I hate to break it to you, but natural gas IS a fossil fuel. Using it does release carbon.
I hate to break it to you that you're not breaking it to me.
Of course you're correct, natural gas is a fossil fuel and I accidentatly missed writing the word "other" in my sentence. This how I meant to write it:
"Natural gas is certainly wrought with problems and needs to be phased out as well, but when it's captured properly it's a lesser evil than other fossil fuels."
Please except my apology for leaving out the word "other".
I worked for a couple of years in a lab that was focused on solar water splitting, and also has a guy working on supercapacitors, so I am very probably more familiar with the state of the art in energy storage than you are.
I think maybe you don't understand what "base load" means.
I know what "base load" means, it's very basic.
Please don't make blind assumptions. If you have facts to bring to the table, bring them. I'm frankly not interested in your resumé nor some sort of pissing match. It's actually a tactic that many climate change deniers use as a distraction, and I'd hope that you wouldn't stoop to that level and have this discussion degrade in that manner. And, as you're about to find out, your presumptions are about to turn around on you anyway...
I worked for a couple of years in a lab that was focused on solar water splitting, and also has a guy working on supercapacitors, so I am very probably more familiar with the state of the art in energy storage than you are. The fact that you bring up supercapacitors in this context confirms that, because the benefit of capacitors over chemical energy storage (batteries, etc.), is in power output, not in energy density. That means they might be great for electric vehicles and other uses that require high output, but there are technologies that are inherently far better for large scale energy storage in power plants.
As much as you may enjoy taking my link out of context (you do that often, you know?) to now attempt to prove you're better educated than myself (why bother?), you're actually incorrect and you may need to reevaluate your education and perhaps pull back from your presumptuous assumptions of who you're talking to here.
First of all, I posted that link to the graphene innovations in context of general energy storage, not energy storage for power plants specifically. If you have any doubts about this (which I'm sure you do), you should search through my comment history where I discuss things like molten salt, etc. for alternative energy power plants, etc.
What you apparently don't know is that top scientists/experts predict that graphene batteries will be used at individual homes and businesses for energy storage beyond vehicles, etc. You seem to be locked into a centralized power paradigm even after I addressed this several times within my previous links (and brief quotes from my links as well).
Graphene will be used for off-grid solar power storage systems in the relatively near future. It's got a ways to go (currently only 60 Watt-hours per liter). But that also means 1 liter is enough to power a 60 watt, old-fashioned, inefficient light bulb for 1 hour (or 20 watt CFL for 3 hours).
Even with current, nascent graphene technology, that would mean if a family of four kept something the size of an average, underground 1500 gallon (4 graphene liters per gallon) septic tank in their backyard, it could power everything in a 4 bedroom home for over a week and a half (considering graphene batteries currently holds 90% of its charge for 300 hours) just running off the battery alone. And, the nice thing is the graphene isn't nearly as toxic like traditional batteries are and is being made safer the more it's studied and altered. It also retains about 90% of its capacitance after 50,000 charge/discharge cycles for christ's sake.
I'm obviously simplifying this for brevity, but you should now get the idea what I'm talking about when referring to graphene for energy storage. I know you want a shit-ton of numbers, but you're just going to have to be satisfied with me pointing you in the right direction because this is a blog post and not research paper I'm writing for you. The main point isn't debating numbers, we're talking about entire concepts here. If you want to go further into than that, then frankly I'm going to need to be paid a consulting fee. But, don't worry, there's a link below that has more numbers for you to comb through than you could digest in a week, but we'll get to that... Anyway, I digress...
You see, speaking of concepts... you're so narrowly focused on nuclear energy which experts have called "the epitome of the centralization of power" (see my links) that I think you've lost sight of the importance and massive benefits of energy independence. Graphene is looking to be a vital part of energy storage in this regard. When people use their own solar panels, etc. along with their own energy storage, they won't need your centralized behemoth that provides the blessed, monolithic "(base) load duration curve" set for everyone in a wide area all at once (which is incredibly inefficient, by the way).
