Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9321
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Oct 15 2018 5:03pm

Chalo wrote:
Oct 15 2018 4:19pm
Wood is a renewable fuel. ........ and carbon-neutral.
If you believe in the time scales of the current IPCC panic predictions, wood is no more carbon neutral than coal or oil...
Ignoring time scales, you could consider coal and oil to be renewable also ! :shock:
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2013
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Oct 15 2018 5:47pm

Hillhater wrote:
Oct 15 2018 5:03pm
If you believe in the time scales of the current IPCC panic predictions, wood is no more carbon neutral than coal or oil... Ignoring time scales, you could consider coal and oil to be renewable also !
Ignoring time scales, solar is our only significant source of energy. So no problem switching over.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9321
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Oct 15 2018 6:33pm

billvon wrote:
Oct 15 2018 5:47pm
... Ignoring time scales, solar is our only significant source of energy. So no problem switching over.
Not really ... The sun is scheduled to burn out eventually also !
But the point is you cannot ignor time scales, and in The "IPCC panic" time scale , burning wood is just another source of CO2.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9321
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Oct 15 2018 7:06pm

billvon wrote:
Oct 15 2018 11:05am
Hillhater wrote:
Oct 15 2018 4:08am
Ahhh, good , i feel comforted now.!
If the IPCC says it will happen , then it most likely wont !
They have a near perfect record for failed predictions.
They actually have a pretty good record for accurate predictions - going all the way back to 1995. If anything, they were too conservative, and we are seeing more warming than predicted.
?? :shock:
In 1990 they predicted a global ave temp rise of 0.3 -0.5 degC per decade.
So far the average has been 0.12 - 0.19 deg C per decade (depending on which data set you choose)
..And that is before you discuss the "adjustments" to the raw data used in those measurements !
How about Sea Level rise predictions ?....2.8 - 3.6 mm/yr ?
.....those dissapearing Maldive islands ?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 978
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Oct 15 2018 7:18pm

billvon wrote:
Oct 15 2018 5:47pm
Ignoring time scales, solar is our only significant source of energy. So no problem switching over.
??? There is an insurmountable problem with scale, density, and portability comparing solar PV plus storage with fossil fuels. Everything will be much smaller and simpler after the carbon pulse as we go back to real time flows.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9321
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Oct 15 2018 8:47pm

^^^...OR..we will just struggle on with Nuclear in various forms, and hydrogen etc...
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 978
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Oct 15 2018 8:50pm


User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1754
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Oct 15 2018 9:17pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Oct 15 2018 4:00pm
This is the common mistake in confusing the words "energy" and "power" when we mean to say electricity. Most people are doing this. Most written articles are doing this. Which for Germany, electricity is only 21% of primary energy consumption.
.
33% of ELECTRICITY is from renewables. Which includes biomass. 22.4% of ELECTRICITY in germany is from solar and wind.
.
.
Image
.
.
But solar and wind is only 4.1% of the total primary "ENERGY" comsumption in Germany. Biomass makes 7.1% of the "ENERGY" in Germany. This is obviously much different than the common misrepresentation that we keep seeing. More energy comes from burning wood for heating than from wind and solar put together after their decades long best effort to replace all energy with with rebuildables.
.
.
Image
.
.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factshe ... mix-charts
.
That second image is great, as it shows the hard fact of how little of wind/solar gives you the power when you ACTUALLY NEED IT and Germany's "biomass" electricity generation is more than double the actual power provided to customers because it has the ability to be used at times it's actually NEEDED.
Image
If mainstream media were using real-world data instead of trying to manipulate people this is all they should be shown. But if you talk to the average person on Facebook or ABC's TV talk show hosts who would be ranting about how great wind/solar is in Germany they probably haven't even heard of biomass, because of the constant stream of bad information.

