Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1326
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Oct 06 2019 12:58pm

billvon wrote:
Oct 06 2019 11:59am
sendler2112 wrote:
Oct 06 2019 8:14am
Many of our ideas will turn out to be wasted moves.
Agreed. Which is why we should be going full bore on all those ideas now, so we make the mistakes while energy is still (relatively) cheap and the cost of failure is low.
Absolutely! A worldwide Green New Deal is essential immediately on January, 2020. Taking what we learned from the mitigation of the Great Depression with minimum and maximum incomes to pay for it all and the example of the repurposing of industry that the USA undertook for the build up to WWII with rationing cards, ect. It must be coordinated word wide so there is no tax haven race to the bottom for rich individuals and global corporations to just relocate. There is only one planet and we are all in this together.
.
By the way, I forgot to mention that all current wind and solar build out is heavily dependent on carbon fuel for the mining, refining, manufacture, and installation. It remains to be seen how much of this and what remaining scale of the already insufficient amount will remain as we are faced with diminishing ER/EI of liquid fuel, and then natural gas, or choose to try to leave it in the ground, over the next coming decades.

billvon   1 GW

1 GW
Posts: 3051
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Oct 06 2019 2:17pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Oct 06 2019 12:58pm
By the way, I forgot to mention that all current wind and solar build out is heavily dependent on carbon fuel for the mining, refining, manufacture, and installation.
Yep. By the time the oil runs out, that transition has to be largely completed.
--bill von

Cephalotus   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 657
Joined: Jun 18 2012 12:27pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Oct 06 2019 2:51pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Oct 06 2019 8:14am

You are an expert on Germany.
Happens to be my country, so I know most about this one obviously.
But you keep forgetting that Germany is only .08 billion people out of 8 billion.
Sure. But most countries in the world have much better wind and solar resources than Germany, so if it works well for us it will do for the rest of the world
Germany did not produce those 7GW per year of new wind and solar capacity all by itself for those few years that it was at that level.
difficult to say. Modul production is now mostly in China, but we produce a huge amount of Silicon, Glas, converters and other stuff. Same for the wind industry.
The ability to manufature machinery has never been a problem in Germany.
How much of the world's total solar and wind raw materials and manufacturing capacity did that represent? You were 20% short of your modest goal of 1000TWh/ year in 30 years, so for the world to achieve your per capita energy wealth and make the goal of having it done in 30 years, so that the first ones can start to be rebuilt in 30 years perpetually, world installation of wind and solar would have to increase 120X beyond what you did for a couple years at the peak.
I think this is quite doable. We still have exponential growth rates in world wide solar and wind.

solar and wind have a MUCH higher change to scale to the demand within 30 years than has nuclear power.
1000TWh/ year of rebuildable electricity is a lofty goal and will be much better than nothing but is realistically a little low in order to replace what Germany is currently using for Primary energy. Currently almost 14,000 PetaJoules which is 3,900 TWh/ year.
This includes coal and nuclear ower plants which waste 66% of primary energy, gasoline cars that waste 80% of primary energy and heating of homes with gas that need 3x more end energy compared to heat pumps and more than 10x the end energy compared to heat pumps in efficient buildings.

On the other hand turning electricity to gas or fuel waste energy as does electricity storage systems.

I assume that Germany would import most of its green liqud fuels in 2050 and doesn't make it itself. It can be made cheaper in other counries and with up to 100 billion Euro in energy imports today and still amiantaining a huge trade surplus it seems not so important to make 100% of the energy at home at whatever cost.
There must be a future business case for countries like saudia Arabia or Russia when noone buys their fossil fuels.
Many industrial heat processes that now use thermal gas or coal, such as cement and steel, which will be needed in huge quantities for wind installs, will not see any efficiency gain from switching to electric. So estimates of efficiency improvements from full electrification of human civilization are closer to 2:1. Leaving 1,500 TWh/ year for Germany. 70,000 TWh/ year for the World! would be less than half of the total primary energy we are now using. And 3 billion people still cook and heat with wood as their only means.
.
Scale.
.
World.
I agree. There is still a significant way ahead of us.

But compare solar and wind worldwide in 2008 to 2018.
Along with battery production. When GigaFactory 1 was announced, it was stated to at once double the world's capacity of production. With .035 TWh/ year. Has it ever had a year that matched it's stated capacity yet? World capacity is now stated to be about .4 TWh/y. Projected to be 1TWh/y by 2025. Just to replace the worlds 1.3 billion current gas/ diesel light vehicles, to say nothing of farm tractors and heavy trucks, with electric cars with 60 kWh batteries, requires 80 TWh of batteries! Just for cars and light trucks! And most people in the world do not even have one yet, but want one. And we talk of a proposed addition of another .1 TWh GigaFactory like it is a big deal.
.
Scale
.
World
Some is true for batteries. Exponential growth is possible and we have the resources to build the first 2 billion electric cars worldwide. After that recycling should be done.
We would also hit resource limits with 2 billion conventional cars, i.e. Platinum and Palladium
Greta gives us a new buzz word in the media. Fairy tales. We have fairy tales by under informed economists and politicians of eternal exponential growth on a finite planet. And just as inaccurate, fairy tales of a possible Green replacement to the same standard that we have now. While (forgetting) uplifting the exploited Global South. Many of our demands are untenable. Net zero in 12 years? Extinction Rebellion demands that it be so within 5 years. This will certainly precipitate the collapse that they claim to be fighting against. Be pragmatic. Maybe it is better to slide down now under control to a simpler, more cooperative way of life, rather than keep growing to a higher, steeper "Seneca Cliff".
Greta is just an avator.

She is not an engineer.

I am.

I know what is possible on a technical point of view.

If you look at home many cars we produce each year, on how many waste we produce each year, and how much oild and gas we waste for drinving around in our cars and heating oru homes it is rediculous if you say that we could not use the same resourcese for a transformation of our energy system.

Of course it can be done, it's just a matter of will.

France forced its industry to built the nuclear reactors, bevause decades ago they didn't like to be depended on energy imports and they wanted to have nuclear bombs. So they did it, no matter the cost. Just a matter of will.

Today you can power a industry nation from mostly solar+wind within 20 years. Its just a matter of will.
Many of our ideas will turn out to be wasted moves. Such as individual families living in "green" McMansions. Such as executives earning 500 times the amount as the base employee. Such as mail ordering whatever frivolous "green" gadget "the market" has advertised (brain washed) us to want, before throwing it away to lust after the next thing. Such as "green" 60kWh personal vehicles for each of the eventual 10 billion people on Earth.
We do agree on many of such things. People in US/Europe could very happily live on 1/5th the energy consumption of today.

But reality is that this is not negotiable for people as long as oil and gas is cheap as dirt.

Instead of forbidding cars it's easier to encourage people to use electric cars.

you need to do what is possible. Fantasies are of no value. This includes fantasies of nor cars as it includes fantasies of a nuclear power Renaissance.

It's already to late to keep the global warming at +2K. Best case (but unrealistic) seems to be +3K, but buisness as usual will get us more likely to +4K until 2100.
This is a desaster and the costs will be MUCH higher than just transforming our energy secror to solar and wind

but this is not the worst case secanrio.

At the end of Perm the Sibirian trap realeased huge amounts of CO2 into the air and overa few thousand years the cold climate warmed by around +5K caused by that CO2.
It didn't stop there, because than methane was realease and the climate "collapsed" and reached +16K

95% of all sea species died when most of the seas have been free of oxygen and 75% of all land species. This was most likely the largest mass extinction our planet had seen in its entire history. Caused by CO2 emissions.

Homo sapiens could reach +5K after 2100 if we keep burning the available fossil fuels as we do today.

