The First 100 Days of Trump

[kalm]

Add in the externalities of oil and the gap closes. Oil has a little bit of a head start but efficiencies will be gained for renewables and further level the playing field.

At the very least, we aren't currently patrolling the Persian Gulf on behalf of wind and solar.

Do you realize how much land solar and/or wind would require to replace fossil fuels? So much that they're really just a holy grail that will likely never achieve what liberals think they will. The real solutions are still being developed and we don't know what they are yet.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

I don't know if they're a holy grail or not. Can land use requirements not come down through improved technology as well? Look at the size of computers and batteries and how much they've changed. This really shouldn't be a liberal or conservative thing and I agree that we haven't a clue at the eventual solutions.

[Grizalltheway]

Do you realize how much land solar and/or wind would require to replace fossil fuels? So much that they're really just a holy grail that will likely never achieve what liberals think they will. The real solutions are still being developed and we don't know what they are yet.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

I don't know if they're a holy grail or not. Can land use requirements not come down through improved technology as well? Look at the size of computers and batteries and how much they've changed. This really shouldn't be a liberal or conservative thing and I agree that we haven't a clue at the eventual solutions.

And that's not necessarily a problem, the problem is the number of people/companies who stand to lose a fuckton of money with the phasing out of fossil fuels.

[CAA Flagship]

I don't know if they're a holy grail or not. Can land use requirements not come down through improved technology as well? Look at the size of computers and batteries and how much they've changed. This really shouldn't be a liberal or conservative thing and I agree that we haven't a clue at the eventual solutions.

And that's not necessarily a problem, the problem is the number of people/companies who stand to lose a fuckton of money with the phasing out of fossil fuels.

What if the sun goes out?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... rface.html

[Chizzang]

Add in the externalities of oil and the gap closes. Oil has a little bit of a head start but efficiencies will be gained for renewables and further level the playing field.

At the very least, we aren't currently patrolling the Persian Gulf on behalf of wind and solar.

Do you realize how much land solar and/or wind would require to replace fossil fuels? So much that they're really just a holy grail that will likely never achieve what liberals think they will. The real solutions are still being developed and we don't know what they are yet.

Me thinks you're full of shyte...
This little square represents the amount of area needed to power the entire USA
using our present solar technology

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Please cite that source!

Love to read it, since that would be almost impossible infrastructure wise and I doubt you account for the power consumption of metropolitan areas.......please post the link supporting that comment.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Wait, are you saying that much space for just Utah? If so then its believable.

[BDKJMU]

Do you realize how much land solar and/or wind would require to replace fossil fuels? So much that they're really just a holy grail that will likely never achieve what liberals think they will. The real solutions are still being developed and we don't know what they are yet.

Me thinks you're full of shyte...
This little square represents the amount of area needed to power the entire USA
using our present solar technology

What is your continued problem with providing links? I calling bullshit on this one...

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Me thinks you're full of shyte...
This little square represents the amount of area needed to power the entire USA
using our present solar technology

What is your continued problem with providing links? I calling bullshit on this one...

I know, there is no way solar is capable of generating close to the 4 trillion kW/h the USA consumes annually.

[Skjellyfetti]

US uses 3.7 million gwh of electricity per year.

It would require around 50,000 square kilometers to provide the electricity for the United States.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf

[Chizzang]

Here's my source..

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Exactly, so why even post crap like you did?

If you want a seat at the big boy table you need to be more realistic

[Chizzang]

https://www.good.is/infographics/solar- ... of-america

[Grizalltheway]

And that's not necessarily a problem, the problem is the number of people/companies who stand to lose a fuckton of money with the phasing out of fossil fuels.

What if the sun goes out?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... rface.html

Then I guess our problems are moot, huh?

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

My bad Cleets, I misunderstood your point, you are talking panels only not transmission or storage.

[Ibanez]

He's a train wreck that needs to be controlled.

There you go again, girlfriend.

Now, exactly what has he done that has been a train wreck?

I'm waiting for it.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I don't know if they're a holy grail or not. Can land use requirements not come down through improved technology as well? Look at the size of computers and batteries and how much they've changed. This really shouldn't be a liberal or conservative thing and I agree that we haven't a clue at the eventual solutions.

And that's not necessarily a problem, the problem is the number of people/companies who stand to lose a fuckton of money with the phasing out of fossil fuels.