On a different topic, I couldn't help but wonder about the raw weight of "materials" for the same MWh's generated for a wind-turbine setup vs a diesel generator.
https://www.cat.com/en_AU/products/new/ ... -sets.html
https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/2-mw-d ... rator.html
I have done a few calculations on MWh output for wind-turbine setup that can put out an average of 2MW and compared it to a diesel generator that is 2MW and found that the wind-turbine setup has about 200 times the weight in materials of a diesel generator.
And if you replicated the diesel generator for power when you actually needed it model, utilizing a lithium battery+wind-turbine setup it probably doubles again. And a diesel generator for the same average MW is at least 20 times cheaper to buy.

On a different topic, there has been increased talk about Australian grid stability when putting more renewables on the Victorian grid. This article is pretty good and I am kind of surprised about it because AFR tends to be like Bloomberg when it comes to being constantly positive on renewable energy or there is no story at all.
AEMO imposes tough conditions on new wind and solar in Victoria's 'full' grid
https://www.afr.com/news/aemo-imposes-t ... 012-h16l0h
To me all the renewable energy builds in Australia are just to mine the subsidies, these companies aren't energy farmers they are subsidy farmers and the fact they are only willing to build solar farms over existing green farmlands to reduce ever having to clean dust off the panels helps prove that, if they were in it for the environment they would be planting trees on those green areas.


Craig Kelly says Coalition must kill off renewable energy subsidies
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... are_btn_tw

I always wondered why Malcolm Turnbull was such a huge renewable energy fan for what's supposed to be a conservative government, he seemed to love RE way beyond even what I thought would be acceptable just to please voters.
Turns out his son Alex Turnbull is invested up to his eyeballs in renewable energy projects and desperately needs his projects to go through to scoop up the money, but apparently, some of his projects are in a court case and the media can't talk about it other than say its in the courts, I think its just location issues such as annoying people in the area with wind-turbine noise etc.

And now that Malcolm Turnbull has been kicked out of Prime Minister of Australia (internally by the conservative Liberal Party) his son Alex Turnbull feels his best chance to get his subsidy money farming projects through is to do a desperate rant on Facebook telling folks to vote for anyone other than conservative party now.

Here is news on his rant
https://www.9news.com.au/2018/10/12/03/ ... t-liberals
https://reneweconomy.com.au/turnbulls-s ... als-77004/
http://www.ibtimes.com.au/malcolm-turnb ... ty-1572517

The exact same behaviour has been exhibited by John Hewson another ex-liberal who also has been revealed to be up to his eyeballs in renewable energy investments, he smells the change in the rules for subsidy miners and he's pretty much out there saying "Vote the Labor or the Greens or we are all going to die from climate change"
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/former-libe ... e-inaction
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... son-attack

If these guys owned any fossil fuel plants people would be out in the streets in anger, but because its green energy investments everyone's quiet, but just like everything in this area it proves these guys don't give a stuff about the environment, if they did they would be demanding we build nuclear which we all know destroys everything in low co2 emissions.

They are just trying to copy Al Gore, as Al Gore invested all his money in green-energy before he went public on his crusade on climate change. Turning his $2million into $100million dollars.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html
sendler2112 wrote:
Oct 15 2018 8:50pm
Nuclear pride rally in Germany.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... dc137a49cf
Yeah, last month there was a "Hunger Strike" for nuclear energy in Taiwan, because they know that nuclear energy France emits less than 1/10th of the co2 than Germany or South Australia. Talk about having better-informed people than the western world.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... 336c5e6af9
The guy continued on his pro-nuclear energy hunger strike until he had to go to the hospital. If only our fake Greens political party even talked about wanting to get serious on CO2 emissions and go nuclear but they all hate nuclear, they are just walking pure political cancer.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... 638ce13a76
Plenty of articles from TheGuardian saying that when a person from the 3rd world migrates to the first world like from Africa to Europe they increase their CO2-footprint by a massive 60 times.
So 1 million new migrants mean 60million times increase in co2 emissions for that Euro country or Australia, but the purely fake political cancer Green groups just go running when you quiz them on this fact. These green groups are ALL ABOUT THE MONEY AND POLITICAL POWER, they don't give a shit about the environment. They are pure SJW cancer https://youtu.be/EXkqZnq4z-I

On another subject.. Because of the ammonia to hydrogen membrane breakthrough for carrying hydrogen in a super convenient manner, the memes for it are already out there.
Got this one from Fuelcellworks which is some kind of news service for Fuel-Cell technology https://twitter.com/fuelcellsworks
Image

One a yet another topic, when the SA labour government bought 9 35MW diesel generators there was suspicion from the opposition that the SA government had deliberately thrown money away for them.
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... 3bf9c208e8
From the article
Emergency diesel generators set to cost taxpayers $610m
A report from senior silk Mark Livesey was tabled in Parliament on Tuesday.

It had been six months in the making and his appointment to investigate the deal was one of the first actions taken by the new government.

Mr Livesey was asked to examine the impacts of former premier Jay Weatherill’s decision to buy the nine generators rather than lease.

Dan van Holst Pellekaan on Tuesday told Parliament the report had exposed a huge blowout in the estimated cost revealed before the election, and was a “damning indictment”.
So $610million total, but Solar quotes estimated them to be $23million each so a total of $207million at the time of the purchase.
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/sou ... enerators/
Image
So instead of just 9 35MW diesel generators, they got if they had done it right it could have been as many as 26 they could have purchased.
So 26 x 35MW = 910MW, enough to run the entire state if they include their Victorian coal grid imports at around 700MW.
Last edited by TheBeastie on Oct 16 2018 8:29pm, edited 19 times in total.
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles rangehttps://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Consider PAS as your only throttle https://goo.gl/Kg1F8F
Fuel-Cell is the ultimate battery coupled with 4th-gen Nuclear
https://goo.gl/TcKtHs https://goo.gl/ZhFFot https://goo.gl/gfa215
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

billvon   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2013
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Oct 15 2018 9:26pm

Hillhater wrote:
Oct 15 2018 6:33pm
Not really ... The sun is scheduled to burn out eventually also !
Not power. Energy. The Sun is our only significant source of _energy._
But the point is you cannot ignor time scales, and in The "IPCC panic" time scale , burning wood is just another source of CO2.
Nope. IPCC time scales go through 2100 (i.e. 80 years from now.) In 80 years you recover the CO2. Even Douglas firs, which are more for structural wood than fuel (and are pretty slow growing) only take 50 years to reach maturity. And that entire time they are collecting CO2.

So if, tomorrow, you start using wood for a big part of our fuel needs - AND you plant the forests you will need to supply that need - you are CO2 neutral.
--bill von

billvon   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2013
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Oct 15 2018 9:27pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Oct 15 2018 7:18pm
??? There is an insurmountable problem with scale, density, and portability comparing solar PV plus storage with fossil fuels. Everything will be much smaller and simpler after the carbon pulse as we go back to real time flows.
Agreed. Which is why I said "ignoring time scales." Taking time scales into account, what makes more sense is a rapid buildout of solar, wind and other renewables to first stretch our supplies of fossil fuels, and later replace them.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9321
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Oct 15 2018 11:30pm

billvon wrote:
Oct 15 2018 9:26pm
Not power. Energy. The Sun is our only significant source of _energy._
Yep, and when its gone and dissapeared up its own arse, You solar wont be much use.
But the point is you cannot ignor time scales, and in The "IPCC panic" time scale , burning wood is just another source of CO2.
billvon wrote:
Oct 15 2018 9:26pm
...Nope. IPCC time scales go through 2100 (i.e. 80 years from now.) In 80 years you recover the CO2. Even Douglas firs, which are more for structural wood than fuel (and are pretty slow growing) only take 50 years to reach maturity. And that entire time they are collecting CO2.

