India predicts it will exceed Paris renewable energy target by half

[blackpowder]

I could cut and paste as many rebuttall articles to chuck as i felt like. My dont give a shit list is longer than my bucket list.

[blackpowder]

As a law abiding firearms owner, I learned 30 years ago to filter govt and media "studies". Like canola seed yields.
Lets try posting some common sense and gut coupled with first hand experience.

[stonepicker]

As a law abiding firearms owner, I learned 30 years ago to filter govt and media "studies". Like canola seed yields.
Lets try posting some common sense and gut coupled with first hand experience.

LIKE

[oneoff]

I stand to be corrected, but this is just about what one could expect when you do the math.

Just might have to correct myself. There's a big difference between Petawatts and Petwatthours. In a year it adds up to a factor of 8760 if sun or equipment continue to produce with no downtime. Could be that some of the later post figures quoted didn't recognize the difference, but the calculations below should be within reason. Some of the later posts may need correcting. Sorry

170 Petawatts is what entire power the earth receives from the sun. Same figure as learned scientist came up with in earlier post above.

29.2% of earths surface is land. I assume the water bodies are't a suitable place to mount solar panels so there are 57,510,000 square miles of land on which to place solar panels (and eveyrthing necessary that is associated with the control structures; transmission lines etc.

Sask power says their 6 proposed 10 Mwatt projects each takes up 70 acres of land. or about one nineth of a square mile. Thus about 90 Mwatts is output theoretically expected from a square mile one section of Sask land. Now just because this may start to fall apart; don't jump to the defensive conclusion that Sask is worst place in world for solar power. We're trying to show this either works as promoters claim...or its out of parameters by a significant magnitude.

So 57.5 million square miles times 90 Mwatts per sq mi (of land) is 5.2 Peta watts of potential solar electricity...which out of the 170 Petawatts of total power received from the sun is less than a thirtieth which just happens to be about 3% instead of the 100% we all were led to believe is available.

Now I'll look up the estimated electrical production of the world; and more importantly the total energy needs of the world at as close to the present time as is reported and available).

We'll see if that computes out to within a bulls roar of 10,000 times what could possibly be captured (at 100% efficiency) and ignoring how all that new manufacturing infrastructure,transportation; housing etc could possibly be brought up to some new stringent code (all compliant with renewable resources only) without generating a whole lot of additional CO2.....which also doesn't get acknowledged as a obvious consequence..

Because if we must have only "Renewable electrical power sources" we damn well better have "Renewable energy sources" and all that goes with it or this whole green electrical energy and carbon taxes crap will do squat for mother Earth if CO2 is the problem as suggested

[oneoff]

Again this info is removed to correct mistakes and confusion about difference between PetaWattts and PetaWattHours and confusion as to whether the quote referred to World electical power production or whether it quoted World total energy consumption



Quote
Institutions such as the International Energy Agency (IEA), the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), and the European Environment Agency record and publish energy data periodically. Improved data and understanding of World Energy Consumption may reveal systemic trends and patterns, which could help frame current energy issues and encourage movement towards collectively useful solutions.

The IEA estimates that, in 2013, total world energy consumption was 9,301 Mtoe, or 3.89 × 1020 joules, equal to an average power consumption of 12.3 terawatts.[3] From 2000–2012 coal was the source of energy with the largest growth. The use of oil and natural gas also had considerable growth, followed by hydro power and renewable energy. Renewable energy grew at a rate faster than any other time in history during this period, which can possibly be explained by an increase in international investment in renewable energy. The demand for nuclear energy decreased, possibly due to the accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.[1][4]

In 2011, expenditures on energy totalled over 6 trillion USD, or about 10% of the world gross domestic product (GDP). Europe spends close to one-quarter of the world's energy expenditures, North America close to 20%, and Japan 6%.[5]

[Flatlander]

Chuck "It's not what you don't know that will hurt you, it's what you think you know that ain't so." Or there abouts. Mark Twain

[oneoff]

Note had to edit a pretty gross oversight mistaking TeraWattHours for Terawatt data......I've stuck with 10 to 15th power (Peta) to simplify comparisons

Data below from of all places ....BP or British Petroleums. They have a nice interactive chart going back to at least 1986. BP has all data in one place and I'll rely on it until shown to be substantially inaccurate. Please visit. Its got data on every imaginable source.

http://tools.bp.com/energy-charting-tool.aspx#/st/electricity/dt/generation/unit/TWH/region/NOA/SCA/EU/MIE/AFR/AP/view/area

World electrical energy production in 2015 is broken down as follows

Total World electrical generation 25.1 PetawattHours of which North America produced 5.2, South and Central America 1.3; Europe and Eurasia 5.3; Middle East 1.1; Africa 0.7 and Asia Pacific 10.4

In 1986 10.1 PetaWattHours of electrical energy were produced worldwide. Now a lot of electrical generation is done with an efficiency of 30 to 50 percent. You know, making steam through burning fuels to produce steam to turn turbines to the transform and distributes at various voltages over a grid network. You can only fine tune the processes to minimize losses so much. A whole like wind generation and solar panel losses from their own suite of power robbing factors.

I'm going to take a break and see if anyone has comments and corrections that should be made before running the calculations that at first glance are looking like 5 or so PetaWattHours potential output once every acre of world land is covered with solar panels...is going to be about twice current electrical generation output. Downtime and outages would be nil. Efficiencies 100% and so on. Still sounds very scary to me.

[oneoff]

Looks like IEA figures above might also be their estimates for electrical energy. I would have thought they could more clearly say they were reporting electrical power (or electrical generation) so may have been mislead somewhat.

More research needed on Total world energy usage (not just electrical which should be just a fraction of total energy usage for manufacturing, heating, transport etc.etc).

[Daylate]

You don't even have to read between the lines with the retarded post from India. Summed up, he said we have a plan so all wealthy nations give me money. We'll show the world it can be done. Just gimmie gimmie."
Now fast forward to 2027. Oh, looks like our cost structures were off, if we're going to me these targets we need more money from wealthy nations. Or we'll have to abandon the costly programs.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Oneoff, thanks for your research and time invested in showing exposing the lunacy of some of these claims, I intend to do the math for myself too.

There was a comment on capturing solar power affecting weather. Perhaps we should be considering that as a goal, rather than a side effect? if we were to block enough of the suns energy from hitting the oceans in the right place, could we alter currents enough to change the climate enough to increase the arable acres in the northern latitudes? Make it rain in the Sahara again? Or at least improve winter in Winnipeg?