Friday, April 6, 2018

Solar and Wind Seen as the Future of Electrical Production over Fossil Fuels with Some Electricity Using CO2, Water, and a Catalyst to Produce Chemicals, Plastics, and Hydrocarbons

Solar PV and wind are on track to replace all coal, oil and gas within two decades

Solar photovoltaic and wind power are rapidly getting cheaper and more abundant - so much so that they are on track to entirely supplant fossil fuels worldwide within two decades, with the time frame depending mostly on ...
From article, (Solar photovoltaic and wind power are rapidly getting cheaper and more abundant – so much so that they are on track to entirely supplant fossil fuels worldwide within two decades, with the time frame depending mostly on politics. The protestation from some politicians that we need to build new coal stations sounds rather quaint.
 PV and wind are often described as "intermittent" energy sources. But stabilising the grid is relatively straightforward, with the help of storage and high-voltage interconnectors to smooth out local weather effects.
By far the leading storage technologies are pumped hydro and batteries, with a combined market share of 97%.
The cost of PV and wind power has been declining rapidly for many decades and is now in the range A$55-70 per megawatt-hour in Australia. This is cheaper than electricity from new-build coal and gas units. There are many reports of PV electricity being produced from very large-scale plants for A$30-50 per MWh.
Solar PV and wind have been growing exponentially for decades and have now reached economic lift-off. In 2018, PV and wind will comprise 60% of net new electricity generation capacity worldwide. Coal, gas, nuclear, hydro and other renewable capacity comprise the rest. Globally, US$161 billion will be invested in solar generation alone this year, compared with US$103 billion in new coal and gas combined.
PV and wind are growing at such a rate that the overall installed generation capacity of PV and wind has reached half that of coal, and will pass coal in the mid-2020s, judging by their respective trends.
In Australia, PV and wind comprise most new generation capacity. About 4.5 gigawatts of PV and wind is expected to be installed in 2018 compared with peak demand of 35GW in the National Electricity Market. At this rate, Australia would reach 70%  by 2030.
ogether, PV and wind currently produce about 7% of the world's electricity. Worldwide over the past five years, PV capacity has grown by 28% per year, and wind by 13% per year. Remarkably, because of the slow or nonexistent growth rates of coal and gas, current trends put the world on track to reach 100% renewable electricity by 2032.
Deep cuts (80% reduction) in greenhouse gas emissions require that  are pushed out of all sectors of the economy. The path to achieve this is by electrification of all energy services.
Straightforward and cost-effective initial steps are: to hit 100% renewable electricity; to convert most land transport to electric vehicles; and to use renewable electricity to push gas out of low-temperature water and space heating. These trends are already well established, and the outlook for the oil and gas industries is correspondingly poor.
The best available prices for PV already match the current wholesale price of gas in Australia (A$9 per gigajoule, equivalent to A$32 per MWh for heat).
High-temperature heat, industrial processes, aviation and shipping fuel and fugitive emissions can be displaced by renewable electricity and electrically produced synthetic fuels, plastics and other hydrocarbons. There may be a modest additional cost depending on the future price trajectory of PV and wind.
Electrifying the whole  sector of our economy of course means that electricity production needs to increase massively – roughly tripling over the next 20 years. Continued rapid growth of PV (and wind) will minimise dangerous climate change with minimal economic disruption. Many policy instruments are available to hasten their deployment. Governments should get behind PV and wind as the last best chance to deliver the necessary solution to global warming.)

For More Info

The U.S. Home of the Free. Home of the Brave. Still Home of The Slaves?

YouTube's relationship with creators, the source of so much success, has been turbulent

CLOSE SAN FRANCISCO - On April 23, 2005, YouTube launched with a mundane video of a man visiting the San Diego Zoo. It lasted 19 seconds and caused no shock waves. Fast forward 13 years, and the Google-owned platform has morphed into an online juggernaut that, for many Americans of a certain age, is the source for entertainment and news powered by stars that can make a mint.

 Me,."Back to my thought about a Minimum Wage for Internet Blog Writers, Photographers, and Video Content Creators. Obviously it comes down to where do websites get money to pay these 'current slave employees'? Internet Ads would have to get more expensive, and these slave employees would have to get a slice of it bringing them out of Slavery.

This is not unheard of. If we decide that the internet is like TV then charging for a 30 second ad would cost $200 to $1,500 for a local ad or up to $342,000 for a national ad. So, if you have a Tide detergent ad, it could cost between 200- and $342,000 dollars. That ad money then goes into the TV stations budget for shows.
Obviously, this is tilted toward the extreme case of the Internet being like TV. But it gives you an idea of what Adsense could be charged and should be charging.
If we compare the Internet to Radio, Radio ads cost $300- $1000 dollars per ad. Almost the same as a local TV Ad. so we can make the assumption that Adsense could be making many thousands of dollars over a widely broadcasted Internet blogger pages ads, whether it is on a page of written, photo, or video content. But are they?
Adsense sites claims that each internet click on its ads is between 1 and 2 dollars Ad cost. But a lot of people do not click on these ads. They see them as reminders of things they need to get and go out and get them.
Clicking amounts to a bullshit assumption that ads are only seen by clicks. They are seen by not clicks as well. Also, Adsense can display many ads on many internet pages. It does not need to put it only on one. So you have a blanket affect over a great many pages seeing the same ad. You can't compare the internet to a newspaper. A newspaper can only show an ad in its paper. The ads Adsense displays can be shown on multiple sites, akin to how far a reach a station can broadcast out to, or akin to putting ads in multiple daily national competing newspapers.

If we take TV and Radio ads which are not clickable ads. Google should be selling blanket ads that cost between $200- $342,000 dollars. Someone is getting stiffed here. And it is the lowely content producer."

Me, "All these monetary figures, Radio, TV, Internet Ads I looked up on Google by the way!"

Me, "So, if we are talking about $200- 340,000 dollars per 30 second ad. There is plenty of money that can be spent on Blog Writers, Photo and Video Content producers and Website owners in general.
It is the fact that Google controls so much of the ad market through Adsense, that we have a slave content market. Someone needs to stand up and say, 'Google your a monopoly, on ads, and enough is enough. Either give content producers more money, basically a minimum wage, get regulated by the FCC or FTC or some U.S. government branch, or get sued in a class action suit. Because, trust me, the more games you play with content producers the more they will rise up. 
I am not saying that shooting people at YouTube, like that woman shooter recently did is right, it was wrong! But there are legal means that should be tried. I am surprised no politician or lawyer has acted, yet. This could be a huge U.S. Law Case!! Since, the U.S. created the internet, we should have a say on how ads are broadcasted on it. This sets the precedent for the whole internet ad market and for content creators.
How can we have slave workers, on internet sites, in a country where capitalism is supposed to be everybody's God given right? If some people feel they can only contribute from their homes then that should be what they should be allowed to do."