? we had sailing ships traversing the equatorial seas for hundreds of years. We coped with the doldrums quite well, commercial traffic (British East India, Dutch East Indies) and military traffic worked well enough; though we didn't have JIT nor 'round the world sailing races back then.
"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.
"32 years, trillions of dollars and we're 18% of the way there." ... not even that ... how much nuke before 1980 ? (most of what we have today ?) How much FF back then ? (2/3 of today's capacity ?)
it is incredible how much money we're flushing down the toilet ! Still, all in a good cause ...
"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.
NY state is pressing the virtue button on Net Zero. They have a goal. They have laws. They don't have hardware or a plan. Latest estimate is they need 3 months of supply as batteries. The UK, as you may remember, had said 2 months, realised that was a ludicrous amount of batteries, and opted for unicorns vast caverns of green hydrogen. Well, I wonder which will crumble first, NY state, Cali, Australia, UK, Germany or some other virtue signalling numpties? I reckon the wheels fall off the wagon in 2027, as the graph of installed renewables versus time, and storage installed vs time, and the requisite lead times, all come to an inevitable conclusion as regards 80% Net Zero in 2035 or whatever ill thought out slogan is their mandated target.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
With the European Commission expected to announce next month a radical new 2040 target for greenhouse gas emissions reduction, there are worrying signs that governments are struggling to meet existing commitments.
As the European Commission prepares a proposal for a 2040 climate target that could see member states pledge to cut net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to just 10% of 1990 levels, there are signs that governments are struggling to achieve more modest existing targets set for the end of this decade.
The groundbreaking European Climate Law commits the EU to a 55% cut by 2030 and full carbon neutrality by 2050, and requires the Commission to propose an intermediate target for 2040 in the coming months. The European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change, a body created by the same legislation, concluded last summer that achieving net-zero will be impossible unless a reduction of 90-95% is achieved by 2040.
Britain's Net Zero target was based on a single of year of weather data, and their modelling estimated there were only 7 days a year where wind turbines would fall below 10% output. The last few years have seen more like 30 days a year. Lots of goddies in this article
Australia will not be able to build and install enough renewable energy generation to meet the country’s 2030 target, new modelling from a NSW government body has determined, amid concerns over supply constraints and labour shortages.
New modelling released by AEMO Services — the NSW agency which has been tasked with playing a major role in the state’s energy transition — said it believes the country could at most install 4 gigawatts of new clean energy capacity, compared with a 6GW target.
To meet green goals, the Australian Energy Market Operator said in December the country must establish 6GW of renewable energy into the system every year until 2030.
“The limit of 4GW was selected based on historical build of all large-scale technologies in the NEM from the last 10 years,” said AEMO Services.
“This updated approach reflects the fact that commodity, manufacturing and labour needs associated with these large infrastructure builds in NSW are also in demand in other jurisdictions to achieve their targets.”
I don't know if they mean 6 GW of nameplate capacity , or 6 GW of baseload which makes more sense (ie 18-24 GW of nameplate, plus storage for X days)
I predicted they'd work this out in 2027, so for once they were 3 years early. Due to sovereign risk I doubt anybody is going to build infrastructure unless they have a very lucrative locked in contract.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
UK's top institutions make a bunch of mistakes modelling Net Zero. The main one is only using one year of wind history, despite in one case being explicitly warned not to do that. RS used 37 years but assumed no growth in electricity usage.
So we've got the numbers for Australia. To replace 1 GW of coal/gas/nuclear we need just over 5 GW of solar or wind, plus transmission lines, plus storage. The latter has not been costed, the transmission lines are a political nightmare. As I mentioned earlier AEMO says the build rate is not fast enough. The only way to encourage increased investment is by guaranteeing a base cfd price for electricity generation. Oh great.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
In California the transmission lines caused our fires yet somehow the fires were caused by climate change as well. We've been forced to pay to bury lines. Our rates are higher than Oahu. $0.43-0.62 per KWh.