It would suck if they went from making a fuckton of money with fossil fuels to making a fuckton of money with solar............. like they would.

[Ibanez]

President Donald Trump further reorganized the National Security Council on Monday after he came under sharp criticism for ousting the country's most senior intelligence and military officials as regular members of the Principals Committee -- and installing one of his top political advisers on the key panel.

On Monday, White House spokesman Sean Spicer announced that Trump will reinstate the director of the CIA as a regular Principals Committee member. But the President will keep his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, as a regular committee member -- a move that came under fire -- while the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will not be regular attendees.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/ ... index.html

Interesting.

[CID1990]

Do you realize how much land solar and/or wind would require to replace fossil fuels? So much that they're really just a holy grail that will likely never achieve what liberals think they will. The real solutions are still being developed and we don't know what they are yet.

Me thinks you're full of shyte...
This little square represents the amount of area needed to power the entire USA
using our present solar technology

Start converting roadways over to the solar paving and that would take care of that.

But there would need to be a sjitload of batteries for storage.

Since Elon Musk is the battery AND rocket dude he could make a mint shooting them into space when they're dead

[GannonFan]

President Donald Trump further reorganized the National Security Council on Monday after he came under sharp criticism for ousting the country's most senior intelligence and military officials as regular members of the Principals Committee -- and installing one of his top political advisers on the key panel.

On Monday, White House spokesman Sean Spicer announced that Trump will reinstate the director of the CIA as a regular Principals Committee member. But the President will keep his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, as a regular committee member -- a move that came under fire -- while the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will not be regular attendees.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/ ... index.html

Interesting.

I thought people were getting too over-hyped about this one. When it comes down to it, no matter who is considered a "principal" member and who else can show up when they want or are called is really just a detail. At the end of the day, Trump can listen to someone or not listen to someone at his whim anyway, just like any other President. Bannon was/is clearly going to be in his ear, for better or for worse, all the time anyway, so this puts a little more formality into that arrangement. And if anything is going to happen militarily the Joint Chiefs will have their say regardless. For those who don't like Bannon, which I'm sure are legion, this is just further confirmation that he has Trump's ear. I think it was the case anyway, hence why this isn't a new thing to be upset about, just a lingering one.

[Ibanez]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/ ... index.html

Interesting.

I thought people were getting too over-hyped about this one. When it comes down to it, no matter who is considered a "principal" member and who else can show up when they want or are called is really just a detail. At the end of the day, Trump can listen to someone or not listen to someone at his whim anyway, just like any other President. Bannon was/is clearly going to be in his ear, for better or for worse, all the time anyway, so this puts a little more formality into that arrangement. And if anything is going to happen militarily the Joint Chiefs will have their say regardless. For those who don't like Bannon, which I'm sure are legion, this is just further confirmation that he has Trump's ear. I think it was the case anyway, hence why this isn't a new thing to be upset about, just a lingering one.

Yup. That's pretty much my take on it.

[YoUDeeMan]

https://www.good.is/infographics/solar- ... of-america

Uhhhh...not quite, Pinocchio.


From your link:

"So you’re saying it would only take .6 percent of the surface area of the continental United States to power the entire country with renewable solar power? Just 11,200,000 acres to generate 4,000,000 GWh of clean energy?

Well, all right! Problem solved! Let’s just fill that area with solar panels and call it a day… right?

That would be great, but unfortunately the answer isn’t so simple as staking a bunch of panels across 12 million acres and calling it a day. First of all, that 11.2 million acres will expand quickly once things like service roads, operational facilities and transmission lines are incorporated. And then there’s the fact that you can’t just build one massive solar array and walk away. Solar capture areas would have to be distributed over a wide area to avoid the problem of cloudy days or storms or other weather events that would obscure the sun pouring down onto your energy farm.

And just because these energy stations would likely be located in the desert (you know, where the sun lives) doesn’t mean you can just put them anywhereThen beyond questions of land use, there’s the issue of storage. After all we do not have dual suns that permit us to soak up solar energy 24 hours a day, and there will be inevitable interruptions in power relay due to maintenance or any number of incidents that can befall a power grid. That means we need storage, and really big batteries.

