Talk:100% renewable energy

Neutrality
Sorry, I don't know proper Wikipedia protocol. I am not an experienced Wikipedian. However, I just want to flag this article as clearly not following the Neutral Point of View policy! I would put the flag that says "the neutrality of this article is disputed" on the article but that seems presumptuous. Experienced Wikipedians, please take notice of this article! 70.83.138.182 (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. This is a relatively new "start" article, ripe for development. What we particularly need are specific WP:Reliable sources that present views which are thus far neglected in the article. Johnfos (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree "the neutrality of this article is disputed" would sound accurate. Anything I have added has been removed to date, no matter how sensible and factual. SvonFNotH90 (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

graph
First Graph is labelled 'growth of wind & solar power' but its no such thing. Its a wildly speculative claim by a random individual, and one that isn't in any way realistic. Its current label is grossly misleading, and wipes away any trace of credibility this page might have claimed to have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.66.207 (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed image; perhaps we could add something better? Johnfos (talk) 07:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Renewable energy and its sub-articles
This article looks like a POVFORK and/or something that should be merged with Renewable energy. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If we tried to add all aspects of renewable energy in the main article, we would soon breach WP guidelines on length and readability. So we usually use WP:Summary Style to split off a sub-article, and keep a summary and link in the main article. Johnfos (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I should have looked first; The redundancy seems to be more with the a sub-article titled Renewable energy debate.   Are one of these a POVFORK of the other?  Are they sufficiently distinct to merit separate articles?  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should invite others to join this discussion. One thing is clear, though, "100% renewable energy" is a notable topic which deserves its own article. There are many scholarly sources and media coverage which support the topic. Johnfos (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

In April 2019 it was suggested that 100% renewable energy should be merge into Carbon neutrality. See discuss=Talk:Carbon neutrality. I support! Tomastvivlaren (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Oceanogenic Power
100% clean and renewable energy is here, with the unexpected discovery of The Oceanogenic Power. Apparently the law experts and their hackers (who mostly can not be scientists) fails to discern innovation or not of a discovery, and have applied since 2000 the rules of deletion to our contribution,regardless to violate the principle In good faith of the creators of Wikipedia. And they have been so relentless, who tried to stop me to correct technicalities. And the main technicality is that I have to name the portion of energy extracted from the undeniable energy contained in the rotation of any celestial body, in this case Earth. That energy is old, and the part that is transferred to the oceans, is also old. Realize that this is happening, it is discovering. It is a lie? Anyone who says this until the tantrum is furisos against his own blindness or is not scientist.

So let's talk and include the corresponding in the main article: The Oceanogenic Power is hydropower, super clean, efficient, cheap (1 cent per kw hour) and now, enough.The same energy that moves the oceans: the earth's rotation around its own axis, and the force of gravity, mainly between the earth and moon. OK, there is disagreement in the scientific community about the origin of the energy that sustains these two cosmic phenomena, but like so many other things in the universe, their existence is unquestionable.

The Earth is a giant centrifugal pump without flow. Therefore, we can consider any of these, as analysis model.

No matter their inefficiency, when there is no flow of water: the efficiency is zero, and all the energy in the shaft, is lost in heat or internal energy, and self-recirculation. When the flow rate increases, so does the efficiency until it reaches its maximum; being transferred more energy from the shaft, and lowering the energy loss. That is, one flow is primed, which implies, a percentage of the total shaft energy.

The rotational (shaft) energy of our planet is 63 yottawatt-hour, at 1% efficiency, we would have at our disposal 630 zettawatt-hour.

Also, there are estimates of the energy in the powerful, ocean currents, that I think, the most powerful are 4; already such estimates of lost energy (370 Tw) is enough to justify our discovery. But the interesting thing is that, until the more inefficient, centrifugal pumps on our planet, if its impeller rotates, its efficiency is not less than 1%, Why think that the earth not have this efficiency, in the worst case? However, the discovery: Oceanogenic Power, and all its extraordinary implications, it is justified, although the efficiency be less than 0.000001%.

This is the source of OCEANOGENIC POWER of Panama, that only in Panama, with current technology, we can extract. Currently the net effect is a head of water of 0.3 to 15 meters between the Pacific and Atlantic, separated 70 kilometers (44 miles). When priming any flow, will happen the same as occurs in a centrifugal pump, which is nothing more that a chain reaction that will precipitate an energy in equilibrium that is front of our noses.

