are all around us&text=In contrast%2C renewable energy sources,from renewable energy by 2050.

 

Do you believe as the UN and I believe?  I am not numbered among the naysayers. Man can actually make it happen if there is a will. 

 

1. Renewable energy sources are all around us

About 80 percent of the global population lives in countries that are net-importers of fossil fuels -- that’s about 6 billion people who are dependent on fossil fuels from other countries, which makes them vulnerable to geopolitical shocks and crises.

In contrast, renewable energy sources are available in all countries, and their potential is yet to be fully harnessed. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimates that 90 percent of the world’s electricity can and should come from renewable energy by 2050.

Renewables offer a way out of import dependency, allowing countries to diversify their economies and protect them from the unpredictable price swings of fossil fuels, while driving inclusive economic growth, new jobs, and poverty alleviation.

2. Renewable energy is cheaper
Renewable energy actually is the cheapest power option in most parts of the world today. Prices for renewable energy technologies are dropping rapidly. The cost of electricity from solar power fell by 85 percent between 2010 and 2020. Costs of onshore and offshore wind energy fell by 56 percent and 48 percent respectively.

Falling prices make renewable energy more attractive all around – including to low- and middle-income countries, where most of the additional demand for new electricity will come from. With falling costs, there is a real opportunity for much of the new power supply over the coming years to be provided by low-carbon sources.

Cheap electricity from renewable sources could provide 65 percent of the world’s total electricity supply by 2030. It could decarbonize 90 percent of the power sector by 2050, massively cutting carbon emissions and helping to mitigate climate change.

Although solar and wind power costs are expected to remain higher in 2022 and 2023 then pre-pandemic levels due to general elevated commodity and freight prices, their competitiveness actually improves due to much sharper increases in gas and coal prices, says the International Energy Agency (IEA).

3. Renewable energy is healthier
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), about 99 percent of people in the world breathe air that exceeds air quality limits and threatens their health, and more than 13 million deaths around the world each year are due to avoidable environmental causes, including air pollution.

The unhealthy levels of fine particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide originate mainly from the burning of fossil fuels. In 2018, air pollution from fossil fuels caused $2.9 trillion in health and economic costs, about $8 billion a day.

Switching to clean sources of energy, such as wind and solar, thus helps address not only climate change but also air pollution and health.

4. Renewable energy creates jobs
Every dollar of investment in renewables creates three times more jobs than in the fossil fuel industry. The IEA estimates that the transition towards net-zero emissions will lead to an overall increase in energy sector jobs: while about 5 million jobs in fossil fuel production could be lost by 2030, an estimated 14 million new jobs would be created in clean energy, resulting in a net gain of 9 million jobs.

In addition, energy-related industries would require a further 16 million workers, for instance to take on new roles in manufacturing of electric vehicles and hyper-efficient appliances or in innovative technologies such as hydrogen. This means that a total of more than 30 million jobs could be created in clean energy, efficiency, and low-emissions technologies by 2030.

Ensuring a just transition, placing the needs and rights of people at the heart of the energy transition, will be paramount to make sure no one is left behind.

5. Renewable energy makes economic sense
About $7 trillion was spent on subsidizing the fossil fuel industry in 2022, including through explicit subsidies, tax breaks, and health and environmental damages that were not priced into the cost of fossil fuels.

In comparison, about $4.5 trillion a year needs to be invested in renewable energy until 2030 – including investments in technology and infrastructure – to allow us to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

The upfront cost can be daunting for many countries with limited resources, and many will need financial and technical support to make the transition. But investments in renewable energy will pay off. The reduction of pollution and climate impacts alone could save the world up to $4.2 trillion per year by 2030.

Moreover, efficient, reliable renewable technologies can create a system less prone to market shocks and improve resilience and energy security by diversifying power supply options.

Learn more about how many communities and countries are realizing the economic, societal, and environmental benefits of renewable energy.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Thanks for the PSA, but we want discussion. Something with more effort than a copy/paste of the UN website.

 

[Sensei]

We are glad that at least in the subject of defense of this planet we share common views..

 

[JohnDBarrow]

Ok, discussion. If you were to have YOUR way, how would you go about advancing the cause to one day have a planet running totally on renewables vs non-renewable energy forms? The combined off-shore wave and wind production method of electricity seems like a fine idea since wind action at sea is greatest during the summertime and wave action is greatest during the wintertime. I think we should use the various renewable methods to produce electricity in combination and in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible. Use whatever works best. 

 

Necessity is the mother of all invention. We went from thousands of years of transportation by horses to automobiles because somebody felt a need to do so. The Wright Brothers felt the need to build a working airplane. America, under the leadership of John F. Kennedy, felt a need to put Armstrong on the moon. Man's ambition to "go renewables" full bore is eventually going to be driven by his needs to do so. My mother has been a proponent of green energy and protecting the ecology since the early 1970's. When I was a boy she told me there is but so much crude oil in the earth. Chevron in the 1970's advertised that it took nature a million years to create an oil field and man just 30 to use it up. 

Edited August 18 by JohnDBarrow

[swansont]

1 hour ago, JohnDBarrow said:

If you were to have YOUR way, how would you go about advancing the cause to one day have a planet running totally on renewables vs non-renewable energy forms?

Solar and wind will get us most of the way there. 

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

If you were to have YOUR way, how would you go about advancing the cause to one day have a planet running totally on renewables vs non-renewable energy forms?

Decentralize, distribute, diversify. No eco-conscious government would subsidize fossil fuel production or turning prairies into oil fields, right? No responsible government would allow the producers of fossil fuel to despoil oceans and wilderness, right?

The Grid was never a good idea. It's wasteful, expensive, unreliable and vulnerable. So. Take energy production away from the cartels and put it under the direct control of the people who use the energy. Every town, farm, factory and urban neighbourhood should have its independent generating equipment - usually a combination of two or more available sources. Tide and wind on shorelines, hydro and solar along riverbanks, solar, wind and geothermal in northern latitudes  - whatever is most convenient and causes the least disruption to the environment. Similarly, every individual dwelling should be as energy-independent as possible, with emergency access to the communal reserves. 

Many clever devices are already in use; improvements are coming along every day. They should get a lot more air-time on broadcast media, so that people become aware of and familiar with them. Communities could benefit greatly from financial help to make a transition from dependency on corporate suppliers to local energy production. The new jobs might also prevent some bright young people leaving rural communities for the cities. But a great deal of improvement could be made in the cities, too. Every big office building and apartment block could produce its own electricity. Most could be retrofitted for heating and cooling. (Let's face it: weather conditions are not about to turn better!)

That would be a start.        

[Ken Fabian]

Solar especially looks capable of continuing rapid growth purely on market forces - mostly out of demand for electricity at least cost, but knowing that sticking with fossil fuels is unlikely to continue to enjoy amnesties on climate accountability. I seem to remember amongst the disparagement of solar claims that it would have to be under US$1 per watt to be viable and that was unrealistic, bordering on impossible. Under 20c per watt for large scale solar already and perovskite is edging close to viability (most likely as an additional layer on silicon PV that pushes conversion rates to 30% and higher at small additional cost).

I think RE doesn't pivot on the costs of PV anymore but on the costs of energy storage and long distance transmission lines and on the integration of millions of batteries on wheels into grids; those are what I see as most significant. And when the world's largest battery maker has a new line that can potentially halve battery costs in one hit (they said within 6 months) "batteries won't work" is looking a lot like "solar PV won't work". As well as those new Lithium Iron Phosphate developments we are seeing sodium batteries achieve actual commercial production with potential for significant further storage cost reductions, especially but not only for stationary storage; not going to give the range for EV's that other batteries do but not too shabby at that either. Who could've predicted that R&D in this area could deliver useful results?