Obviously most poeple don't care a bit.

Ianhill   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1997
Joined: Sep 25 2015 5:55pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Ianhill » Oct 06 2019 4:51pm

Cephalotus I know we fought in the war but bravo chap.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10671
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 06 2019 5:49pm

Cephalotus wrote:
Oct 06 2019 2:51pm
At the end of Perm the Sibirian trap realeased huge amounts of CO2 into the air and overa few thousand years the cold climate warmed by around +5K caused by that CO2.....
Utter rubbish !
The data is perfectly clear on the time lag of CO2 increase following AFTER temperature increase in ALL the historic records.
So, what caused that warming if it was not CO2 ?
...and every other period of warming in the past few millions of years ?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Ianhill   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1997
Joined: Sep 25 2015 5:55pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Ianhill » Oct 06 2019 9:59pm

Out going long wave infered absorption, The positive feedback loop, Faint say young paradox, Deep Cambrian ice age creating mountain ranges very local to myself ending a history in time and a plate crash giving England another foe and Wales a freind proving land can absorb co2 over time and rapidly release it to alter on a global scale that's forever evolving which we have a good grip of, we have alot of evidence pointing towards the murderer.

Based against a 800 year lag found in record's millions of years ago in consecutive ace iges that has explanation yet it's not to be listened to, or a satellite data saying the atmosphere was cooling yet it's time of data acquisition slipped from 12am to 5pm making the data look like we was actually cooling when we was measuring warming on the ground that was a mear 10 or so years compared to millions from ground ice record, there's a sence at that point to question the data and it was to find the error and it was not settled in the cooling arguments favour.

I live a skiptical life like most and question the truth open to change my mind but believe to understand the present let alone future we must understand the past and everyone must try their best to listen to the professionals on this one and many things like evolution be questioned and moon landings etc instead of listening to the media and politicians alike.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10671
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 06 2019 10:23pm

Cephalotus wrote:
Oct 06 2019 2:51pm
....We still have exponential growth rates in world wide solar and wind.....
Exponential growth rates are to be expected when the starting base is small....
But those countries with significant installed RE generation base ( EG, Germany, Australia, UK, etc) , are finding it harder to progress...
26 Feb 2019 · The global growth rate for wind energy capacity experienced a slight slow down in 2018 as 51.3GW of new projects came online, the latest Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) data released today shows. ...
new onshore wind installations in Europe, the birthplace of the on-going energy revolution, dropped almost a third last year. The worst two performing markets were in Germany, which was down by more half compared to 2017, and the UK, where the rate of expansion seemingly collapsed. Reflecting on the numbers, “It’s very unfortunate that Europe seems to lose track,” lamented Gsänger from his offices near the United Nation’s Sustainability Secretariat in Bonn, Germany.
Overall, new European installed capacity slumped down to numbers not seen since 2013, with just 11.7 gigawatts of gross wind power added. Throughout the European Union, twelve countries failed to install a single wind turbine last year, said Giles Dickson, CEO of industry body WindEurope.
All over Germany, only 35 new windmills with a combined output of a mere 290 MW were installed in the first half of 2019 — a decline of more than 80% compared with the same period last year and the lowest total in almost two decades. In 2018, Germany installed wind turbines with a total capacity of 2,800 MW. That in itself was a sharp drop from 2017, when Germany added more than 5,000 MW of wind capacity on land.
"The situation in the wind power sector is a catastrophe. We are facing the slowest buildup of capacity in the past 20 years, while the government at the same time is claiming to fully support and implement the Paris climate goals," says Reiner Priggen, a former MP of the Greens and now a chief wind power lobbyist for Germany's Renewable Energies Association.
https://www.dw.com/en/german-wind-energ ... a-50280676
The (Australian) Clean Energy Council is releasing a new policy briefing paper today, which shows quarterly financial commitments in new renewable energy projects reached a high of over 4500 MW in late 2018, but have since collapsed to less than 800 MW in each of the first two quarters of 2019.
“Investors have been forced to temper their record enthusiasm for Australian wind and solar projects due to a lack of national policy, growing threats of government interference in the energy market
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1970
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Oct 07 2019 5:49am

