China dominates the raw materials needed for renewable energy market`s and they never bothered going to the climate conference just like Russia, they stand to make big money from the west.     

3 hours ago, Luke said:

The Canadian experience is not great - electricity generation in Ontario has been a significant and financial mess for most of the 21st century, caused in large part by debt and costs from the construction and ongoing maintenance of the three nuclear plants (Bruce, Pickering and Darlington).

Ontario made a number of bad policy decisions that have made their electricity so expensive, it wasn't just because of nuclear power.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-does-electricity-cost-so-much-in-ontario/article33453270/

It's not like renewables don't have cost issues either. BC is currently building a new hydro dam that has gone far over budget, which will likely lead to price increases for the residents of BC. Not to mention the impacts to the prime agricultural land and First Nations in the area.

3 hours ago, Luke said:

First, it omits the best option for base-band renewal electricity, one that is so common north of the border that our Canadian friends don't refer to their electricity bills, instead their "hydro" bills.

Not around here we don't, because it isn't viable for all of Canada. Though it does make it easier to identify who has moved from elsewhere in the country when they refer to their hydro bill. Right now we're headed towards a mix of natural gas and renewables but, again, I have yet to see a reliable alternative to the natural gas part without nuclear. Unless there is a sudden breakthrough in fusion power, or we find a better way to make batteries, and dispose of them.

52 minutes ago, birdguy said:

Take a plot of one acre of ground.  Cover it with solar panels or windmills or a modern new technology nuclear plant.  Which is going to produce the most electricity 24/7 without interruption?

How many Walmart and other mall parking lots are there in your area? Why not cover those with solar panels? How about the roofs of the malls themselves? Factory roofs?

I'm not sure either side in this debate can really use mining as a talking point for or against. Renewables need a fair bit of mining themselves, and more so if you add lithium based batteries to the mix. Rather than coal or uranium, it will be lithium and rare earth metals being mined. In many cases in questionable conditions in other countries.

Probe reveals new hybrid cars with higher levels of harmful emissions than diesels, as Dispatches discovers some public chargers out of service for years (msn.com)

The moral of this story is who cares as long as the industry makes more money.

10,000 times the human races energy requirement strikes the planet continuously.

173,000 terawats. 

Maybe orbital solar arrays are a good way forward. 

Private companies like SpaceX developing the capability to hoist a considerable payload into orbit, may be very useful in that respect.

Edited November 22, 20214 yr by martin-w

6 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

Cant find the original article on this now, but did find this below...

 

https://www.quora.com/Do-nuclear-powered-submarines-and-aircraft-carriers-ever-suffer-meltdowns-or-leaks

Is Quora reliable?

 

In that sense Quora is not reliable. But a good question can reliably get a wide range of responses, and that is nearly always interesting at least. But unless people are prepared to offer references or links to other reliable sources, much of the material posted as answers and discussion can be hard to verify.

6 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Penzoil3 said:

Quora is not reliable.

 

No, it's not. But that's not we're I originally saw it. As I said, I saw an article re this a while ago. I'll look again for it tomorrow. 

1 hour ago, goates said:

How many Walmart and other mall parking lots are there in your area? Why not cover those with solar panels? How about the roofs of the malls themselves? Factory roofs?

Where do you park then ? Roofs maybe, but parking lots just don't work. Apply a little common sense. No wait, I forgot; common sense is no longer common...

17 minutes ago, Penzoil3 said:

Where do you park then ? Roofs maybe, but parking lots just don't work. Apply a little common sense. No wait, I forgot; common sense is no longer common...

 

Actually solar car park canopies are a thing. 

https://images.app.goo.gl/i2RgKArwA4dv9aZWA

Solar canopies over resovoirs too. Solar panels work more efficiently overcwater. Keeps them at optimal temp.

https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2020/10/the-immense-potential-of-solar-panels-floating-on-dams/

 

 

4 hours ago, dave2013 said:

What I'm not for are what I consider radical ideas such as "eliminating fossil fuels by 2030 or 2035". 

Our World in Data organisation says that, based on 2015 reserves and consumption, oil will run out in 50 years, natural gas in 52 years and coal in 114 years from that time.

If you don't set a deadline, nothing meaningful will get done. At least, by 2035, we need to have started eliminating fossil fuels if oil and gas are going to run out by 2050. We can't just hope to find new, accessible reserves in the meantime.

Edited November 22, 20214 yr by dmwalker

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

Maybe orbital solar arrays are a good way forward. 

Sounds pretty exciting but how many arrays would be required and, if they are all beaming down microwave radiation, would each beam require its own little no-fly zone?

2 hours ago, Penzoil3 said:

Where do you park then ? Roofs maybe, but parking lots just don't work. Apply a little common sense. No wait, I forgot; common sense is no longer common...

As Martin points out, and has been suggested elsewhere, is that you can build a canopy over the parking lots to mount the solar panels on. Perhaps before jumping to conclusions you could ask for clarification if you don't understand something. At least that's what I would call common sense.

Edited November 22, 20214 yr by goates

1 hour ago, dmwalker said:

Our World in Data organisation says that, based on 2015 reserves and consumption, oil will run out in 50 years, natural gas in 52 years and coal in 114 years from that time.

Years and years ago I was reading an old reprinted article from the late 1920s that said the earth's oil would run out in the early 1940s.

Noel's Earth Research Data says there will be enough oil and natural gas to supply the world's needs until the comet hits, whenever that will be.  Of course common sense tells us by then the entire globe will be covered with solar panels on canopies and we won't see it coming.

Noel 

Your to need a lot of renewables for the more than 1 billion more humans before the end of this century, but subsidised energy is what the multi nationals want guarantied profits by the consumer otherwise they would not be interested.  

1 hour ago, G-RFRY said:

but subsidised energy is what the multi nationals want guarantied profits by the consumer otherwise they would not be interested

Of course they want guaranteed profits.  They want a guaranteed return on their investments.  Aren't they entitled to that?  Just like if I go to work for somebody I want a guaranteed living wage otherwise I won't work for them.  Why should I?

If subsidies are needed to provide energy at an affordable cost to the consumer then that's fair.  The multinationals aren't charitable organizations.  But the profits they expect for shouldn't be exorbitant.

Just like the government providing tax breaks and assistance in buy solar panels for your home.

Noel

 

4 hours ago, dmwalker said:

Our World in Data organisation says that, based on 2015 reserves and consumption, oil will run out in 50 years, natural gas in 52 years and coal in 114 years from that time.

Many were talking about "peak oil" back in the 1970s and 80s, so I don't put much stock in forecasts like that. 

However, there is no doubt that oil and natural gas are not infinite.  It is really only because of fracking that we've been able to access natural gas and oil deposits cheaply.

Moreover, if the world's population continues to increase, and especially as more people in rapidly developing nations like China and India continually increase their energy usage, then we'll need more and more fossil fuels which means those sources will run out faster, not to mention the added pollution.  China is building coal power plants like crazy, but they are also building many nuclear plants.

We definitely must find alternatives to fossil fuels.  The good news is that we have the technology, and we have the time.  The alternative energy revolution actually started decades ago and progress has steadily improved.  We're getting there.

Dave