Not sure we can electrify heavy road transport without levels of foresight and planning few nations appear willing to commit to yet - like big builds of fast charging stations and/or in-road or overhead electrification to give charging whilst on the move. Or possibly swappable batteries.

Real world impacts of global warming will provide ongoing and increasingly shrill reminders of why it is important.

[JohnDBarrow]

On 8/18/2024 at 6:43 PM, swansont said:

Solar and wind will get us most of the way there. 

Sounds good. But to get us past most of the way there to ALL the way there, tidal, wave and biofuels might fill in that little gap.  I believe that jet airplanes will require some sort of biofuel to make them work unless man can invent a propulsion system something like the Starship Enterprise has on board. I don't see how electricity can be converted into jet propulsion. 

[CharonY]

As mentioned in other threads, biofuels mostly have a net detrimental impact on the environment. Until other forms of energy are becoming scarce, they are not really filling a critical gap.

46 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I don't see how electricity can be converted into jet propulsion. 

I am not sure what the current status is, but electrical planes are a thing and I believe hydrogen-powered aircrafts exist as prototypes. Not sure how far they are from commercial planes though.

[JohnDBarrow]

I meant biofuels might have to someday be used for jets if nothing else more "doable" is available by then. Your guess is as good as mine. 

[swansont]

7 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Sounds good. But to get us past most of the way there to ALL the way there, tidal, wave and biofuels might fill in that little gap.  I believe that jet airplanes will require some sort of biofuel to make them work unless man can invent a propulsion system something like the Starship Enterprise has on board. I don't see how electricity can be converted into jet propulsion. 

You use motors instead of engines. Electric planes exist. Electric jet engines have been developed

https://thedebrief.org/revolutionary-new-electric-ejet-motor-could-signal-a-breakthrough-in-electric-propulsion-for-aviation/

The problem is the weight of the "fuel". Batteries are quite heavy, and you have to lift that extra weight, which means you need more energy storage to move the same amount of payload. You reach a point of diminishing returns when you add more batteries. It's an efficiency issue. 

[exchemist]

7 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Sounds good. But to get us past most of the way there to ALL the way there, tidal, wave and biofuels might fill in that little gap.  I believe that jet airplanes will require some sort of biofuel to make them work unless man can invent a propulsion system something like the Starship Enterprise has on board. I don't see how electricity can be converted into jet propulsion. 

Don't neglect ammonia. This is being heavily researched for ships. You can burn it, producing water and nitrogen. Considering planes, it can be stored much more easily than hydrogen as at room temperature it liquefies at a pressure of only 10bar, whereas hydrogen has to be stored as a very highly compressed gas, adding to the weight. Issues to be managed are toxicity of the gas and potential NOx emissions when burnt.  

Ammonia would be generated from green hydrogen, so in effect it's really just an alternative form of hydrogen that is easier to store.

[iNow]

7 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I meant biofuels might have to someday be used for jets if nothing else more "doable" is available by then. Your guess is as good as mine. 

Several things are more doable and already available now. Our guess is apparently far better than yours. 

[JohnDBarrow]

Well, as long as SOMEBODY in the renewable energy fields know what they are doing. I have thought to myself if I could start my life all over again I would want to devote it to civil engineering or ecology. It sounds exciting to have a professional career in the renewable energy fields. It's sort of a new frontier of sorts. It certainly would require an open mind and being versed in one or more scientific disciplines. I bet most of the naysayers to renewable energy have stock in Big Oil. 

[swansont]

43 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Well, as long as SOMEBODY in the renewable energy fields know what they are doing.

Why would you think otherwise?

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

You use motors instead of engines. Electric planes exist. Electric jet engines have been developed

https://thedebrief.org/revolutionary-new-electric-ejet-motor-could-signal-a-breakthrough-in-electric-propulsion-for-aviation/

The problem is the weight of the "fuel". Batteries are quite heavy, and you have to lift that extra weight, which means you need more energy storage to move the same amount of payload. You reach a point of diminishing returns when you add more batteries. It's an efficiency issue. 