Ryan Carlyle is a Quora user with a Bachelors of Science and Chemical Engineering who works “in the oil industry as an engineer for deepwater well control equipment,” and he frequently writes about energy use topics. In a post about how large a solar array would need to be to power the U.S., Carlyle estimates that if we wanted to build a system that could provide four-days worth of emergency or backup energy for the entire United States we would need a combined battery storage capacity of 45.5 TWh. That is terawatt hours, or a unit power equal to one trillion watts.

The largest battery storage facility in the world is the Nishi-Sendai Substation Battery Energy Storage System Project in Japan, and its capacity is 40,000 KWh. According to the Clean Energy Authority that’s the same amount of power produced by about 10 automobile engines. Put another way, that is a tiny fraction of the 45.5 TWh required to supply backup power for the whole country. For comparison, one of the biggest battery centers in the United States is in Fairbanks, Alaska and it has a capacity of 27,000 KWh. It also cost $35 million to build. We won’t get into the weeds with the math of what building on the scale of terawatts would cost, but you can imagine it’s an extreme amount of money.

So, yeah. It’s not so simple as just throwing down 12 million acres of solar panels and hitting the on switch.

[Chizzang]

https://www.good.is/infographics/solar- ... of-america

Uhhhh...not quite, Pinocchio.


From your link:

"So you’re saying it would only take .6 percent of the surface area of the continental United States to power the entire country with renewable solar power? Just 11,200,000 acres to generate 4,000,000 GWh of clean energy?

Well, all right! Problem solved! Let’s just fill that area with solar panels and call it a day… right?

That would be great, but unfortunately the answer isn’t so simple as staking a bunch of panels across 12 million acres and calling it a day. First of all, that 11.2 million acres will expand quickly once things like service roads, operational facilities and transmission lines are incorporated. And then there’s the fact that you can’t just build one massive solar array and walk away. Solar capture areas would have to be distributed over a wide area to avoid the problem of cloudy days or storms or other weather events that would obscure the sun pouring down onto your energy farm.

And just because these energy stations would likely be located in the desert (you know, where the sun lives) doesn’t mean you can just put them anywhereThen beyond questions of land use, there’s the issue of storage. After all we do not have dual suns that permit us to soak up solar energy 24 hours a day, and there will be inevitable interruptions in power relay due to maintenance or any number of incidents that can befall a power grid. That means we need storage, and really big batteries.

Ryan Carlyle is a Quora user with a Bachelors of Science and Chemical Engineering who works “in the oil industry as an engineer for deepwater well control equipment,” and he frequently writes about energy use topics. In a post about how large a solar array would need to be to power the U.S., Carlyle estimates that if we wanted to build a system that could provide four-days worth of emergency or backup energy for the entire United States we would need a combined battery storage capacity of 45.5 TWh. That is terawatt hours, or a unit power equal to one trillion watts.

The largest battery storage facility in the world is the Nishi-Sendai Substation Battery Energy Storage System Project in Japan, and its capacity is 40,000 KWh. According to the Clean Energy Authority that’s the same amount of power produced by about 10 automobile engines. Put another way, that is a tiny fraction of the 45.5 TWh required to supply backup power for the whole country. For comparison, one of the biggest battery centers in the United States is in Fairbanks, Alaska and it has a capacity of 27,000 KWh. It also cost $35 million to build. We won’t get into the weeds with the math of what building on the scale of terawatts would cost, but you can imagine it’s an extreme amount of money.

So, yeah. It’s not so simple as just throwing down 12 million acres of solar panels and hitting the on switch.

Simmer down there Cha-Chi
The original point I was correcting was that Solar "space" was the issue
And it's not (See: Alphapiss response)

It's a storage and transmission issue - not a space issue
and it's also not really a cost issue

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

What? I admitted I misunderstood what your original post meant.

[Chizzang]

What? I admitted I misunderstood what your original post meant.

You're fine... It's Chachi that's all worked up

[houndawg]

That came to mind as well....so solar with all its employees will somehow be cheaper than using a source that literally just shoots from the ground.

Add in the externalities of oil and the gap closes. Oil has a little bit of a head start but efficiencies will be gained for renewables and further level the playing field.

At the very least, we aren't currently patrolling the Persian Gulf on behalf of wind and solar.

We save hundreds of billions if we check out of the mideast. Let China piss away her money keeping the sealants open