If you want to know more about this topic, let me know. It's an extremely complex subtopic that leads to hundreds of others subtopic I've researched. This just scratched the surface minus graphene being used as solar paint, solar windows and on and on.... well beyond just energy storage.
Of course, this is just graphene... there's much more research being done as we speak on other energy storage (as you should know and see below), but graphene is one of the more exciting I've seen thus far, it's great for energy independence.... and it's just getting started, yo.
Do you know about this below?
Researchers have designed a low-cost, long-life battery that could enable solar and wind energy to become major suppliers to the electrical grid.
The chart you show for Boulder doesn't contradict anything I said.
My goal isn't to contradict you at every turn with my words nor with that chart; It's mostly to bolster what I've already said (and it does). Also, please keep in mind that chart is incredibly conservative and is purposefully not taking into account breakthroughs in technology that haven't happened just yet (but, are on their way). This is yet another limitation of simply spewing numbers without keeping in mind solid concepts, etc. Anyway, if you have experience with very public feasibly studies, etc. you should already know that. Keep in mind the citizens making this happen in Boulder, CO despise natural gas, it's only there as a temporary place holder as other sources of more sustainable energy become much more feasible/affordable.
It's definitely a small part of a world-wide plan (see more on this below)
nuclear is prohibitively expensive COMPARED TO FOSSIL FUELS
All CAPS doesn't change the fact that alternative energy like wind is already becoming less expensive than nuclear in some areas. If you want the numbers, they're in the links I already provided you, but you keep ignoring. I'm not going to keep repeating things like this. HINT: France.
You have also repeatedly failed to provide numbers (physical, not economic)
And, speaking of numbers again, you can crunch numbers all you want, but if it's not economically feasible in the first place, it's a joke. You can't create things out of thin air. You have to have the money to do it in the first place. And, if you dig into the details of my links, you'll see that they provide both "physical" and economic numbers. They didn't just come up with economic numbers without crunching the realities of bringing power to real households and industry.
It's also more than a little ridiculous that you expect me to dig all this up and copy/paste it all here after I've already given you links to back myself up and you've literally provided ZERO sources to back yourself up for your numbers! You've basically told me to take your word on it which is as far from science as I can think of. How about you put your nose to the grindstone and provide some backup sources before demanding even more from me while misrepresenting that I haven't provided numbers when they are located within the very links/sources I've given you already?
Even the idealized best case scenario for a residential town that you present
I didn't present any idealized town, but you now have. And you haven't supported the numbers you've presented with any sources. Please get on that.
In short, please have numbers on you next reply. Where do we get 15TW of base load that's not fossil fuels?
Where do you even get 15TWs number from in the first place? Do you see the problem here with just throwing out numbers without backup? How about we start with you telling me how you came to 15TW anyway? I'm getting a little tired of you putting all the burden of proof on me while you just throw out numbers without provided any sources to back yourself up whatsoever.
But, I'll do you fantasitcally better than a smattering of numbers you may simply take out of context and can't possibly cover all bases with anyway due to the complexity of the issue. Here's results from a Stanford researcher whose study shows the world can be powered by alternative energy in 20-40 years.
Mark Z. Jacobson - Energy Policy
PART I: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf
PART II: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/DJEnPolicyPt2.pdf
Here's for New York (with more numbers):
He doesn't just throw numbers around, he makes some very salient points along with strategies as well. Within his study you'll find a vast array of numbers to back him up. Dig in.
I've got work to do, so I'm going to stop here. Mark Z. Jacobson Energy Policy study should keep you busy with numbers for about a week. There's just not enough time in the day, but if I find time later I'll return and add to this post.
If we don't chat later, I sincerely thank you for discussing this with me and not resorting to name-calling and stuff. I think we have far more in common on this issue than we have differences and I've enjoyed this discussion.
In the meantime, there's this stuff to chew on as well: