Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 693
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jan 04, 2018 11:41 pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jan 04, 2018 10:22 pm
Remember where this all started ..?...electricity generation in high latitudes, solar being ineffective ??
No, this thread started out comparing wind and solar to coal, gasoline and nuclear. (Check out the title.)
So your gas supply pipe either has to be trans ocean, or you ship CNG/LNG with all the infrastructure and cost that implies ! Gas is only cheap if you have it available locally and cheap.
And coal is only cheap if you have it available locally, or have massive port facilities and rail lines to deliver it. A pipe is a lot easier.
.. We have already said Solar is a non starter...too far north (see Germanys current situation !)
Well, no, you have said that. The rest of the world has decided it is a starter, has started it, and is installing it at record rates. And that will be true no matter how much you deny it.
So we are back to good old dirty coal as the only realistic economical solution.
Which is why it's declining so rapidly in the US, despite a massive political effort to anoint it as the politically correct source? Hmm. Might have a problem with your logic there.
Unles you are one of those who believe burning millions of tons of wood chips is sustainable and renewable ?
Burning wood chips is indeed both sustainable and renewable (look up the definitions of those words) but it's not - and should not be - our main source of energy. It's a great secondary source when the wood is available anyway as trash.
--bill von

User avatar
TheBeastie
1 MW
1 MW
Posts: 1645
Joined: Jul 28, 2012 12:31 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Jan 05, 2018 2:08 am

billvon wrote:
Jan 04, 2018 11:41 pm
Burning wood chips is indeed both sustainable and renewable (look up the definitions of those words) but it's not - and should not be - our main source of energy. It's a great secondary source when the wood is available anyway as trash.
As long as it's grown back sure it is renewable but like most renewables its not environmentally friendly
Someone out there even made a meme to point this out.
Image

Tends to be the actions of more backward countries look at Haiti, almost everyone lives in rusted iron sheds built by billions of dollars of donations from charity organizations like the Red Cross
https://goo.gl/maps/v6hKhWQsyNK2

Compare that to the Dominican Republic on the very same island over the border where its a paradise
https://goo.gl/maps/vB7HgLC99Pw

You can see the lack of green between Haiti and the Dominican Republic from space
https://goo.gl/maps/vm2MYrhVs872

When coal first started to take off it was considered far cleaner source of fuel than burning wood as most of the emissions were just co2 instead of the epic smog effects neighborhoods get from burning wood just in their local fireplaces.
It take so much repeating to drill through the bias skull, so here is another way of looking at what is cleaner air and that is if you can "see" the smog then its not co2 as when you breath out you are releasing an epic high concentration of co2 at 40,000ppm
Image

I understand the mindset of most of the renewables mob now and that is its just about the money for them, they don't care about the environment.
Reminds me of the Terminate 1 scene "It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until all nature is dead, covered with solar panels or things of that nature"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu0rP2VWLWw

There are a few different types, it could be as mundane as a Tesla stock investor or some of the renewable energy businesses Al Gore is heavily invested in, if Al Gore was invested in nuclear we would never hear the end of it about the bias/hypocrisy but almost all of the folks who are into renewables have their greedy fingers riddled in the money of renewables tech one way or the other, its insanely disgusting.

The other mob type are frequently called "subsidy miners", these are often billion dollar corporations with their own lobbying departments (reneweconomy.com.au etc) that are just out there to suck as much money from subsidies on these projects that normally no normal business would touch to make as much money as possible and then abandon it.
Some of them are smaller players like this Suadi billionaire whos business team looked at Australia's a dumb government from his overseas palace to dip in and scoop up the money bonanza thats powered by voting Australian morons who believe what they see in Facebook renewable memes that largely power the whole operation, like this
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKCeK8CVoAEZabI.jpg
Image




Like this article starts of saying, with the money spent we could be like France and be done with this problem but because of easily absorbable renewable facebook memes we have to do what Germany has done and build 100% capacity in renewables only to find that at bad times of the year you only get 5.5% of the energy you hoped, what an ultimate way to rob a country blind of its money,

Taxpayers will have paid more than $60 billion through federal renewable energy subsidies by 2030, about twice what the crumbling car industry received over 15 years and enough to build about 10 large nuclear reactors.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... 7c8eb947fc

I understand in the face of folks getting their hands on so much money for silly garbage projects that we can't win, the corruption is too deep.
My biggest hope is the death of television which looks to be coming fast enough, if everything is internet based only source of information then people can at least be a simple google search away from Wikipedia and see that it takes 675km2 of solar panels etc to replace a conventional power-station.

The USA is leading the way with the death of traditional TV ironically with their "FCC incentive auctions" where the TV stations are allowed to sell their spectrum to mobile carriers, most have jumped onto it like a subsidy miner jumps on a bag of free money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_ ... ve_auction

None of the Australian commercial TV stations make money, they are just losing more and more easy year http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/in ... 9d333a202f
So it will only be a matter of time before they give up their 600Mhz spectrum which is now officially capable of being used in the 5G standard, so it can give everyone 1000mbps plus wireless data.
https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless ... g-standard
Introduction to the speed of 5G mobile https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEx_d0SjvS0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U2uFZN8qn4
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles range http://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Beware of dodgy 18650 cells! youtu.be/eOshOXcSkDA
Consider PAS as your only throttle http://goo.gl/m17J9j
CO2 is core to Photosynthesis https://youtu.be/t5mvDONB6FI
Check out the Bill Gates nuclear reactor https://goo.gl/Rtky9q
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8410
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 05, 2018 5:20 am

Bill, sure this "started out". As a generic RE thread, but it has had many sub-discussions along the way.
This particular one started back on page 48 (for me?) with Sendler posting the data on solar output during winter in the UK....
sendler2112 wrote:
Dec 29, 2017 5:49 am
billvon wrote:
Dec 29, 2017 12:44 am
Today solar is considerably cheaper.
Three months per year, when energy demand is the highest, solar basically doesn't work at all for weeks at a time in the UK. Or North East USA/ Canada. Or Russia.
You can't believe everything you read (write?) in heavily biased solar trade magazines. Open your eyes to what scientists are presenting in their videos.
.
Image
..So please try to keep in context..
....Solar is not practical or economical for much of the western nations in the upper part of the northern hemisphere, as proven by data from UK , Germany, Denmark, Etc etc.
So many of those countries need to "import" fuel for thermal plants to back up the unpredictability of Wind and reduction (political) of Nuclear generation.
Getting Fuel from Australia, Argentina, etc to China, India, etc cannot be done by "Pipes" , only bulk carrier shipping can make it economical, and Gas needs highly specialised custom built ships and port facilities at each end.
This is why most of the new capacity in those countries is Still coal fired. Coal handling, transportation and storage is simple and cheap in conventional shipping bulk carriers.
transportation of coal may add to its delivered cost, but nothing like the added cost of liquifying and pressurising gas.
Coal costs are artificially raised by the introduction of "Carbon Credits" which impose a politically contrived tax on fossil fuels and uses them to subsidise RE generation.
If you seriously think woodchip burning is any less environmentally menacing than coal, then you have a problem.
I guess you have fallen for the line of ..."only trimmings, toppings and fallen timber is used"... But you dont have to look far to know that is a sham....as Beastie indicated above.
The argument might have some credibility ( but not much) if the chipped forrests were actually replanted....but sadly the human weakness called greed seems to have caused major oversights in that department.
Even if replanted the time delay before new growth balanced out the lost forrests, simply makes it a joke.
Just another financial scheme for a select few alowed to partake.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4313
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jan 05, 2018 10:07 am

Burning wood is not ideal, but it's better all round (greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution) than burning coal.

Coal is definitely easier to transport halfway around the world, but from the point of view of the power station it is an awkward fuel compared to most other options. It requires processing before it can be burnt, it's dirty and the flue is full of chemical nasties.

Honestly, would you rather live next to a coal-fire power station or a solar farm?

The reduction in nuclear in Germany certainly partially politically-driven. In the UK nuclear is politically popular, if anything, but despite a government and industry push to build new plants, plans to do so have floundered for years because compared to the alternatives it is technically difficult, expensive and carries large future liabilities.

France is king when it comes to nuclear power. Currently it accounts for 75% of its energy mix! But they are not marching forth building new ones. In fact they aim to reduce this to 50% by 2025 in favour of RE: http://www.world-nuclear.org/informatio ... rance.aspx

User avatar
wineboyrider
100 MW
100 MW
Posts: 2929
Joined: Sep 30, 2009 9:08 am
Location: Tularosa, New Mexico
Contact:

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by wineboyrider » Jan 05, 2018 12:12 pm

In New Mexico natural gas production is declining? http://www.naturalgasintel.com/sanjuaninfo
While coal production is increasing? https://climatewest.org/2016/05/04/a-da ... ransition/
Meanwhile we are closing coal plants and energy prices are increasing.
Plus, we have abundant oil as we have the permian basin..http://www.currentargus.com/story/news/ ... 000878001/
ES IS SAVED! THANK YOU JUSTIN.

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 629
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 05, 2018 12:53 pm

Wow! Great article. Interesting that France is wise enough to realize that solar is ok for the daytime and summer cooling peaks so the statement about the reduction of nuclear % share from 75% to 50% is misleading since the total production of electricity from Nuclear will stay the same while the increased amount from RE will just plan to cover peaks and growth while the reactors shift a bit more toward load following with "gray" control rods. And they have plans and contracts to install 40 new Nuclear plants in the next decades to replace some of the current fleet which will soon be timing out. There is a new GenIII+ design and 3 new GenIV designs in the works.
.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/informatio ... rance.aspx
.

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 693
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jan 05, 2018 12:54 pm

wineboyrider wrote:
Jan 05, 2018 12:12 pm
In New Mexico natural gas production is declining? http://www.naturalgasintel.com/sanjuaninfo
While coal production is increasing? https://climatewest.org/2016/05/04/a-da ... ransition/
Of course. There will always be locations where you can find a counter-trend to any overall larger trend. But as a whole, people are switching to NG from coal because it's cheaper, cleaner and easier to use.

In 2015, 28% of our electrical power came from natural gas; almost 40% came from coal. In 2016 coal represented 30% of our generation; natural gas represented 38%. That trend will continue for simple economic and environmental reasons.

One good thing about natural gas power plants is that they are cheap and easy to build, and their exhaust is not as dangerous. So they can be built closer to population centers and in larger numbers. They are also much easier to throttle, so they can track unreliable generation much more closely. Sometimes in large population centers (like Los Angeles) there's a problem getting enough natural gas to the plants during peak demand times, especially when old storage facilities start failing. This can be solved with renewables, since every gigawatt-hour of solar generated (for example) is 400,000 cubic meters of natural gas you don't have to store - so your existing facilities will go farther and farther as solar/wind buildout continues.
--bill von

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8410
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 05, 2018 7:08 pm

Punx0r wrote:
Jan 05, 2018 10:07 am
....
Honestly, would you rather live next to a coal-fire power station or a solar farm?...
If i lived in the Uk or Germany, ( or NY at the moment !) etc, and it was the only source of power, i would rather the (modern) coal plant.
When its sub zero, dark, and you want a hot drink, ...any power is better than none.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 629
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 06, 2018 10:28 am

Hillhater wrote:
Jan 05, 2018 7:08 pm
If i lived in the Uk or Germany, ( or NY at the moment !) etc, and it was the only source of power, i would rather the (modern) coal plant.
When its sub zero, dark, and you want a hot drink, ...any power is better than none.
Don't forget western Russia which has a lot of people and is usually very cold. Although for the last two winters the instability of the polar vortex has seen the jet stream dip into the USA and spare Russia with much higher than normal temps. -5F, -20C in NY again this morning. It is difficult to get a scale of biofuels + renwables which can sustain this infrastucture in cold winters for 100's of Millions of people throughout Canada and the USA after the fossil fuels slip out of reach economically in 50 years.
.
We will need to come up with an entirely new socio-economic system wherby it is easier for most people in Northern climates to migrate South (or just move as I will encourage my Daughter to do after her Grandfather and inlaws are gone). No wonder Russia wants Crimea. I'm sure it is a pardise in Winter compared to Moscow.
.
And eventually there will once again be much less people. Down to the level that the regional land can actually support without all of these big machines. The sooner we understand this and quit wishing for an impossible techno salvation for never ending growth, the more effectively we can focus what we have left to smooth the transition.

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 693
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jan 06, 2018 4:47 pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Jan 06, 2018 10:28 am
And eventually there will once again be much less people. Down to the level that the regional land can actually support without all of these big machines. The sooner we understand this and quit wishing for an impossible techno salvation for never ending growth, the more effectively we can focus what we have left to smooth the transition.
Off topic, but the best way to make that happen is to support women's education. Nothing brings birthrate down faster than educated women. Camfed is a good charity in this area.
--bill von

User avatar
Ianhill
100 kW
100 kW
Posts: 1133
Joined: Sep 25, 2015 5:55 pm
Location: Wales UK

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Ianhill » Jan 06, 2018 7:00 pm

I don't think nuclear should be on the list myself with its waste being dumped at sea until the mid 90's the policy being the solution is dilution and that's without the bomb efforts that USA shoved in a hole then concreted over and left a string of islands with kids skin falling off.
We keep thinking we can fix the fault but fact is we have already poisened our planet and it's a time game, strange how cancers are becoming more common i know no one answers me it's just about cheap energy but that got us Into this mess that will eventually eliminate us all not just a portion of population.
Woman's education may stop pregnancys but mens previous actions will stop the human race in the long run. Tell me I'm mad but just look at our nuclear past and see what we used to do, you will be disgusted.
The UK has 25000 barrels of waste off its coast at a depth of 100 metres and they are all rotting and dispersing it also pipes the stuff out there with around 500kg of plutonium lost to the sea the local wildlife has traces of it and humans that live closer have more of it in they teeth 5han those further away so it must be getting into in the rain, it's a sad state of affairs cancers everywhere just have a liitle think why Mars is so attractive this place is to far gone the damage has been done and it's already affecting our health for many of thousands of years to come let alone the climate so we be damn lucky to get through this mess as a species.

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 629
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 06, 2018 7:12 pm


sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 629
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 06, 2018 7:25 pm


User avatar
Ianhill
100 kW
100 kW
Posts: 1133
Joined: Sep 25, 2015 5:55 pm
Location: Wales UK

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Ianhill » Jan 06, 2018 7:33 pm

Who would have thought all doc brown had to do to power the delorIan in 2015 was go fishing and shove a trout in the flux capacitor.

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 629
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 06, 2018 8:01 pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Jan 06, 2018 10:28 am
Hillhater wrote:
Jan 05, 2018 7:08 pm
If i lived in the Uk or Germany, ( or NY at the moment !) etc, and it was the only source of power, i would rather the (modern) coal plant.
When its sub zero, dark, and you want a hot drink, ...any power is better than none.
Don't forget western Russia which has a lot of people and is usually very cold. Although for the last two winters the instability of the polar vortex has seen the jet stream dip into the USA and spare Russia with much higher than normal temps. -5F, -20C in NY again this morning. It is difficult to get a scale of biofuels + renwables which can sustain this infrastucture in cold winters for 100's of Millions of people throughout Canada and the USA after the fossil fuels slip out of reach economically in 50 years.
.
We will need to come up with an entirely new socio-economic system wherby it is easier for most people in Northern climates to migrate South (or just move as I will encourage my Daughter to do after her Grandfather and inlaws are gone). No wonder Russia wants Crimea. I'm sure it is a paradise in Winter compared to Moscow.
.
And eventually there will once again be much less people. Down to the level that the regional land can actually support without all of these big machines. The sooner we understand this and quit wishing for an impossible techno salvation for never ending growth, the more effectively we can focus what we have left to smooth the transition.

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 693
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jan 06, 2018 10:51 pm

Ianhill wrote:
Jan 06, 2018 7:00 pm
The UK has 25000 barrels of waste off its coast at a depth of 100 metres and they are all rotting and dispersing it also pipes the stuff out there with around 500kg of plutonium lost to the sea the local wildlife has traces of it and humans that live closer have more of it in they teeth 5han those further away so it must be getting into in the rain, it's a sad state of affairs cancers everywhere just have a liitle think why Mars is so attractive this place is to far gone the damage has been done and it's already affecting our health for many of thousands of years to come let alone the climate so we be damn lucky to get through this mess as a species.
That's an odd thing to say, considering how much radiation you'd be exposed to on the surface of Mars.
--bill von

User avatar
Ianhill
100 kW
100 kW
Posts: 1133
Joined: Sep 25, 2015 5:55 pm
Location: Wales UK

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Ianhill » Jan 07, 2018 1:16 am

Something is going on when we get more interest in the news of possible ways of escaping our rock when the news that really would make a shocking headline gets covered up.
I don't see what the he'll is going on once we try to connect the dots it becomes clear it's all been a disjointed mess with not one knowing what the other is truly doing so the actual state of the oceans and air quality is anyone's guess but even with a limited fraction of visable light I can see the mess we leave behind us, more energy we use bigger the mess so far.

Maybe mar's could be a retreat to the elite if they manage to make a habitat section underground or setup a magnetic shield of sorts.
With current energy generation tech all we will be doing is starting the mess again on another rock in the long run we even got space covered in junk just a messy bunch of animals.

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 629
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 07, 2018 8:58 am

Ianhill wrote:
Jan 07, 2018 1:16 am
Maybe mar's could be a retreat to the elite
We need to totally forget living on Mars. Such a concept falls squarely into the catagory of can't happen. Along with dreams of grabbing asteroids and bringing them back to Earth orbit to mine them for metals. Ect. Grasping at Start Trek futures is a total waste of valuable resources, both material and intellect. How much better off would we (they) be in 50 (10,000) years if Elon would build 10 more Gigafactories instead of BigFalconRockets.
.
Focus the affordable liquid fuel we have left on building out hydro and installing wind and solar designed to last 100's of years. Mine batteries for transportation and install a system of electric rail. Relocate population where it makes sense to live, with infrustucture and living quarters that are designed to last 100's of years. Terrace land and put in irrigation close to these places where people can grow food using muscle for power as we did for 12,000 years before fossil fuel. Think of everything we can to get it ready for "them" while we still have the energy to do big things.
.
You have become fixated on nuclear waste as if it has already unleashed the demise of life on Earth. Background radiation is normal. It comes from rocks. It comes from the Sun. Just 200 years ago, people used to die at age 60 from pneumonia or an infected broken hip. Now we give them a few pills in bottle and new hip joints so they can live long enough for the inevitable cancer to kill them at 80. We take diet pills to keep from getting fat from all of the extra food we grow with hormones in it and pesticide sprayed on it. Who knows what that does?
.
.
Image
.
.

User avatar
Ianhill
100 kW
100 kW
Posts: 1133
Joined: Sep 25, 2015 5:55 pm
Location: Wales UK

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Ianhill » Jan 07, 2018 6:28 pm

Background radiation is not the same as ingesting radation supplyed by the enviroment both are dangerous in different ways and the amounts to cause damage to cells are much less with ingestion.
Most country's are the same the amount spent on war efforts alone would likely give a big boost to our future but instead more deadly weapons are Constructed so claim my fingers off the pulse but earth's future will be more clearer than I can some people are living longer others are dying young with leukemia it's clear to me that the damage is done it could be worse but we have introduced danger danger danger.
Means as you like charts here's one for you.
_IMG_000000_000000.jpg
(248.34 KiB) Not downloaded yet

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8410
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 07, 2018 8:30 pm

Germany...leading the world with RE power ?
A noted German Economist has studied the progress of "energiewende" and comments on future posibilities.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/12/22/majo ... 6Tqoq.dpbs
....In summary, Sinn claims it is unrealistic to believe that Germany can power itself with only wind and sun due to their immense supply volatility and that it is already a huge challenge in itself just to replace coal, oil and gas for producing electricity. Coal, oil and gas for electricity make up only a puny 12.8% of German total energy demand (chart 6:25-mark). He says:....
"As far as the rest, you can dream about it, but you cannot do it. […] It was disillusionment from the very start, and it’s important that this be made very clear.”
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 629
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 07, 2018 8:53 pm

Ianhill wrote:
Jan 07, 2018 6:28 pm
Means as you like charts here's one for you.
_IMG_000000_000000.jpg
So what is that chart? There was no cancer there whatsoever before 1973?
.
Looks like being down wind from early coal plants before they cleaned them up was pretty bad for more than the fish in the Adirondack lakes.
.
.
Image
.
.

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 629
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 07, 2018 10:51 pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jan 07, 2018 8:30 pm
Germany...leading the world with RE power ?
A noted German Economist has studied the progress of "energiewende" and comments on future posibilities.
We keep talking just about electricity in this thread but it is very important to remember that total energy will be 4-5 times that and requires a different quality for things like big farm and mining machines which currently run on diesel fuel. In the comments section of the German video someone mentions David MaKay again and his presentation really is very good.
.
Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air with David MacKay
.
https://youtu.be/GFosQtEqzSE
.

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4313
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jan 08, 2018 5:50 am

We do need some serious alternatives for stationery storage. Although it's impressive what has been done with them, LiCo 18650's are completely inappropriate IMO: far too energy/materials/process intensive and just won't scale without huge effort. We need big lumps or tanks full of simple organic materials. Flow batteries might do it, maybe some solid-state cell that will last decades with zero maintenance. Thousands or millions of tiny metal cans full of highly refined chemicals and rare metals doesn't feel right.
Hillhater wrote:
Jan 05, 2018 7:08 pm
Punx0r wrote:
Jan 05, 2018 10:07 am
....
Honestly, would you rather live next to a coal-fire power station or a solar farm?...
If i lived in the Uk or Germany, ( or NY at the moment !) etc, and it was the only source of power, i would rather the (modern) coal plant.
When its sub zero, dark, and you want a hot drink, ...any power is better than none.
Seems you changed the premise of the question. I'll rephrase: you live in Aus and get electricity either way: how much SoX, particulates and mercury would you like to breathe all day?

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8410
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 08, 2018 6:43 am

Punx0r wrote:
Jan 08, 2018 5:50 am
Seems you changed the premise of the question. I'll rephrase: you live in Aus and get electricity either way: how much SoX, particulates and mercury would you like to breathe all day?
Did I ?..considering the discussion was about power production in northern climates, i thought it was an apropriate answer.
But to your rephrased question,...i dont want to breath any of those,..but i will still chose the (modern) coal plant as those emmissions can be minimised to safe levels, and i still need power all day/night,.....not just 6 hours, ....(and sometimes none when the weather is bad.).....it still gets very cold here !, as well as hot at night such that A/C is obligatory.

PS ...I dont think anyone is using LiCo 18650s for commercial power storage ?, certainly not Tesla.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8410
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 08, 2018 7:07 am

UK pay £108M in a year for wind farms to be SWITCHED OFF !....
WIND farms are awarded more money for turning off their turbines than keeping them on,
The UK facilities were paid a whopping £108million last year for not producing electricity so the National Grid could manage power supplies.
That is around 40 per cent more than they make in subsidies for keeping the turbines going.
That is particularly true in Scotland, where there has been a surge in the number of farms, encouraged by Holyrood.
Critics say the payments show the wind sector has become “overheated”, with the extra costs ultimately passed on to the taxpayer through higher bills…

The REF said the payments had soared over the past five years, from under £6million in 2012 to 2017’s record figure…
The foundation’s figures show wind farms make £70 per MWh for turning off their turbines, compared to an average of £49 per MWh in customer subsidies when producing power…
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/90101 ... ional-Grid
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Post Reply