There are also efforts to create 'structural' batteries, where components of the plane such as walls or floors are both structural and act as batteries. This reduces the need to add weight to the plane for power as it is already contained in the structural components.

Quote

There is another energy-storage technology that could reduce airplane carbon emissions by hundreds of tons every year without having to change anything about the jet engine. A tentative step toward this future lies on a workbench in the lab of Emile Greenhalgh, PhD, a materials scientist at Imperial College London. It’s a seemingly unremarkable chunk of carbon-fiber-composite component shaped as a perfect replica of the C-beams that provide structural support for the fuselage of an Airbus A380. It is also a supercapacitor, a remarkable feat of engineering that Greenhalgh hopes will help chart an alternative course for the future of aviation.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/airlines/a43490954/structural-batteries-electric-aircraft/

[JohnDBarrow]

When considering renewable energy forms in lieu of fossil fuels for transportation, you have to consider range, working capacity and speed as well as safety and operational costs.  Nothing seems to be as energy dense as petroleum-based fuels except for maybe biofuels.  Would hydrogen ever be more practical than electricity for aviation? Who knows.  Fossil fuels would be the perfect fuel for most everything man does but the trouble is they are both finite and dirty. 

 

Here is a video about hydrogen power for airplanes but there are a number of catches. They say that hydrogen can't be stored in wings unlike fossil fuels and biofuels.  You lose cargo-carrying capacity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 20 by JohnDBarrow

[studiot]

Quote

The United Nations and I both believe in renewable energy.

This is a Science discussion site and technically  'renewable energy'  is a contradiction in terms since it contravenes the laws of thermodynamics.

All ' higher' forms of energy degrade to heat with deployment.

[swansont]

But it’s not the Pedant forum; most understand what’s meant by renewable energy.

[JohnDBarrow]

4 hours ago, studiot said:

This is a Science discussion site and technically  'renewable energy'  is a contradiction in terms since it contravenes the laws of thermodynamics.

All ' higher' forms of energy degrade to heat with deployment.

 

There is a heat death paradox:

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_paradox#:~:text=The heat death paradox%2C also,of an infinitely old universe.

 

Assuming that the universe is eternal, a question arises: How is it that thermodynamic equilibrium has not already been achieved?

 

How is that after the literal passing of forever (an infinite amount of time since there is no beginning to the collective sum total of existence) that I am still here breathing, thinking, living and typing this right now in 2024 AD? I am living human proof that energy (the capacity to do work) is still in existence after the literal passing of forever. Why hasn't the total capacity to do work in the one and only one Universe been terminated a long, long time ago? Universal heat death would make my conscious life impossible so it seems. 

 

The living human body itself is not even possible without the consumption of energy. I say one or more laws of thermodynamics are false. 

 

According to this article, the universe might never die:

 

https://www.noemamag.com/life-need-not-ever-end/

 

At his blog Preposterous Universe, Sean Carroll writes: “If there exists a maximal entropy (thermal equilibrium) state, and the universe is eternal, it’s hard to see why we aren’t in such an equilibrium state — and that would be static, not constantly evolving. This is why I personally believe that there is no such equilibrium state, and that the universe evolves because it can always evolve.”

 

 

 

Edited August 20 by JohnDBarrow

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I say one or more laws of thermodynamics are false

Just another example in a long line of silly things you’ve said based on misunderstandings. 

[JohnDBarrow]

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

Just another example in a long line of silly things you’ve said based on misunderstandings. 

Thermal equilibrium of the entire Universe seems to my mind impossible.  My very state of living right now contradicts it. The universe will constantly change into the infinite future as it has done forever already. I understand that matter and energy both cannot emerge from a complete void nor vanish into one. I can logically conclude that matter and energy have both been in existence forever and shall remain in existence forever. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Thermal equilibrium of the entire Universe seems to my mind impossible.

The universe doesn’t care what seems possible to your mind. 