Don't know if you guys have seen this before but someone has taken alot of the majorly watched energy generation states for clean energy and created a live-video-chart how much they use fossil fuel.
https://twitter.com/GrantChalmers/statu ... 22816?s=20
It's important to note how big the state is population-wise and how much ability if its a small state to suck power from its neighbours.
I would include a preview if I could but doesn't seem easily possible.
South Australia looks terrible, remember you can go here to view South Australia's true registered total wind-farm capacity which is at 2,142MW as ElectricityMap deliberately refuse to update their installed-capacity data.
https://anero.id/energy/wind-energy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*ADD/EDIT*
Sorry, sendler2112. I decided to outdo you and download the video and then upload it to YouTube then embed it here for super-convenience! And I like to minimize posting. :)

https://video.twimg.com/tweet_video/EF6L3v0UYAAtjxe.mp4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I go into the Melbourne CBD it's almost weird if you wont find at least a small group protesting about something, I reckon Melbourne might be the protest capital of the world...
But of course, we got the big climate-strikes going on everywhere around the world right now... But I was surprised to watch this video on Twitter that shows folks in Sydney out doing Melbourne and managing to get arrested for protesting climate strike.
Melbourne protestors did block a major city road intersection but weren't enough to get arrested, I would say state premier Daniel Andrews probably asked police not to make arrests unless serious crimes are committed.
https://twitter.com/7NewsMelbourne/stat ... 16160?s=20
https://twitter.com/7NewsMelbourne/stat ... 36288?s=20
Melbourne probably did outdo Sydney on general protest/strike count as Melbourne public transport is also having strikes this week for more pay.
Last edited by TheBeastie on Oct 07 2019 8:13am, edited 4 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

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1326
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Oct 07 2019 6:10am

TheBeastie wrote:
Oct 07 2019 5:49am
Don't know if you guys have seen this before but someone has taken alot of the majorly watched energy generation states for clean energy and created a live-video-chart how much they use fossil fuel.
https://twitter.com/GrantChalmers/statu ... 22816?s=20
It's important to note how big the state is population-wise and how much ability if its a small state to suck power from its neighbours.
I would include a preview if I could but doesn't seem easily possible.
South Australia looks terrible, remember you can go here to view South Australia's true registered total wind-farm capacity which is at 2,142MW as ElectricityMap deliberately refuse to update their installed-capacity data.
https://anero.id/energy/wind-energy
Print screen and then edit with Irfanview. Purple star is the mean average over the last 90 days. Wait until winter and then look at Europe again.
.
.
Image
.
.

Cephalotus   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 657
Joined: Jun 18 2012 12:27pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Oct 07 2019 6:22am

Hillhater wrote:
Oct 06 2019 5:49pm
Utter rubbish !
The data is perfectly clear on the time lag of CO2 increase following AFTER temperature increase in ALL the historic records.
So, what caused that warming if it was not CO2 ?
...and every other period of warming in the past few millions of years ?
Both things happend in the past. CO2 increase after Temperatur increase and vice versa....

Both mechanism are understood quite well.

Both things did happen here. Planet was cold with low CO2. ->CO2 increased heavily by Sibirian supervulcanoes -< temepratur increased by ca. +5K -> warming caused more methane and CO2 emissions -> +15K -> mass extinction event

Didn't realise that it is called Permian - Triassic in English:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E ... tion_event

So I belive that it is a very(!) bad idea to increase CO2 Levels again to an amount that we will again see a world at +5K and the climate shifts out of control again

User avatar
ZeroEm   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 328
Joined: May 03 2019 11:53am
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by ZeroEm » Oct 07 2019 7:26am

Ozone in S.A. Tx is high, news stations ask that people don't put gasoline/petrol in cars to lower it. So you don't even need to burn this stuff for it to be bad just expose it to the atmosphere. Makes you want to go electric.
2019 Performer E-Trike 9w/km
2013 Nissan Leaf S 8 bars 328.306w/KM

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1326
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Oct 07 2019 12:45pm

Cephalotus wrote:
Oct 06 2019 2:51pm
We still have exponential growth rates in world wide solar and wind.
Yes. World total primary energy from wind and solar stands at 2.1%. For Germany it is about 4.6%. It is easy to double the size of something when you start with next to nothing. Triple these numbers if you like for the efficiency gains from the eventual electrification of all human processes.
Cephalotus wrote:
Oct 06 2019 2:51pm
Same is true for batteries. Exponential growth is possible and we have the resources to build the first 2 billion electric cars worldwide. After that recycling should be done.
We would also hit resource limits with 2 billion conventional cars, i.e. Platinum and Palladium
So if you really think we can build out 100TWh of batteries just for cars when our great announcement of new GigaFactories is for .1 TWh/ year capacity, I would offer that it is essential to insure that all EV's with these immense batteries are equipped to offer V2G two way transmission to serve double duty as grid storage when not driving. Which only Chademo can do right now. and it will be seen to be a dying charge standard as CCS takes over. I would also highly recommend that we wise up and realize our resource constraints and relax crash standards and levels of luxury so as to allow and prefer ultralight personal vehicles that can do more with much less materials.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10671
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 07 2019 7:10pm

Cephalotus wrote:
Oct 07 2019 6:22am
Hillhater wrote:
Oct 06 2019 5:49pm
The data is perfectly clear on the time lag of CO2 increase following AFTER temperature increase in ALL the historic records.
So, what caused that warming if it was not CO2 ?
...and every other period of warming in the past few millions of years ?
Both things happend in the past. CO2 increase after Temperatur increase and vice versa....
.......
So I belive that it is a very(!) bad idea to increase CO2 Levels again to an amount that we will again see a world at +5K and the climate shifts out of control again
Analysis of ice core data from Antarctica by Indermühle et al. (GRL, vol. 27, p. 735, 2000), who find that CO2 lags behind the temperature by 1200±700 years.
There are many examples of studies finding lags, a few examples include:
Indermühle et al. (GRL, vol. 27, p. 735, 2000), who find that CO2 lags behind the temperature by 1200±700 years, using Antarctic ice-cores between 60 and 20 kyr before present (see figure).
Fischer et al. (Science, vol 283, p. 1712, 1999) reported a time lag 600±400 yr during early de-glacial changes in the last 3 glacial–interglacial transitions.
Siegenthaler et al. (Science, vol. 310, p. 1313, 2005) find a best lag of 1900 years in the Antarctic data.
Monnin et al. (Science vol 291, 112, 2001) find that the start of the CO2 increase in the beginning of the last interglacial lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years.
Even though Ice Core results for temperature and CO2 are not direct measurements,..only proxy measurements..they are more realistic than any hypothetical estimates for the more ancient events (Permian etc) where there is little actual evidence, let alone data.
BUT... the simple facts that you are overlooking here are....
1). Even if you believe CO2 was the cause of some of these historic warming periods... what was the source of the increased CO2 ?, because it certainly was not anything that Humans were contributing to in those times.
2)... If warming started before CO2 increased as the data shows......what did initiate the warming ?

With those questions in mind, now add the previously stated fact that the human (Anthropogenic) proportion of all the CO2 in the atmosphere currently is less than 5%, (<20 ppm )....what result do you actually expect from all these efforts to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions ?
We are barking up the wrong tree !,
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Ianhill   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1997
Joined: Sep 25 2015 5:55pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Ianhill » Oct 07 2019 8:50pm

Can we agree solar radiation is increasing over time as the sun grows in size ? Early earth should have been locked in an ice age for millions of years till the sun grew warm enough to give the Goldie locks zone life has enjoyed.
But around 500000 million years ago it was 4°c warmer than today with a sun that was 4% cooler on average ? How come ??? it was made possible by the high co2 levels from earth formation and plates was still moving alot natural processes was spewing out crap as land was being formed so it took along time to lock the c02 down to today's levels.
Really we owe our early start to the blanket but as life goes on it must reduce to keep a steady temp as the sun grows, we have been lucky that natural processes have been a driving force to keep a varied temp rather than a steady ice age.
We also got the earths orbit that changes the amount of light received over ten of thousands of years so that can give the warming effect to earth and then as earth warms the sea releases c02 giving what seems as a lag effect then the added c02 gives a boost to temps so the graph shoots up again till there's an equilibrium like the earth orbit moves from the sun, the sun's activity is low not many spots or weathering processes reduce over time.
The closer problem we have is the 2°c rise will trigger the feed back loop and boom run away greenhouse effect major warming over a few hundred years at most till something intervenes or the earth weather's the co2 into the rocks and oceans if the source stops emitting.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10671
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 07 2019 11:21pm

Ian, you have a few misconceptions there..
500,000 million years ?? :shock: ...i dont think anyone knows much about that period .
There never was, is , or will be, a CO2 “blanket”. CO2 mixes in the atmosphere.
There are other, far more effective , and far higher concentrations, of GH gasses other than CO2, in the atmosphere ( eg, Water vapour, Methane )
The reason we have been directed to focus on CO2, is because it is the easiest to attempt to associate with human activity, measure, and put a cost on to gouge money out of developed nations.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Ianhill   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1997
Joined: Sep 25 2015 5:55pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Ianhill » Oct 08 2019 12:14am

Water vapour as in cloud formation ?
No I get there no blanket it's an expression the co2 is a minor part of the total atmosphere and humans input to that is a small fraction of that total again but same as a drop of potent snake poison can kill thousands of grown men the co2 is dangerous and is building up over time, if we got to prehistoric level with today's increased sun activity the temps would be much higher than what's ever been record of any period as the sun is fairly active at the moment in its orbit even if the 12 year sun spot activity is nearing its lowest point we have thousands of years till the sun brings a cooling period.

Like you say methane has a even worse effect on insulation effects and aerosol release would really seal the deal earth going to be sterilized by the sun.

I don't pretend to understand all of this mind I'm learning as i go I'm a basic elechicken, if it was not for you hillhater making the comments I would not be doing the research to try and understand earths natural process on top of our input.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10671
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 08 2019 1:29am

Ianhill wrote:
Oct 08 2019 12:14am
Water vapour as in cloud formation ?..
No, clouds are condensed water vapour.
Water vapour is an invisible gas with several unique properties.. such as latent heat release during phase change.
The whole field of GH gas behaviour in the earths atmosphere is another field of much dispute between scientists.
CO2 is not dangerous, it is essential for all life on earth...it is one of the “ building blocks” of life.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5514
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Oct 08 2019 2:49am

sendler2112 wrote:
Oct 07 2019 12:45pm
Germany did not produce those 7GW per year of new wind and solar capacity all by itself for those few years that it was at that level.
Germany will produce around 6.9million cars in 2019 with an embodied energy of around 20,000kWh each. That's 138 TWh. We have plenty of capacity to build clean generating equipment.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1326
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Oct 08 2019 9:14am

Social Democracy needs tax reform in order to fund the big projects that will carry us forward.
.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... althy.html

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1326
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Oct 08 2019 11:50am

This new battery report from 2018 confirms my suspicions that the .4 TWh/ year world total that I have seen quoted elsewhere is way high given for example that GigaFactory 1 is only at .02 TWh/ year for example. The report is showing data for 2015 delivered quantities in all sectors for Lithium cells of various chemistries as .060 TWh for the year. And projects the total to be just .22 TWh/ year at 2025. This is a far cry from satisfying the demand for 100 TWh total that we need just to replace all cars and light trucks. Not to mention stationary storage, farming, mining, and transport.
.
https://www.rechargebatteries.org/wp-co ... ril-18.pdf
.
.
Image
.