So if, tomorrow, you start using wood for a big part of our fuel needs - AND you plant the forests you will need to supply that need - you are CO2 neutral.
Yep .but the IPCC "panic timescale". Is to eliminate Co2 asap
So in order to burn wood and be CO2 neutral, you have to start planting now and dont start burning wood until 2100 when those first trees mature. Otherwise you are just converting existing stored carbon into CO2 in the same way as burning coal.
Biomass, using annual crops or similar is a better argument.....but cutting down trees is dumb on so many fronts.
....and dont even think about trying the "prunings" argument, !
FYI. ..some years ago there was a Gov initive to encourage timber farming for this very purpose, and many of us made long term investments of significant $$s in memberships for those schemes.
Unfortunately, they were so popular the Gov saw an oportunity to cream some tax income , and changed the taxation on the schemes. Soon they were junk investments and the entire timber farming industry collapsed.
Coal is a much safer investment !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4866
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Oct 16 2018 3:29am

I think you've managed to come up with what could be become two new denier staples!:

"investing in solar is pointless because the sun will burn out one day!"

"We're going to be completely f**ked so soon it doesn't matter if we burn wood or coal!"

Do you listen to yourself?! :lol:

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9321
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Oct 16 2018 6:45am

Punx0r wrote:
Oct 16 2018 3:29am
I think you've managed to come up with what could be become two new denier staples!:

"investing in solar is pointless because the sun will burn out one day!"

"We're going to be completely f**ked so soon it doesn't matter if we burn wood or coal!"

Do you listen to yourself?! :lol:
You seem have a comprehension problem .!
I am far from convinced we are f**ked, .....that is the view of you alarmists, isnt it ?
I am happy to burn wood and coal, but find it hipocritical for an alarmist to pretend burning wood is somehow minimising CO2 production. :roll:
And lets be very clear on why i think investing in solar is not just pointless, its disruptive to utility systems and ultimately national economies...and hence by consequence , damaging to social standards and programms.
Why ?, because solar is intermittent and unreliable.
Which means it must be backed up by some other supporting systems capable of duplicating the output of the solar installation. Those backup requirements are seldom mentioned or included into the true costs of solar supply.
Additionally, the introduction of solar into existing utility grid supply reduces the demand on existing generation units, making them less efficient and more expensive to operate.
Even individual, "rooftop" solar systems cause a greater % of the "distribution" costs to be bourne by fewer conventional grid consumers, and hence those costs are also increased due to the reduced unit sales.
Ultimately, a high % of consumers using rooftop solar for supply would result in uneconomic grid costs.
This is not theoretical predictions, this is what is happening .
Last edited by Hillhater on Oct 16 2018 7:20am, edited 1 time in total.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4866
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Oct 16 2018 7:09am

It will be hard to explain to you why you are wrong because we know from previous posts that you don't understand the concept of a carbon cycle, featuring as it does, emission sources, sinks and net emission...
Hillhater wrote:
Oct 16 2018 6:45am
that is the view of you alarmists people who can see beyond the end of their nose, isnt it ?

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9321
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Oct 16 2018 7:27am

I understand the carbon cycle , but i also realise that the variations and errors in the measurement of those sources and sinks, is orders of magnitude greater than the suggested additios caused by human actions.
Whilst you just seem to blindly accept as precise the figures regurgitated by alarmist media.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jimw1960   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 724
Joined: Jul 23 2008 4:44pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jimw1960 » Oct 16 2018 8:47am

Hillhater wrote:
Oct 16 2018 7:27am
I understand the carbon cycle , but i also realise that the variations and errors in the measurement of those sources and sinks, is orders of magnitude greater than the suggested additios caused by human actions.
Whilst you just seem to blindly accept as precise the figures regurgitated by alarmist media.
How do you figure? CO2 is very easily, accurately, and reliably measured all over the globe. There is also very good data about how much oil, gas, and coal is produced and consumed each year. I would bet that the estimates of annual human CO2 additions to the atmosphere are accurate to within a percent or two.

billvon   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2013
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Oct 16 2018 10:56am

Hillhater wrote:
Oct 15 2018 11:30pm
Yep .but the IPCC "panic timescale". Is to eliminate Co2 asap
No one wants to "eliminate CO2 ASAP." The goal is to get our emissions of it down below the level that the ecosystem can deal with.

