View Single Post
Old 13 Feb 2020, 17:16 (Ref:3957481)   #43
crmalcolm
Subscriber
Veteran
 
crmalcolm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Nepal
Exactly where I need to be.
Posts: 12,292
crmalcolm will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famecrmalcolm will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famecrmalcolm will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famecrmalcolm will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famecrmalcolm will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famecrmalcolm will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famecrmalcolm will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famecrmalcolm will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famecrmalcolm will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famecrmalcolm will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Famecrmalcolm will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tel 911S View Post
Google always were very Green biased , & were determined to run all of their operations on renewable energy .
Until a few years ago when they eventually discovered that " Renewable energy simply won,t work"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/...ply-wont-work/
Probably worth reading the IEEE article that the link references.

'In 2011, the company decided that RE<C was not on track to meet its target and shut down the initiative. The two of us, who worked as engineers on the internal RE<C projects, were then forced to reexamine our assumptions.'
There is a big difference between not on track, and simply won't work.
The assumptions turned out to be inaccurate, so they were looked at again.

'Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.'
So they did not say it simply won't work at all, just that it won't work with 2011 technology.

'Our study’s best-case scenario modeled our most optimistic assumptions about cost reductions in solar power, wind power, energy storage, and electric vehicles. In this scenario, the United States would cut greenhouse gas emissions dramatically: Emissions could be 55 percent below the business-as-usual projection for 2050.'
So they were still able to predict that, with 2011 technology, emissions could potentially be 55 per cent below that of doing nothing.

'What’s needed, are reliable zero-carbon energy sources so cheap that the operators of power plants and industrial facilities alike have an economic rationale for switching over soon—say, within the next 40 years. Let’s face it, businesses won’t make sacrifices and pay more for clean energy based on altruism alone.'
Their conclusion was that a development in technology could deliver the aims of RE<C, they just didn't exist at the time.

The final IEEE conclusion, that we need to look at the problem with a view to future technology, not current era - 'Now, R&D dollars must go to inventors who are tackling the daunting energy challenge so they can boldly try out their crazy ideas. We can’t yet imagine which of these technologies will ultimately work and usher in a new era of prosperity—but the people of this prosperous future won’t be able to imagine how we lived without them.'


NB: is being green biased a bad thing?
crmalcolm is offline  
__________________
"When you’re just too socially awkward for real life, Ten-Tenths welcomes you with open arms. Everyone has me figured out, which makes it super easy for me."