Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

caraher

(6,276 posts)
16. Specifically which laws of physics are being violated?
Tue Oct 22, 2013, 11:10 AM
Oct 2013

It's remarkable how you can speak with such self-asserted authority about what's in the report without referring to the actual words of the report:

Between now and 2020, there are no technological constraints to accelerated deployment of the major renewable resources with existing technologies.


Sure, increasing renewables requires upgrading our aged, dilapidated power grid. I'm not sure what purported laws of nature this goes against. Somehow the NAS report - written by scientists with known credentials, unlike anyone posting in an online forum - seems to say the variability issue is anything but insurmountable:

Balancing wind with multiple renewable resources—including solar, which does not normally peak when wind does, and baseload power from geothermal and biomass—could mitigate the temporal variability in generation. Reaching the goal of 20 percent nonhydropower renewables by 2035 could be achieved by adding 9.5 GW per year of wind power and a total of 70 GW of solar PV and 13 GW each of geothermal and biomass. Using multiple renewable resources to reach this level would take advantage of the geographical variability in the resource base.


It's true that they didn't spell out in detail scenarios that go beyond 20%, but that scarcely implies they regard that as an absolute limit but reflects the assessments available. The same NAS report also talks about a 12-20% increase in nuclear by 2020. Does that mean they think that's the most nuclear could supply?

To quote a "real scientist (TM):" I'm sorry you don't like what the scientists are saying; but neither do the climate deniers.
Wonderful. Cleita Oct 2013 #1
Some governments see things in perspective.. PamW Oct 2013 #2
Find another way to boil water. wundermaus Oct 2013 #3
I'll let a scientist tell you what the problem is... PamW Oct 2013 #4
And I'll Let Max Planck rebut: Demeter Oct 2013 #5
You mean we have to let a generation of environmentalists die out? PamW Oct 2013 #6
NO, I mean we have to let a generation of nuclear sell-outs die off Demeter Oct 2013 #7
Sweetheart deal on price controls FogerRox Oct 2013 #8
£92.50 is the level they've set muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #11
The prediction for gas when the plant comes online is £74 FBaggins Oct 2013 #18
That's a sweetheart deal? FBaggins Oct 2013 #19
It's a lot less than offshore wind is getting Yo_Mama Oct 2013 #22
Then the analogy doesn't hold.... PamW Oct 2013 #9
No scientist would pervert a study like you have here. kristopher Oct 2013 #10
WRONG! PamW Oct 2013 #12
The credentials required are English language comprehension caraher Oct 2013 #14
WRONG too!! PamW Oct 2013 #15
Specifically which laws of physics are being violated? caraher Oct 2013 #16
Conservation of Energy PamW Oct 2013 #17
20% is at most a rough limit with no grid upgrades and no storage caraher Oct 2013 #20
That's not "at most"... it's exactly what they're saying. FBaggins Oct 2013 #21
Try to find the 1992 National Academy Energy Study PamW Oct 2013 #24
Well said & well sourced. FogerRox Oct 2013 #26
Well said K. FogerRox Oct 2013 #27
So many assumptions... I am sad for you. wundermaus Oct 2013 #23
So is the Hindenberg PamW Oct 2013 #25
Look, the only way we can sustain modern industrial society without fossil fuels is nuclear power. hunter Oct 2013 #13
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Britain to build Europe's...»Reply #16