[KaiserJeep]

Right at this point, I have more wealth in the house which we paid off some months ago. It does appear I can sell for 8X what I paid some 29 years ago. Which is enough cash to buy a really nice place in Wisconsin. I am waiting to find out how grandmotherly the wife feels next month, we will fly out Saturday and spend three weeks with the then month-old grandkids. I have a hunch she may shuffle her present priorities.

So the plan would be, pay off the new place, save some for taxes, and decide what one does when retired.

[StarvingLion]

KaiserJeep wants world communism (its already here) so bad, he can't even bother doing the simple calculation to determine whether the worlds largest solar installation (topaz in Kalifornia) used as a template could power the world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm

Topaz Solar Farm 1100GWh/year (cost $2.44 billion).

Global energy consumption (2012): 155,500,000 GWh.

Number of Topaz farms to power world = 155,500,000/1100 = 141,363.6

Total cost = 141,363.6 x $2,440,000,000 = $344,927,180,000,000

Total Global household wealth (Credit Suisse) = $263,000,000,000,000

Everyone in the world must give up everything they own - then 30% more - just for the solar farms. Doesnt even take into account storage and transmission.

And this madness is taken seriously by KaiserJeep because some "expert" said so...you know like that fraud Elon Musk.

[Ulenspiegel]

Starving Brain,

you have the talent to produce a lot of crap in a few lines. Well done.

[KaiserJeep]

Who said anything about powering the world? This study was just the USA. If you want to dispute it, pick a state by clicking on the map, then read about the energy sources, and then see if you think they did the math correctly or not.

I just realized I didn't give you the link to the original online stub article. Here it is:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/view-from-the-valley/energy/renewables/taking-the-us-to-100-percent-renewable-energy-state-by-state

Now believe me, the IEEE is an organization grounded in facts. I don't believe they would publish foolishness.

[Ulenspiegel]

Even for the world it is doable:

1) one has not to provide the current/future amount of primary energy, only final energy.

2) even final energy contains waste heat (ICE!!!)

3) 2/3 of most heating demand could be covered by "enviromental" energy by heat pumps.

4) only an idiot assumes 2400 USD per kW for PV, it is already at 1000 USD and still decreasing.

With correct assumptions the problem is at least one order of magnitude smaller than claimed by Starving Brain, and no problem to finance it, esp. when we have only to pay for the differential costs, which even may be negative.

[Zanstel]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ulenspiegel', '.')..when we have only to pay for the differential costs, which even may be negative.

[ROCKMAN]

"From a relative point or differential costs we can see that are not impossible and sometimes are even better than today numbers." Which obviously explains why the world has abandoned hydrocarbons and runs primarily on alternative energy sources.

Might want to rethink some of those assumption. Just saying: even while one can try to defend those assumptions one still has to justify them to the fact the overwhelming amount of energy consumed on the planet is from fossil fuels. If those assumptions have failed for many decades and continue to appear invalid today (especially in light of decreased oil prices, low coal prices and an expanding global market for NG) when will they become impactful factors?

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yellowcanoe', 'P')eople who talk about health care savings due to less air pollution, reduced smoking, less exposure to cancer causing materials, etc. etc. rarely discuss the impact on pension funds. Reducing the number of premature deaths means that people will on average collect a pension longer. Eliminating the health costs associated with a premature death doesn't necessarily translate into an overall savings in health care as it is merely postponing a death that may involve just as much health care expenditures as would have been entailed by the premature death that was avoided.

[Timo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'B')oth problems only need heaps of money to solve. Too bad all of you are still working, unlike us retired folks. Taxes are gonna have to be raised so my lifestyle is maintained.

[KaiserJeep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '&')quot;From a relative point or differential costs we can see that are not impossible and sometimes are even better than today numbers." Which obviously explains why the world has abandoned hydrocarbons and runs primarily on alternative energy sources.

Might want to rethink some of those assumption. Just saying: even while one can try to defend those assumptions one still has to justify them to the fact the overwhelming amount of energy consumed on the planet is from fossil fuels. If those assumptions have failed for many decades and continue to appear invalid today (especially in light of decreased oil prices, low coal prices and an expanding global market for NG) when will they become impactful factors?

[GHung]

This entire subject is tantamount to whistling past the graveyard. Firstly, none of the so-called 'renewables' being discussed are "100% renewable". Secondly, we have neither the political will nor the economic capacity to eliminate fossil fuels from our energy mix. I00% renewable industrial scale agriculture? Electrical grids? Transportation? Jeez, even our ability to trash our environment isn't 100% renewable.