On the other hand, the tidal amplitude offshore (0.3 meters), coincide with the variation of distance calculated by applying to the derivative of the formula of universal gravitation, the variation of gravity due to the moon. This body of water has to move at the same speed of the tsunamis: A little less than 300 meters per second.

Then, when the moon move from Panama to Asia in 12 hours (463 meters per second), each tide would have 27 hours to do the same route, so that when a high tide reaches the other end of the Pacific in Panama already there is a new high tide.

By the other side, in the Atlantic, the bulge of water is stopped by the Americas, and its onset, especially in the northern hemisphere, has to expect the relative path of the moon on Europe, Asia and Africa, which corresponds to one quarter of the circumference of the planet or six hours.

The roundness of our planet, and the position and direction of motion of the moon relative to Earth, defines, and makes it impossible for the ocean in Cape Horn change its direction of motion, the same as the rotation of our planet.

Therefore, 24 hours a day, every day, the Pacific is exposed to the forces (two resultant) that move the whole mass of water present on earth, and every 6 hours, the exposure is practically alone on it (total force twice). The Atlantic is never alone in front of these forces; every 6 hours, it is not exposed to them; and when exposed, is only to one of them.

With a simple equation, it demonstrates why altimetry measures the Pacific is 37 cetimeters above the Atlantic. As the cyclical components of gravitational forces is only in one direction, of most importants: towards the moon and sun, the same equation requires that the 37 centimeters also represent the minimum average difference between the Pacific and Atlantic.

This difference, we have personally measured, lock to lock in the Panama Canal, already enables scaling up to 160 GW of continuous power; plus 12 Twh per day to refine cleanly sea water, oil, biomass or whatever. This is enough for five U.S. states like California, with its unquestionable research infrastructures. All the U.S. needs 2 tw average, for not using a single drop more oil, nor for power nor as raw material for industrial uses.

To convert the 0.37 to 4 meters difference in level between the Atlantic and Pacific in Panama, in heads of water of sufficient size to use hydraulic turbines, we open an spillway in Panama at the level of the Atlantic and 40 meters deep, physics tells us that in less than 45 minutes will form between the world's largest oceans, a stream whose average smaller would be 2 meters per second. High tide in the Pacific Panamanian lasts 4 hours minimum.

If the spillway is 300, 1000 or 2000 meters wide, the respective flow will be 6, 21 or 42 million gallons per second of seawater. The dynamic change of this volume of water will cause the same thing happens at the origin of any tsunami, when in the inlet and outlet spillway, this current is confronted with the hydraulic conditions, practically immutable, of two different and immense oceans.

At one end, directing and controlling the flow against the rotation of the earth and the oceans, static to each other, but in Panama, cosmically moving at 450 meters per second and 22.000 meters in height of his rest in the gravitational field. This will change the cross slope of the water in the stream, respect to the slope of the ocean. Just like when we turn the coffee into a cup, water will rise when stopping their speed and it will spill into the center of the cup, where the vortex of the vortex. In our case, the vortex of the vortex is the north pole, the effect of the spoon is by the spillway by Panama, and will decrease only slightly, the 450 meters per second rotation speed.

At the other extreme, the Atlantic: the permanent cyclonic current in the respective Panamanian coast, and due to the powerful Gulf Stream, will reduce the output speed of the current of spillway, which, by design, will be a small sample of such, causing a vacuum in the entire spillway, enough to add to the difference of real sea level where hydroelectric dam will be constructed, the apparent level of low tide caused here by the turbulent currents of the Gulf of Panama.

This detail represents the critical mass to trigger the chain reaction for the continuous production of clean energy. In other words, this is the first plant to extract the nuclear fusion of the universe and as it is cold, it also respects our planet.

After a first project will be possible to research the details to take advantage of the same principles and escalate to serve the entire U.S. or also the whole world.

And this is the origin of the Oceanogenic Power, which, along with how take advantage of it, is our discovery.

Experts Massachusetts Institute of Technology sent a representative to visit Panama authorities and urge them to begin the protocol steps necessary to address the issue together. Osmand Charpentier (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Redundancy
Second paragraph of "Recent developments" section and last paragraph of "Debate" section are the same. Which one should be kept complete or should it be split? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxayo (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Update with the the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
In November 2014 the IPCC came out with a new report saying that nuclear + renewables is cheaper than renewables alone. The report says : in the absence or under limited availability of mitigation technologies (such as bioenergy, CCS, and their combination BECCS, nuclear, wind and solar), mitigation costs can increase substantially depending on the technology considered. (Table 3.2) I think the article should be updated to include this new report Vmaldia (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Energy / electricity distinction
This article seems to use "energy" and "electricity" interchangeably. E.g. the title is "100% renewable energy" and a section called "Places with around 100% renewable electricity". There's a substantial difference between getting only electricity from renewable sources vs. getting all energy from renewable sources, since electricity is only about 40% of total energy production.

Hi 50.165.8.243, it would be ideal if the reader knew that "energy" includes transportation, heat and electricity. What would you suggest for 100% renewable electricity, not report it here? The 100% electricity is a milestone, no other topic has 100% renewable energy. Heck, I'd be impressed to meet a single person who had 100% renewable energy for a year.Dougmcdonell (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not as different as you would expect.


 * Right now, most transportation is fossil fueled, and fossil fuel vehicles are usually only about 20% efficient, whereas electric vehicles are more like 60-70% efficient measured generator to wheel. So replacing fossil fuel vehicle a with electric vehicle sharply, and hugely drops the primary energy required (at least it does if the energy is produced using wind or solar or hydroelectricity which is likely in many cases- but not if the electricity is mostly produced thermally, such as diesel or nuclear or geothermal.)


 * To take a domestic example, the average mileage for a car is about 30 miles per day in the United States. The average electric car gets about 0.3 kWh to the mile. So to do the normal mileage would take 10 kWh. Whereas that would be more like 30kWh-worth of energy with a fossil fuelled car. And domestic heating can be similar. If you're currently burning gas to heat your home, it's enormously more efficient to use a heat pump (aka 'air conditioning') to heat your home, electrically, in winter. So the preferred modalities varies when you go from non renewable fossil energy, to renewable, mostly electric energy.


 * Now, you might think it's a costly imposition to have to change all your stuff over, and you'd be right if you just up and did it now, but if you do that as the car or hot water system or whatever wears out anyway it's a lot less problematic.GliderMaven (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 100 % renewable electricity is a part of 100 % renewable energy, so this part belongs in this article. But maybe the differences should be more pronounced. In science there are studies which examine both, some analyse only 100% renewable electricity, other 100% renewable energy. Apart from that I have to agree with GliderMaven. The primary energy demand drops significantly when going for 100% renewable energy, usually by about 30 to 50 %, dependend on different studies and solutions. So one has to careful when comparing the primary energy supply of fossil and renewable systems, because the share of electricity is much higher in 100% renewable systems, while the primary energy demand is much lower. Andol (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have my doubts about GliderMaven's "60-70% efficient measured generator to wheel", the ideal numbers are something like 0.95(electical generation) x 0.95 (transmission & distribution) x 0.95 (inverter) x 0.8 (battery ) x 0.90 (motor and drivetrain) = 61%, if we then start talking about renewables with alternate sources like pumped storage or super grids the numbers keep dropping. If the electric car was twice the efficiency of the best fuel burning car, then we would only have to increase our grid output by half the amount consumed by fueled cars, a huge increase.Dougmcdonell (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

In the current energy mix where there's fuel being burned for the bulk of our energy, the losses between fuel consumed and net consumption is huge. It's hard to follow trends when the article includes both. I'd be happy if there was no mention of capacities or primary energy, only the seasonal net power produced. The topic of primary energy is rarely applied to renewables, the inefficiencies of wind turbines, solar panels, hydroelectric turbines is only important to investors, there's lots of wind, lots of sunshine and lots of water and if they are only 50% efficient there's no greenhouse gas or air pollution. So lets keep it simple and focus on consumption.Dougmcdonell (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No, the numbers I give are correct; and you can validate them by going to the electric car section. It compares a typical gasoline powered car (25 mpg) with an electric car (up to 124 mpg-e, more normally 100+ mpg-e); if anything I'm being pessimistic. Of course there are losses in things like pumped storage, but the vast majority of energy isn't pumped stored, and there are certainly distribution losses, but there's plenty of distribution and manufacturing losses in petroleum products also. If you check out electric car you can compare carbon intensity, but this also depends on the intensity of the electricity generation, and wind and solar can have ridiculously low carbon intensity; those figures are incredibly pessimistic compared to what's possible.GliderMaven (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