User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1970
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Oct 09 2019 12:23am

sendler2112 wrote:
Oct 08 2019 11:50am
This new battery report from 2018 confirms my suspicions that the .4 TWh/ year world total that I have seen quoted elsewhere is way high given for example that GigaFactory 1 is only at .02 TWh/ year for example. The report is showing data for 2015 delivered quantities in all sectors for Lithium cells of various chemistries as .060 TWh for the year. And projects the total to be just .22 TWh/ year at 2025. This is a far cry from satisfying the demand for 100 TWh total that we need just to replace all cars and light trucks. Not to mention stationary storage, farming, mining, and transport.
.
https://www.rechargebatteries.org/wp-co ... ril-18.pdf
Image
Yeah it was never going to happen in a short time.
There are some upsides to this though, we get to see how "mass lithium battery recycling" will happen.
I just can't help but think about the problem of mass battery dumping.
The recycling industry in Australia works by councils/gov paying money by the tonne to recyclers to take rubbish and make it go away.

Because the cost of energy went up in Victoria, all the regular rubbish recyclers of glass/cans/carboard etc stopped processing stuff locally and relied of China to take it all.
But then on top China stopped accepting recycable materials and the Aus federal government banned exporting to other south east asian countries because it was found all they were doing was acceping recycable material for money and then just burning it or dumping locally in landfil/ocean/rivers etc so there was no point.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/recyc ... 02b21315cd
The remarkable fact is that if recycling the dead simple stuff like glass/carboard/cans isn't viable then I am incredibly dubious about the dream of recycling lithium batteries, at least for Australia it looks like its all just going to get dumped somewhere.

Even ultra-green South Australia that likes to have the ideal models of the renewable energy dream even when its not viable are just taking old solar panels and dumping them land-fill after stripping the alumium sides off.
https://youtu.be/0L_lzUhitx8?t=194

If the amount of energy it takes to make a car is about 20MWh, then a good line I heard was "if you want to save the planet don't buy a new Tesla, but a second hand car".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*ADD*
For the last 6 months roughly all of Melbournes recycable waste has just been going to landfill as the only major "recyclers" business was sending it to China, or sending other states that dump it elsewhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKCHniXZ9Yw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqrlEsPoyJk


ABC 4 Corners did the best report on dodgy recyling in Australia where they even found a "recycling company" bought a golf course and closed it down for "renovations" only to just mass burry recycable material they had accepted from councils around Australia for money to make it all "disappear".
It was the amount of glass stocked piled that shocked me, I always thought glass was easy, but they had giant mountain of glass somewhere near a square km in size.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-07/ ... is/8778088
Image
Image
But because ABC refuse to upload their content to YouTube etc because they want hold onto as much power as possible at the inconvenience to taxpayers the 3-part episode video is now gone even from iView.
https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/trashed/8770146
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-19/ ... on/9673370

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another note, the news about our favorite god of clean energy has been kind of remarkable lately,
abbreviated points..
-Musk approved a smear campaign against British cave rescuer Unsworth in the UK/Aus press
-Musk's team offered $10k for each piece of new dirt on Unsworth
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ry ... king-idiot

Elon Musk paid convicted fraudster to spread false paedophile claims about British cave rescue hero, court documents allege
‘Thin-skilled billionaire’ sought to ‘destroy’ diver who helped save 12 schoolboys because he criticised his mini-submarine, say lawyers

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 1570559194
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Watch out bicyclists. Apparently not all #Tesla vehicles can see you now. If true, this bug/issue makes the vehicles even more dangerous for pedestrians.