Limits to living on a finite planet rule all. Humans took the wrong evolutionary path long ago in regards to their relationship to their environment.

[ROCKMAN]

Timo - A valid point IMHO. OTOH you make the assumption that those who would pay the price in the long run for trying to maintain BAU are the same folks who would have to pony up the money to change our direction. Not a valid assumption IMHO. We are not the collective of the three Musketeers...we are not "all for one and one for all".

[KaiserJeep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Timo', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'B')oth problems only need heaps of money to solve. Too bad all of you are still working, unlike us retired folks. Taxes are gonna have to be raised so my lifestyle is maintained.

[Timo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'T')imo - A valid point IMHO. OTOH you make the assumption that those who would pay the price in the long run for trying to maintain BAU are the same folks who would have to pony up the money to change our direction. Not a valid assumption IMHO. We are not the collective of the three Musketeers...we are not "all for one and one for all".

[ROCKMAN]

Just teasing you a little bit. LOL. And yes: there are folks out there who have a tremendous influence on politicians...the votersIMHO. And isn't that the real problem? IOW the system is driven by their collective knowledge...or lack there of. Again it doesn't matter if Sarah or Hillary have a $billion war chest: the public, as a whole, is going to vote in its own best interest. Or at least what it perceives as its best interest.

[sunweb]

Not about the world. Elitist, colonialism for others' resources.

Jacobson’s first paper proposed:
Starting in 2012 for 50% of the world’s energy we would need:
2111112 machines a year for 18 years
which is over 578 machines a day for 18 years

which is over 24 each hour, each day, 7 days a week for 18 years

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewab ... he-world/0
and
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... gy-by-2030

In an email discussion with the second author he proposed that since we do it with cars; we can do it with “renewables”. So all the mining, processing, manufacturing, transporting, installing, two or three times a year maintenance. This is green? This is sustainable? This is renewable?
Solar and wind energy collecting devices have an industrial history. It is important to understand the industrial infrastructure and the environmental results for the components of the solar energy collecting devices so we don’t designate them with false labels such as green, renewable or sustainable.
This is an essay challenging ‘business as usual’. If we teach people that these solar devices are the future of energy without teaching the whole system, we mislead, misinform and create false hopes and beliefs.
I have provided both charts and videos for the solar cells, modules, aluminum from ore, aluminum from recycling, aluminum extrusion, inverters, batteries and copper.
Please note each piece of machinery you see in each of the videos has its own
industrial interconnection and history.

http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2015/04/so ... cture.html
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2014/11/pr ... wrong.html

[StarvingLion]

Solar installations are supposed to be getting rapidly much cheaper due to genius phds but they are not.

The largest solar installation currently in construction, Mid American's Solar Star, began construction in 2013 and goes online this year, with 579 MW at a cost of $2.74 billion. On a per watt basis, it is significantly more expensive than Topaz.

So, 4 more years of fossil consumption down the drain. Congrats, geniuses.

I'd better call the nuke experts and see how many 100's of trillions of dollars they need to save the world.

[Zanstel]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'M')ight want to rethink some of those assumption. Just saying: even while one can try to defend those assumptions one still has to justify them to the fact the overwhelming amount of energy consumed on the planet is from fossil fuels. If those assumptions have failed for many decades and continue to appear invalid today (especially in light of decreased oil prices, low coal prices and an expanding global market for NG) when will they become impactful factors?

[Ulenspiegel]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '&')quot;From a relative point or differential costs we can see that are not impossible and sometimes are even better than today numbers." Which obviously explains why the world has abandoned hydrocarbons and runs primarily on alternative energy sources.

Might want to rethink some of those assumption. Just saying: even while one can try to defend those assumptions one still has to justify them to the fact the overwhelming amount of energy consumed on the planet is from fossil fuels. If those assumptions have failed for many decades and continue to appear invalid today (especially in light of decreased oil prices, low coal prices and an expanding global market for NG) when will they become impactful factors?

[StarvingLion]

Here is the easiest prediction of all time: Kalifornia will abandon renewables within the next 10 years because it will not be able to maintain the urban sprawl. Whatever IP from the semiconductor biz not already stolen will be transferred to China in exchange for "cheap" fission reactor powered electricity perhaps sitting on barges in the ocean. Intel is no more. The only objective of those clowns in the cities is to become just like India...an ever increasingly dense overpopulated cesspool of corruption.

Lets face reality, miniaturization of the transistor did not lead to any productivity gains...only a bunch of people who design t-shirt graphics and code websites.