100% renewable energy not possible
They need to take out all the instances where 100% appears. It is a nonsensical claim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.3.122 (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The article describes an ideal, like many other ideals the achievement may be impossible, manufacturing a billion chemical batteries and covering a percentage of the world with wires, panels and towers may also not be ideal, see renewable energy debate. For those into in black and white facts, 100% electricity is a reality in Paraguay and is technically possible in many countries. The current page has the words "energy" and "electricity" showing up in alternating sentences, I'd appreciate the article being clearly split by the nature of energy consumption between electricity, heating, and transportation, the latter being very controversial. Dougmcdonell (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I mean, it says the primary obstacles are political. I would contend that a primary obstacle is the absence of a practical technological solution to the energy storage problem.  Seems like this article is a bit of fanfic. --73.163.178.158 (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 100% renewable energy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://new.ren21.net/Portals/0/REN21_GFR_2013_print.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120523064256/http://media.beyondzeroemissions.org/ZCA2020_Stationary_Energy_Report_v1.pdf to http://media.beyondzeroemissions.org/ZCA2020_Stationary_Energy_Report_v1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Clarify Quebec
It says this about Quebec: "99% renewable electricity is the main energy used in Quebec (41%), followed by oil (38%) and natural gas (10%)". Does that mean that Quebec uses 99% renewable electricity, or 41%? I'd like clarification. Loooke (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

amory lovins
With respect to edits by today, which downgraded the texts description from "physicist" to "analyst" with edit summary "Please just stop this" and then from "analyst" to mere "advocate"....


 * "Physicist Amory Lovins" RMI's bio page
 * "influential physicist".... "Energy analyst" The Guardian
 * "energy advisor for over 40 years"...studied physics at oxford but quit since he couldn't get a doctorate in energy systems at the time.... Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara Univ
 * "consultant physicist" Alchetron (might not be RS)
 * "Energy Analyst" Mother Earth News

In addition, the guy has 12 honorary doctorates. I wonder what fields they are in? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For Boundarylayers apparent response, see this thread where I am described as a "quack" and koolaid drinking editor who spreads cancer.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Other editors have been bringing this clear case of self-promoting up for close to a decade on the talk page, with the article then somehow, really who would have thought, repeatedly finding its ways back to describing Lovins as essentially, identically as his fanclub does.
 * 


 * Yet anyone who does a basic search will find, Lovins' entire education history and cultivation of their 'environmental cred' is, to put it mildly, really, really not what they self-promote.


 * One of the great ironies in today’s America is that a two time college drop out and Friends of the Earth campaigner who strongly advocated for increasing coal use is often held up as a hero of the environmental movement while also making a lot of money as a consultant for the natural gas industry,


 * ...and another.


 * What it does not say is that Lovins dropped out of Harvard twice and attended just two years there. He somehow got into Oxford in 1967 and remained there long enough to be granted an MA, which is apparently not a Master of Arts, but roughly the equivalent of a certificate of enrollment. Forgive me for being an elitist, but no one should call themselves a scientist or a physicist without a piece of sheepskin to back them up.


 * An | Actual physicist Alexander DeVolpi, in an identical fashion went thru the same realization, in an exchange he had with him in a magazine, Amory is not a physicist. As much as anyone else who drops out of college is a physicist. Is this the new-age way? Especially if they then start essentially down the same path as the likewise infamous Dr. Mercola. Making prognostications about human health and in Lovins case, pontificating about energy systems that likewise are affecting government policy/human health?


 * I also hope I don't need to make it obvious that the listing of honorary degrees is genuinely not some more disturbingly transparent hand-waving, as in what world does the receiving of college campus-popularity-contest-prizes, make anyone anything else, but popular in what is the deeply ideological-crazed domain of, the college campus? What metric of expertise does that convey, other than the ability to con impressionable youth?


