The economics and capabilities of renewables have completely changed in the last ten years yet people still don’t know this. Solar and wind are growing exponentially and will be the vast majority of electricity generation within 15 to 20 years and more things will be electrified.
Mark Jacobson is an idiot. His models are an embarrassment for an actual scientist. His models are widely optimistic. When this was pointed out he started suing people and behaving like a 3 year old. He is very popular with liberal elites but in the scientific community many question his assumption. He is essentially an idiolog with confirmation bias.
Rhodes is off to a really bad start in the first four minutes. The point is supposed to be that energy transitions take a long time. But look at his graph. First, keep in mind the vertical scale is on a LOG axis. And if you look at the time to go from 10% to 90% (which takes some thinking, as Rhodes has to be geeky and use stuff like "10^-1"), it's around 50 years. (It's probably easiest to see for the curve for gas.) Wind and solar are increasing much faster than that. If you take that graph as showing an iron law, then that shouldn't be happening, or it should flatten out very soon. But I doubt it. Those graphs are all for stuff you mine (or gather, for wood) and burn (even nuclear, loosely, though its cost is mostly other than fuel). WWS is fundamentally different. I guess time will tell. I don't think the amount of time will be that long; well short of 50 years.
The economics and capabilities of renewables have completely changed in the last ten years yet people still don’t know this. Solar and wind are growing exponentially and will be the vast majority of electricity generation within 15 to 20 years and more things will be electrified.
Great ....
I need this
Mark Jacobson would object to his suggestion that renewables cant cover the worlds needs, also Herman Scheer if he was still with us
Mark Jacobson is an idiot. His models are an embarrassment for an actual scientist. His models are widely optimistic. When this was pointed out he started suing people and behaving like a 3 year old. He is very popular with liberal elites but in the scientific community many question his assumption. He is essentially an idiolog with confirmation bias.
Do you have a doctorate in physics or you just a writer ?
Do you have google? Are you able to understand that the lecturer will never read your comment?
Yes to all of the above... now no more damn arguing we gotta get rolling
Rhodes is off to a really bad start in the first four minutes. The point is supposed to be that energy transitions take a long time. But look at his graph. First, keep in mind the vertical scale is on a LOG axis. And if you look at the time to go from 10% to 90% (which takes some thinking, as Rhodes has to be geeky and use stuff like "10^-1"), it's around 50 years. (It's probably easiest to see for the curve for gas.)
Wind and solar are increasing much faster than that. If you take that graph as showing an iron law, then that shouldn't be happening, or it should flatten out very soon. But I doubt it. Those graphs are all for stuff you mine (or gather, for wood) and burn (even nuclear, loosely, though its cost is mostly other than fuel). WWS is fundamentally different.
I guess time will tell. I don't think the amount of time will be that long; well short of 50 years.