"Have you guys noticed that bicycle detection on V10 has been removed?"

https://twitter.com/ShortingIsFun/statu ... 95457?s=20
Last edited by TheBeastie on Oct 09 2019 6:59am, edited 3 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

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3747
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Oct 09 2019 12:47am

The dead simple stuff is also the low value stuff. Recycling lead batteries is 99% circular because of the very high value of lead, and the desire to keep toxic metals out of the environment. I can't see why Li-ion battery recycling wouldn't be any different.

Found this video well worth watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKFOqMZ ... dex=2&t=0s

Glass is recyclable, but low value and energy intensive - so it's probably better off being re-used as road base.
Aluminium is medium value, but not nearly as energy intensive to recycle.
Copper is high value, energy intensive to recycle, but ultimately has good recovery rates because of its value.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10671
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 09 2019 4:52am

CLIMATE MODELS ARE BASED ON FLAT EARTH ASSUMPTION ! :lol: :lol:
Early climate and weather models, constrained by computing resources, made numerical approximations on modeling the real world. One process, the radiative transfer of sunlight through the atmosphere, has always been a costly component. As computational ability expanded, these models added resolution, processes, and numerical methods to reduce errors and become the Earth system models that we use today. While many of the original approximations have since been improved, one—that the Earth’s surface and atmosphere are locally flat—remains in current models. Correcting from flat to spherical atmospheres leads to regionally differential solar heating at rates comparable to the climate forcing by greenhouse gases and aerosols. In addition, spherical atmospheres change how we evaluate the aerosol direct radiative forcing.
Read all...
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/39/19330
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10671
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 09 2019 5:21am

Because the cost of energy went up in Victoria, all the regular rubbish recyclers of glass/cans/carboard etc stopped processing stuff locally and relied of China to take it all.....
Most of the recycling shipped offshore was/is plastics...due to the labour intensive recycling process required.
Paper, cardboard, are easy to separate in the waste stream, and continue to be locally recycled in huge quantities
Australia’s richest family, the Pratts, fortune is based on recycling paper waste.
Steel and Aluminuim cans are also simple to separate out of a waste stream ( Magnets and Eddy Current separators)
And are also still locally recycled ( near 90% recycled litterally back into cans !)
The difficult one is plastics...there is no simple way yet to separate them from other recycled waste, so it is a labour intensive ( costly) process. Then there are so many different types of plastic , many also laminated and coated with other products, that need sub-separation before any recycling process can be considered....with such low value end product, there is no commercial motivation to continue...even ignoring energy costs.
( Note: i just built a deck from boards made from old milk bottles and bamboo fiber ! :bigthumb: )
Glass, ..as jonescg said, is too low a value to recycle, but has uses in construction..so can be “reused”
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1326
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Oct 09 2019 6:09am

jonescg wrote:
Oct 09 2019 12:47am
The dead simple stuff is also the low value stuff. Recycling lead batteries is 99% circular because of the very high value of lead, and the desire to keep toxic metals out of the environment. I can't see why Li-ion battery recycling wouldn't be any different.
99% recycled may not equal "99% Circular". I couldn't find any modern data for lead batteries, which is one of the easiest packages and elements to work with because it is so dense. But in all recycling there will be a concept that could be described as "entropy" to the materials. Some portion of the material will always escape the process at each stage each time through and become diffuse to our use. We would be wise to design our fledgling EV industry with maximum recycling, rather than maximum energy density in mind.
.
Here is a study showing older primitive methods of lead production and recycling in 1970's China for example:
.
"Mao et al. [23] investigated the Chinese lead acid battery system and found that 16.2% of
the lead content of a battery is lost during mining and concentrating, 7.2% lost during primary
smelting, 13.6% is lost during secondary smelting and recycling processes, and 4.4% is lost during the
battery manufacturing process. These loss rates reflect losses with respect to final battery production
quantities"
.
http://www.electrochemsci.org/papers/vol8/80506457.pdf
.

Post Reply