The Myth of Energy Storage vs Baseload

July 19, 2014

Great graphics to describe why renewables are inevitable, and taking over now.

From Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute.

About these ads

176 Responses to “The Myth of Energy Storage vs Baseload”


  1. Here is where you guys lose track. I have seen the same 100 year crap before.

    http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/22/exponential-growth-global-solar-pv-production-installation/#comment-1499382787

    How come a nuke fan can say we can do it all in 10 years, but if someone suggests solar might be able to do a little, bitty, bit better than 1% of energy in 50 years, OMG, how dare you say such a thing. That is so bright-sided. And it its not bright sided to fantasize an imaginary nuclear reactor that does not exist yet suddenly supplying mega energy and saving the day? Crock. Thats what crock is here for.

    Ah yes, You haven’t seen any signs lately. When was the last time you saw exponential anything, recognized it ? Its rhetorical. Nobody does except nerdy scientists and engineers. Practically no one saw solar coming. Practically no one sees what it has already done. Its moving too fast exponentially. I was not kidding when I said learn exponentials, your life and all our children’s lives depend on it. Think this is just a comment from a crazed hippie renewables booster? Think not.
    A short glance of Chinas CO2 emissions that were way less than US only a few short years ago shows what?

    Want to focus on China? It wont do any good if you don’t know what you are looking at. You are looking at a campaign to modernize a country by growth at rates greater than 10% per year every year for more than a decade and a choice to ignore the what happened to other countries as they did the same. The chickens have come home to roost. Yes. Math matters. A lot.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      “Math matters. A lot”

      Yep, it does, and “exponential” is not just rhetorical to those of us that understand it and realize that it surrounds us in may ways. I have been screaming CHINA and COAL etc., and many of us (you included) have been talking about the failures of the capitalism-free market model and unsustainable growth. I think most Crockers see the “exponential” hammers coming.

      Who are the “you guys” who have lost track? Except for E-Pot in some of his arguments, none of us are nuclear boosters or renewables bashers. We are simply realists. YOU are losing track, and your hyperbole demonstrates it.


    • How come a nuke fan can say we can do it all in 10 years

      Because multiple countries have done it in slightly over 10 years using nuclear power, that’s why.  And that was with 1960’s-70’s technology.

      but if someone suggests solar might be able to do a little, bitty, bit better than 1% of energy in 50 years, OMG, how dare you say such a thing. That is so bright-sided.

      There are these little details called “seasons” and “clouds” and “night”.  Further, we really aren’t talking about 1% or even 10%.  We need to talk about nothing less than 80%.  No energy source that is effectively off-line by 4 PM in the winter can possibly displace fossil fuels to the required degree.  France ran up to 80% nuclear electricity in 11 years (admittedly, not from zero).  Denmark has been going at renewables for more than 2 decades and still hasn’t broken 50% on its grid, and has far less in its industrial, heating and transport sectors.

      And it its not bright sided to fantasize an imaginary nuclear reactor that does not exist yet suddenly supplying mega energy and saving the day?

      Your side is the one insisting that CURRENT (“old, tired”) reactors aren’t right and proper to be our carbon-free replacement for coal and gas.  You make excuses for the shortcomings of solar and wind but nothing nuclear does is good enough for you.  Transatomic Power designs a reactor to consume the spent fuel from the last 50 years of reactors, and do you welcome them as the answer to a prayer?  Ha!  You treat them like lepers.

      I just wish that your anti-nuclear religion didn’t incorporate in its dogma the insistence that it’s not a religion.  That bit of dishonesty is very damaging.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,631 other followers

%d bloggers like this: