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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: New magnetic fusion technology could be ready in 5 years [View all]johnd83
(593 posts)50. I skimmed through "Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments"
The last two chapters 7 and 8 are very informative. The land usage numbers are even worse than the ones that I had in my previous post. Section 7 talks about the massive increase in mining and industrial production that would be required, and also that many of the required materials are rare. It is actually a very good read (or skim as it may be) but it is still quite interesting. The conclusion is not exactly glowing:
An understanding of the scale of deployment necessary for renewable resources to make a material contribution to U.S. electricity generation is critical to assessing the potential for renewable electricity generation. Large increases over current levels of manufacturing, employment, investment, and installation will be required for non-hydropower renewable resources to move from single-digit- to double-digit-percentage contributions to U.S. electricity generation.
Page 317 still has the "high cost" scenario as only covering a fraction of electricity use by 2030, and still requires a tremendous amount of fossil fuels just for electricity. That doesn't even include transportation energy use. The reference case is atrocious and is what we are on course for. The "Core" case with mostly nuclear looks much more promising.
All of this data is really interesting but not at all convincing. If we don't severely cut fossil fuels by 2030/2040 we are all screwed anyway and this book does not seem to support your claim that it will be possible without a LOT of nuclear power. Actually it makes my point even stronger based on their conclusions.
Edit: sorry, left out the reference link: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12619&page=317
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
52 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Then you should be able to show peer reviewed analysis that support your claim.
kristopher
Nov 2013
#37
I skimmed through "Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments"
johnd83
Nov 2013
#50
I think that is the main reason that I don't agree with a lot of people here about energy
johnd83
Nov 2013
#24
Pushing the core problem of our civilization deeper into the future is not my idea of a "solution."
hunter
Nov 2013
#30
Thats exactly why there has been more interest in the proton Boron 11 fuel recently
FogerRox
Nov 2013
#52