Clack said the hydropower+PHS installed capacity is 145 GW but the model output shows 1300 GW hydropower for 12 hours. Then said ‘I hope there is an explanation.’ However, Jacobson had e-mailed back and forth that he was assuming adding turbines to the hydro installations to allow for a temporary boost of power as needed to meet demand.

I think you’ve responded really unfairly to the other posters here, and I’m pretty amazed at how calmly they’ve taken this unjustified response. Pull your head in. Get over yourself. People having minor quibbles over your plan aren’t automatically trolls.

This is actually very correct. Somewhere I read that a student named Anders has created some storage system that can store huge amount of energy for longer period of times and also this molecule system is non-toxic so a much better option than lithium batteries.

zebra:

I’m being pragmatic– if we had a government that would deal with step 1

You’re not being pragmatic. You’re just being hypothetical. And an offensive name-caller as well. Frankly your response to me was just pathetic.

Trickster indeed! And it’s next you’ll be telling me this magical “Kingdom” where you grew up has universal health care, and the police walk around without guns, and other such fantasies…

Anyway, what puzzles me about people like you and Chris is that if you are so pessimistic about the government really doing something to reduce CO2, what’s the point of quibbling over nuclear v wind v solar?

I’m being pragmatic– if we had a government that would deal with step 1, what would work for step 2 in the USA? It certainly isn’t sending the troops in to force construction of nuclear plants, even if such a one-size-fits-all approach wasn’t p-poor engineering.

I’m saying that if we had a functioning, even slightly forward-thinking government, we could pass certain kinds of legislation that would encourage necessary changes and promote innovation. Real free markets can do that, and it gives political cover to those on the dark side.

Well, then we are in agreement. Additionally, I did not get that understanding from your comment.

Or maybe, seeing that I come from the UK, and grew-up in the semi-state control / semi-capitalist society that existed there until recently, I see the “free market” as being the crazy stuff that goes on in the States.

Zebra: “Free markets, as Adam Smith and other real economists understood the term, can only exist if the government is deeply involved in maintaining balance.”

Thank you for the info. Of course, many governments are not interested in maintaining balance, and worse, given the multi-national nature of the big players in the market – government control can be a very hard thing to exercise.

Loki: Mischief maker, trickster.

Lots and lots of comments on this subject are from people whose goal is to tear down renewables and promote do-nothingism. AKA “concern trolling” or “poison pill”– “if you liberals really believed climate change is a problem you would stop sending your Black Helicopters to prevent building of nuclear plants.”

As to the substance: You aren’t reading very carefully as well as not thinking very carefully about the economic principles here.

You want the cost of grid connection to come from investors in solar and wind? That’s exactly what my plan does, and it is stated very clearly in my comment.

Where you go wrong is in this vague hand-waving “energy is in the domain of the nation-state”. The domain of the government in this context is the natural monopoly which is the grid. There is no natural monopoly in generation of electricity, so there is no benefit to having the government be involved beyond health and safety regulation.

So, the government should either operate or strongly regulate the grid, on the model of the highway/road system and rules of commerce for common carriers. If you don’t understand what I am talking about, do some research.

And along the lines of doing some research– you sound as if you have consumed some of the right-wing pseudo-economic koolaid with respect to what a free market is. It doesn’t mean “free to establish monopolies and cheat the consumer”. Free markets, as Adam Smith and other real economists understood the term, can only exist if the government is deeply involved in maintaining balance.

How was I to know you were only talking metaphorically?

I also answered your question, as I said:

“Energy is one of the areas that I see as being in the domain of the nation state.”

I agree there should be a price on carbon.

I think nation states should be building nuclear, hydro, tidal, geothermal as fast as possible.

Nation states should be making it possible for investors to roll-out the more cheaply constructed renewables as fast as practicable – but the cost of grid connection should come from these investors.

“Now, I’m obliged to make the same comment that I did to Chris– you may not be a Loki Troll…”

Wow! From what I remember of Loki, that’s a pretty nasty insult. You need to dial back your judgement threshold from “near instantaneous” to ” let’s see how this discussion goes”