 * If you're still on the fence over the recognition of this person and their 'institute' as WP:FRINGE. Then perhaps this secondary source People, Politics and the Struggle by Berman, O'Connor might do it. | Citing the wisdom of Amory Lovins, Berman and O’Connor tell us that using energy is morally wrong. Amory Lovins’s wisdom: “For over 90 percent of energy uses, electricity is an indefensible luxury]


 * No small disclaimer on that ideology then?...Does Lovins want us all back in the caves, with just enough electricity to read his promotional work, then, we take it? Though in this article, no mention to any of these bizarre ideologies are made, nothing at all about how he isn't an accredited physicist, noting at all about how he openly advocated and advertised for increased coal usage, none of it is ever mentioned. You're told he is a physicist, a professional of high-standing, who influences the world. Wait, but isn't that just like identically how fans of Dr. Mercola, would describe him, then?
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

"Places with near 100% renewable electricity" list
Unfortunately the list appears to be misleading. First of all, there is probably no place with 100% RE over all sectors yet. Even in Norway not every car is electric. However, 100% electricity is a requirement for moving towards 100% RE. By 2021, only the places with almost 100% hydro would be qualified for inclusion here. Most other places with large amounts of wind and solar are not independent from other sources yet. They need backup power. As soon as they are connected to the international grid, the calculation becomes difficult even if some storage is installed. Even if the amount of RE in electricity exceeds the consumption over a year, fossil or nuclear sources are used to address intermittency. If no objection, I would like to remove these places. Hedgehoque (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * There are no places with 100% hydro. Even Norway has places that are not on their grid, that are powered by generators. However, most people agree that Norway is close enough. The arbitrary criteria chosen for inclusion is 90%. The list is clear that this is only for 'near 100% renewable electricity', you even quoted that above. Contrary, if we leave this list out, it appears that ~100% renewable electricity is impossible, whereas there's a long list of places that manage that. And no, the argument that you make that "Even if the amount of RE in electricity exceeds the consumption over a year, fossil or nuclear sources are used to address intermittency." is false in the round, because at other times, when they produce more than they need, fossil generators elsewhere shutdown. You're wrongly ignoring those shutdowns. GliderMaven (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * To make it clear: I would not delete the list but only remove the places with a high amount of fossil and nuclear still being used during intermittency. If we include any small region with more RE produced than consumed, we could extend the list to infinity. The worldwide challenge that this article is about is the establishment of systems which are really independent from other sources. Apart from that, depending on regulations, wind and PV are often forced to power down and be disconnected from the net due to grid shortages, while at the same time fossil and nuclear power plants keep on producing in the same region.Hedgehoque (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That's called curtailment. And it's not counted towards production. And it's not that common; it's rarely over 1% of the production. If it's more than that, there's something very, very wrong. GliderMaven (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This article should be about the concept how 100% RE can be achieved globally or at least in areas of country level without significant backup from other places. Just producing more RE than consuming does not qualify for it. That would fit for every village with a few wind turbines. About curtailment: Check out the historical data for Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. In the northern and western areas with about 6 GW installations (mostly wind) curtailment reached up to 80% of potential production between 2018 and 2020. But this discussion is beside the point here, anyway.Hedgehoque (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but no properly functioning installation would ever reach 80%. I don't speak German, but the graphic you pointed to talks about 287 hours. That's less than a couple of weeks in total out of the whole year, about 3%. So you seem to be taking things deliberately out of context, which is a concern. And I certainly don't agree that backup from other places is in any way bad. One of the ways to achieve 100% renewable energy is to have a mega grid to even out demand and production variations. And for example, even though it's relatively small, Orkney is considered a model for renewable power generation worldwide, and that absolutely has a grid connection for export, and occasionally import. GliderMaven (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 287 hours is per month which is about 40% of the time. But these are the hours with wind. That's how you reach the 80%, black on white on the internal monthly reports. The list is confusing. It mixes true 100% places like the Orkneys with other ones which are far from being independent at all. As a compromise, could we split it into "real 100% RE" and "more RE production than consumption" ? Hedgehoque (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you could define that without making Orkney not 'real 100% RE' since it's on the GB grid and presumably is not exporting 100.000% of the time. Right now we're listing places that have become particularly notable due to sources making them notable. GliderMaven (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

. Isabelle E Jarrott 22:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead section
I suggest to move some material into the History section and to replace the remainder by an excerpt of the first chapter of Jacobsons textbook 100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything, Cambridge University Press 2020. Rwbest (talk) 09:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)