WolfStock1

What markets? In the US - California has by far the highest percentage of EV sales of any state - and even there ICE vehicles are outselling EVs by over 3 to 1. And that was before the $7k tax incentive got removed recently.

I don't have access to the study itself, but I wonder what all they include when calculating payback times. 6.1 months seems small. E.g. do they include: The energy to clear the forest, and grade the roads to the sites? The energy to build and install the additional power lines required to transport power from the generally-remote sites? The energy to run the vehicles to drive the workers to the sites? To provide their housing, food, etc.? In addition to the energy to build and transport the wind turbines - does it include the energy to build, transport, and run the cranes that erect them? The energy to mine the ore used for the steel for the turbines? The energy to create the trucks that mine said ore, to transport the ore to smelters, etc. ? Etc. etc. - probably thousands of components that could be included, that go into creating, installing, and running wind turbines ? (Obviously the same factors apply to all energy sources, not just wind) How far one goes with the energy required to do something ends up being a hard-to-define thing; the farther removed it goes from the end product the harder it is to gauge, since the uses of that energy end up overlapping with other uses (e.g. a given truck used to mine iron ore would mine ore used both for a wind turbine and for say an airplane). Nevertheless the fact that it's hard to measure doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There *is* a lot more iron, aluminum, etc. required to support wind farms; in no small part because they are mostly-redundant systems; they don't replace baseline systems (mostly nuclear, hydro, fossil) but instead are generally additive. With a number of only 6.1 months payback - I'm guessing they didn't go that far out the chain of dependencies. That number seems very small to me. I'm willing to be it's compiled by people who have a vested interest in making it as small as they can.

I'm sorry, but those numbers don't even come close to passing the sniff test. E.g.: ---------------------------- Alternatively, energy payback may be measured by ‘number of times payback’ – meaning, the amount of energy paid back to society versus the energy needed in the lifetime of that turbine. Over the life cycle of a V117-4.2 MW wind power plant, it will return 50 times more energy back to society than it consumed. That means that when 1 kWh is invested in a wind energy solution, you get 50 kWh in return. For coal, however, if you invest 1kWh you typically get below 0.4 kWh in return. ------------------------ They're honestly asserting that the trillions of $ invested in the coal and oil industries have provided *negative* energy returns? That makes no sense. Given the source though - a windmill manufacturer - it doesn't surprise me. Much like the oil industry shills - they have a vested interest (no pun intended) in making competing technologies look bad.

No.

Perhaps Vogtle is an outlier, but it's still clear that costs are way above where they should be, based on the skyrocketing trend in the late 80's; and noting that that was generally for just completion of plants whose initial planning and design was done *before* TMI. Not sure what you mean by "the workforce" being the primary road block. Workforce expertise is flexible - if we started getting serious about nuclear energy and ramping it up, the workforce would follow, just like it has always done for so many other things (e.g. look at the explosion in AI recently, the explosion of the internet in the late 90's, etc. etc.). Demand creates the workforce - the workforce doesn't create demand.

BTW w/regards to the US and renewable - we have in fact been trending strongly on that recently. This year about 3/4 of our new generation capacity was solar. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/us-installed-nearly-26-gw-of-new-generating-capacity-from-january-to-august/804848/ As it has for most of the past two years, solar continued to dominate new generation resources, accounting for 2.7 GW out of 4 GW brought online in August alone, and 19 GW — about three-quarters — of generation capacity additions this year. (Not sure if that capacity is peak or average; average on solar is of course a fraction of peak) There's a new field being done near me (at Dulles airport). Unfortunately these things take tons of space - this will be about 100 MW peak on 835 acres. By comparison there's a 774 MW natural gas plant down the road on 100 acres. So it takes about 200x the land area per unit of energy. If we can find the space great - just please don't use areas that otherwise could be forests. (not sure about this area since it's airport property)

100% agree - and thanks for the chart. (though I would quibble with the China trendline - having it slope down IMO is a stretch - it appears the downslope is based solely on those couple of early 90's extreme outliers; in reality the trend is flat, if it were based on median not mean). That's a good illustration of how badly skewed the American view on nuclear energy risk is. We need to fix that. Much as I dislike Trump, he's at least taken some steps in that direction on this issue; though I think it's a drop in the bucket to what really needs to be done. The cost #'s for the two new Vogtle units are simply shocking; especially given the location - in a state that's generally been more friendly to nuclear power. NY recently announced intent to pave the way for one new unit, and I had to laugh, knowing that state's history. Good luck with that.

When I say "cheap labor" I'm not just talking about menial things. Even though a lot is automated - it still takes a lot of people to run those factories, the mines, do the installation, maintain the installation, etc. The average wage in China is still 1/3 what it is in the US. Throw in the government overriding any NIMBYism and your average large solar installation for instance is probably 1/4 or even 1/10 the cost of what it is in the US. (it's hard to get a true comparison because China doesn't typically publish their costs.) If the US were to do what it takes to implement the policies that China has - the outcry from the left could be heard from Mars. Environmental destruction, wages below minimum (or even below "living wage"), etc. etc. Are they eating our lunch with regards to the volume of renewable energy implementation? Yes. Is that a good thing? Not so much, for the above reasons, and because they are still emitting tons more carbon, with way less respect for human rights. We really, really need to focus on nuclear. That is the best solution. Unfortunately it probably won't happen due to willingness of policymakers to bend to the demands of those who don't properly understand risks.

You don't seem to understand that *the* key ingredient for China's growth - including the growth of their energy industry (both renewables and fossil) is an abundant supply of cheap labor. That is something we simply do not have. It's not an issue of attitude, priorities, or policy - it's an issue of resources.

Priorities. Discussion of gender as it relates to CC is of course much more important, thus why topic 14 wasn't deferred.

Looking at the bigger picture though - China still has a *long* ways go to catch up with the US in terms of their general energy mix. E.g. the biggest source by far (unlike the US) is still coal, and fossil is still 1, 2, and 3 (coal, oil, and gas) in their energy sources. People tend to highlight China's growth in renewables - but the fact is that all their energy sources - including fossil - are growing rapidly.

Is there land under the bottom-left tip there? Interesting that that area remains stationary while the rest of the shelf continues moving. Based on the movement there it does look like it could break free at any time; the connection with that non-moving section looks very weak now.

Is there actually increased solar energy during the peaks of the cycle? From all I've seen those peaks are the peak of *activity* (magnetic fluctuations resulting in sunspots), not actually energy peaks. Wouldn't the actual solar energy received by the earth be *lower* during periods of peak sunspot activity? (Given that a sunspot is a "cool spot" where less energy is being output) I know there are more CMEs during the peaks, resulting in more-frequent aurora peaks; but it seems like that would be just noise in what might otherwise be a general lower level of overall energy from the sun. Not an expert on the subject - just putting out a "seems to me" theory.

And yet worldwide life expectancy continues to rise. https://www.statista.com/statistics/805060/life-expectancy-at-birth-worldwide/ Something doesn't jive. Methinks it's the information in these "reports". (So much for the "good thing" of mass die-off)

Unfortunately the end toll will probably come in that high. It's early. Saving grace is they had lots of warning. However unlike the US most people just don't have the ability to evacuate, at least in terms of going somewhere hundreds of miles away in another state that's safe.