Your strawmen are getting pretty bad.
So in order to burn wood and be CO2 neutral, you have to start planting now and dont start burning wood until 2100 when those first trees mature.
?? You realize that trees absorb most of their carbon while they are growing, not when they are mature - right? So starting to plant NOW and starting to burn NOW would give us a carbon-neutral source of energy.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9321
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Oct 16 2018 4:54pm

jimw1960 wrote:
Oct 16 2018 8:47am
Hillhater wrote:
Oct 16 2018 7:27am
I understand the carbon cycle , but i also realise that the variations and errors in the measurement of those sources and sinks, is orders of magnitude greater than the suggested additios caused by human actions.
Whilst you just seem to blindly accept as precise the figures regurgitated by alarmist media.
How do you figure? CO2 is very easily, accurately, and reliably measured all over the globe. There is also very good data about how much oil, gas, and coal is produced and consumed each year. I would bet that the estimates of annual human CO2 additions to the atmosphere are accurate to within a percent or two.
CO2 content of the atmosphere (ppm) can be measured easily, and presumably accurately. (not necessarily so for historic estimates ! )
But much of the human related CO2, can only be ESTIMATED by extrapolation from sampling and calculation from source consumption data. Not all sources are monitored.
Personally i would doubt the figure is within 10%, but it doesnt matter as the numbers are small compared to the "Natural" sources and sinks.
Those Natural sources and sinks ..the Oceans, forests, decaying soil material, green plant activity, insects, etc etc
Can only be ESTIMATED from very miniscule sample sizes, the resulting acccuracy of which , when considered with the observed huge variability, cannot be within +_10% of any reported figure. :shock:
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2013
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Oct 16 2018 5:07pm

Hillhater wrote:
Oct 16 2018 4:54pm
CO2 content of the atmosphere (ppm) can be measured easily, and presumably accurately.
Correct.
But much of the human related CO2, can only be ESTIMATED by extrapolation from sampling and calculation from source consumption data. Not all sources are monitored.
Ah, but fuel is. And if you burn X pounds of coal, you get Y pounds of CO2. And since all significant users of coal buy it by the ton - there are receipts. As there is for every major user of oil and gas.

Capitalism provides the tools in this case.
Personally i would doubt the figure is within 10%, but it doesnt matter as the numbers are small compared to the "Natural" sources and sinks.
Those Natural sources and sinks ..the Oceans, forests, decaying soil material, green plant activity, insects, etc etc
Can only be ESTIMATED from very miniscule sample sizes
Actually there is a much easier way to estimate it.

We know with pretty good accuracy how much CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere. We know with pretty good accuracy how fast the CO2 content of the atmosphere is rising. The difference between those two numbers - the "missing" CO2 - is going into natural sinks, like the ocean, or faster-growing trees, or limestone weathering.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9321
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Oct 16 2018 5:30pm

billvon wrote:
Oct 16 2018 10:56am
.
?? You realize that trees absorb most of their carbon while they are growing, not when they are mature - right? So starting to plant NOW and starting to burn NOW would give us a carbon-neutral source of energy.
Wrong !
Im no horticulturalist , or ecologist, but there are many studies that say you cannot burn a tree, and replace it with a seedling...and say you are carbon neutral ! :shock:
You would have to replant something like the equivalent weight of wood or area of foliage, to achieve neutrality.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2013
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Oct 16 2018 9:42pm

Hillhater wrote:
Oct 16 2018 5:30pm
Wrong ! Im no horticulturalist , or ecologist, but there are many studies that say you cannot burn a tree, and replace it with a seedling...and say you are carbon neutral !
Right. You'd replace it with many seedlings, since seedlings don't absorb as much carbon as half-grown trees. But with enough seedlings, of course, you do.