Remind me how this relates to renewable green energy and the UN?

[exchemist]

8 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

 

There is a heat death paradox:

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_paradox#:~:text=The heat death paradox%2C also,of an infinitely old universe.

 

Assuming that the universe is eternal, a question arises: How is it that thermodynamic equilibrium has not already been achieved?

 

How is that after the literal passing of forever (an infinite amount of time since there is no beginning to the collective sum total of existence) that I am still here breathing, thinking, living and typing this right now in 2024 AD? I am living human proof that energy (the capacity to do work) is still in existence after the literal passing of forever. Why hasn't the total capacity to do work in the one and only one Universe been terminated a long, long time ago? Universal heat death would make my conscious life impossible so it seems. 

 

The living human body itself is not even possible without the consumption of energy. I say one or more laws of thermodynamics are false. 

 

According to this article, the universe might never die:

 

https://www.noemamag.com/life-need-not-ever-end/

 

At his blog Preposterous Universe, Sean Carroll writes: “If there exists a maximal entropy (thermal equilibrium) state, and the universe is eternal, it’s hard to see why we aren’t in such an equilibrium state — and that would be static, not constantly evolving. This is why I personally believe that there is no such equilibrium state, and that the universe evolves because it can always evolve.”

 

 

 

If you read your Wiki link, you will see why this c.19th “paradox” does not trouble modern cosmology. According to the current model, the universe is not infinitely old, and so it has not had time to “run down” to thermodynamic “heat death”.

So the laws of thermodynamics are fine. 

Edited August 21 by exchemist

[JohnDBarrow]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

The universe doesn’t care what seems possible to your mind. 

Remind me how this relates to renewable green energy and the UN?

Studiot brought thermodynamics into my thread. He got me started on that one. 

This is a Science discussion site and technically  'renewable energy'  is a contradiction in terms since it contravenes the laws of thermodynamics.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

If you read your Wiki link, you will see why this c.19th “paradox” does not trouble modern cosmology. According to the current model, the universe is not infinitely old, and so it has not had time to “run down” to thermodynamic “heat death”.

So the laws of thermodynamics are fine. 

Thermodynamics laws might only hold true in a closed system but the universe is an open system.  The universe consists of matter, energy and other components.  None of those items could have ever had a beginning. I personally hold the universe to be infinitely old and to be eternally changing. Energy is an essential component for change. Nature will not ever permit a universal heat death. 

https://www.noemamag.com/life-need-not-ever-end/

 

Boltzmann’s model also ignored the influence of gravity, which is often described as an anti-entropic force due to its clumping effects on matter. Gravity’s effects on small objects like gas molecules are essentially so tiny that they are negligible for all practical purposes, meaning you can leave the force out of the model and still make accurate predictions about the state of the system. But at the scale of the universe, the effects of gravity become extremely important to the evolving structure of the system. Gravity is one factor driving the growth of order in the cosmos, and a good example of why the evolution of the universe looks very different from a gas spreading out in a box.

Of course, the attractive force of gravity doesn’t explain the emergence of life, which has been defying Boltzmann’s tendency toward disorder for about four billion years. Not only does life represent the formation of complexity, it constructs more of it. What explains this paradox? How does the biosphere grow more complex and organized if there’s a tendency for organized systems to fall apart? If cosmic complexity is to grow continuously, the process would then seem to curiously depend on life, the only form of complexity that can create more organization and actively sustain itself.

The quantum physicist Erwin Schrodinger explained this paradox in his 1944 book “What is Life?”. What Schrödinger noticed was that instead of drifting toward thermodynamic equilibrium — which for life means a state of death and decay — biological organisms maintained their ordered living state by consuming free energy from the environment (which he called “negative entropy”). Boltzmann’s law of increasing disorder only applies to closed systems, and life on Earth is an open system. It is constantly receiving usable energy from the sun, which drives it away from thermodynamic equilibrium.  

Edited August 21 by JohnDBarrow