Energy conservation and green energy

Anyone? Surely there's got to be a flaw in my reasoning. It can't be that everyone is wrong.

>>8953936
Inside the Green movement, it's a pretty common position that industrialization is bad, and the only real solution is to massively deindustrialize, and "get back to nature". It's Gaia worship. Also factoring into their reasoning is the faulty assumption that Malthus was right, and that increasing energy supply means increasing human populations. Also, the wrong assumption that increasing energy supply means humans will be more capable of damaging the environment. It's just wrong on every count. This particular sect doesn't want cheap energy. They want expensive energy. And I suspect that they're the true idealogues that are largely running the movement.

File: spacex succesful 1st stage landing 2.webm (3MB, 880x534px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 880x534px

>>8953936
>why should we also reduce our energy consumption if we move to 100% green energy?
>shouldn't we try to consume as much of it as possible to help that industry?

you mention basic economics but i think there's a more basic principle of economics to consider when answering this question. If we consumed 17 TW of power and replaced it with 100% green energy, it would cost $xx.xx per kWh. For every unit of power increase we want to consume, the consumers would have to spend $xx.xx + (some amount). The idea behind market economics is that the producers will find the most economical way to produce things so as to provide them the cheapest. If this were represented by wind farms, you could imagine that all the really great windy areas of the planet are already being used for wind power to generate our 17 TW, but when we decided we want another TW, we have to build those turbines in a non-optimal wind harvesting area. The turbine still costs the same as the turbines in the good spots, but is now generating less electricity - which means the producer has to have a premium per kWh to cover the investment costs and receive a decent ROI.

There is also another economic argument to this; using up scarce resources that have alternative uses.

Lets say even if you get to 100% green energy, a sizeable portion of that power will come from nuclear (this is an inescapable reality). Nuclear power requires thermodynamic heat cycles to generate power (usually rankine cycles). Those rankine cycles are, at best, ~40% efficient (generous). That means that for every TW of power we want to consume, we need 2.5 TW of heat from a nuclear reactor, and 1.5 of those TW of heat needs to be rejected from the process, using a cooling tower. This would use at LEAST another 200,000 gallons of water PER SECOND, or roughly 5.2-5.3 BILLION gallons of fresh water per year.

not to mention the concrete, steel, human labor, rare earth magnets, etc etc that would all be sucked up in this endeavor.

Greenfags just hate humanity and want to see the world burn. Those of them that don't are the useful idiots in the movement.

>>8953936
>pretend it's real for the sake of argument
Isn't that how religions start?

>>8953936
>If you think it's fake, get the fuck off /sci/ retard.
ftfy

File: more wonderful energy consumption.jpg (130KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1280x720px

>>8956342
>we have to build those turbines in a non-optimal wind harvesting area
Is there such a shortage of viable areas for green energy production? I would assume that with how vast this world is and with only 7 billion humans living on this earth (sure, increasing, but not all that fast), there should be plenty of economically viable locations for green energy production.

If this is not the case, and as you imply green energy will become less profitable as the market grows, that would mean green energy is not economically viable in the long term, which is a far more worrying thought as it would imply the whole push to green energy is futile.

>a sizeable portion of that power will come from nuclear (this is an inescapable reality)
While personally I'm totally in favor of using nuclear power, let's exclude it from the green energy category as most of the world does. Usage of nuclear power is only an inescapable reality when it's more commercially viable than green energy, which is something governments can prevent.

>not to mention the concrete, steel, human labor, rare earth magnets, etc etc that would all be sucked up in this endeavor.
>concrete
I don't think we're remotely close to having any shortage of concrete.
>steel
Same for steel.
>human labor
Practically limitless, limited only be commercial viability (budget for hiring people).
>rare earth magnets
Likewise, I don't think we'll run out of these before having supplied the entire world with 100% green energy.

>>8955074
Not entirely true, the Green movement where I live have a large push for nuclear, if we need it. We get more than enough from hydroelectric, but not ever locale is so lucky. And, the green movement is really actually for industrialization, just in a responsible method.

>>8956342
>we need 2.5 TW of heat from a nuclear reactor, and 1.5 of those TW of heat needs to be rejected from the process, using a cooling tower. This would use at LEAST another 200,000 gallons of water PER SECOND, or roughly 5.2-5.3 BILLION gallons of fresh water per year.

So, pretty similar top the coal industry? Which uses the exact same turbine tech?

>>8956678
Different factions.

>>8956524
https://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/
https://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/08/nation-sized-battery/
https://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/

>>8956678
Where the fuck do you live?