And if you want to be _really_ sure? Start planting now; burn in a year. Problem solved. And in ten years you are absorbing MORE carbon than you are burning (provided you always plant more seedlings than trees you burn.)
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9321
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Oct 17 2018 12:42am

billvon wrote:
Oct 16 2018 9:42pm
Right. You'd replace it with many seedlings, since seedlings don't absorb as much carbon as half-grown trees. But with enough seedlings, of course, you do.

And if you want to be _really_ sure? Start planting now; burn in a year. Problem solved. And in ten years you are absorbing MORE carbon than you are burning (provided you always plant more seedlings than trees you burn.)
Ha ha,...but how many seedlings bill ! ,..10, 50, 500 ?? You do know how fast trees grow ?
Like i said, i dont know, but i suspect it is a hell of a lot of seedlings, which means that you woill need an awfully huge amount of forrestry area for any significant wood consumption.
And others have figured it out that it takes approx 50 years before you reach anything like carbon neutrality,...just for the wood harvested, ignoring the energy used (CO2 generated) in replanting those huge forrests.
You do also realise that using wood to generate heat (power) produces twice as much CO2 than would be the case with gas fueled generation .?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2013
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Oct 17 2018 11:39am

Hillhater wrote:
Oct 17 2018 12:42am
Ha ha,...but how many seedlings bill ! ,..10, 50, 500 ?? You do know how fast trees grow ?
Yes, I do. It depends on when you want to hit breakeven. Right away? It would take thousands. Want to wait a year before you start burning? You'd need far less.
Like i said, i dont know, but i suspect it is a hell of a lot of seedlings, which means that you woill need an awfully huge amount of forrestry area for any significant wood consumption.
Absolutely. You'd have to plant a very large area to generate a significant amount of energy from wood.
And others have figured it out that it takes approx 50 years before you reach anything like carbon neutrality
Nope. See previous posts.

When you get to the point where you have to lie to try to make your argument - perhaps try a different argument?
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9321
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Oct 17 2018 5:12pm

...see previous posts...
Sure,...and see my previous replies !

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _tree_size
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9321
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Oct 18 2018 4:12pm

Apollo 17 moonwalker Harrison Schmitt stirs up a buzz with climate change views
Schmitt: “Right now, in my profession, there is no evidence. There are models. But models of very, very complex natural systems are often wrong. The observations that we make as geologists, and observational climatologists, do not show any evidence that human beings are causing this. Now, there is a whole bunch of unknowns. We don’t know how much CO2, for example, is being released by the Southern Oceans as the result of natural climate change that’s been going on now since the last ice age.

“The rate of temperature increase on the surface of the Earth and in the troposphere is about the same over this period of time, particularly since the Little Ice Age, which was not caused by human beings. Nor was the Medieval Warm Period, preceding that, caused by human beings. So that’s the only skepticism I have: What is the cause of climate change?

“Normally, we have always assumed up until the Industrial Revolution that climate change is a function of the solar cycles — and indeed, there is still very strong evidence that’s the case. So, no, there is no irony in that. I, as a scientist, expect to have people question orthodoxy. And we always used to do that. Now, unfortunately, funding by governments, particularly the United States government, is biasing science toward what the government wants to hear.

“That’s a very dangerous thing that’s happening in science today, and it’s not just in climate. I see it in my own lunar research. If NASA’s interested in a particular conclusion, then that’s the way the proposals come in for funding. So it’s a very, very serious issue, and I hope the science writers in this room will start to dig deeply into whether or not science has been corrupted by the source of funds that are now driving what people are doing in research, and what their conclusions are.”
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/apollo-17 ... nge-views/
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Post Reply