Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
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 » May 01 2018 5:13pm

sendler2112 wrote:
May 01 2018 11:39am

Image
is it worth point out that at the start of this chart the Earth wasn't habitable to human life? Also, over the period of time covered by that chart there have been at least five mass-extinctions that would have killed all human life? Further, the entire time humans have actually existed isn't even visible as a slither on that chart. Hardly relevant to the rapid warming that has occurred over the last ~150 years.

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 » May 01 2018 5:17pm

That chart image is also hotlinked from the below page which explains in detail why it does not disprove the link between CO2 and global temperature: https://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo ... hange.html

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 » May 01 2018 5:27pm

jimw1960 wrote:
May 01 2018 1:26pm
Seriously my denier friends, it all boils down to this: Show me your model. If you believe it's possible to emit over 30 billion tons of fossil CO2 each year without raising global temperatures, then show me a plausible physics-based model that explains how that is possible. To date, nobody has been able to do that without defying the laws of physics. Conversely, I can show you dozens of peer reviewed and validated models that predict warming will occur.
Its hard to reason with anyone who is convinced that 30bnT is more relavent than likely variation (+_ 10-??% variation). in the "estimated" 750 bnT of natural emissions
Theorys, models, predictions, peer reviewed papers, ....all very unconvincing !
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 » May 01 2018 6:12pm

Punx0r wrote:
May 01 2018 5:17pm
That chart image is also hotlinked from the below page which explains in detail why it does not disprove the link between CO2 and global temperature: https://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo ... hange.html
Here is the closing paragraph from the hotlink site.
.
What will our climate be like in the future? That is the question scientists are asking and seeking answers to currently. The causes of "global warming" and climate change are today being popularly described in terms of human activities. However, climate change is something that happens constantly on its own. If humans are in fact altering Earth's climate with our cars, electrical powerplants, and factories these changes must be larger than the natural climate variability in order to be measurable. So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.

billvon   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2016
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » May 01 2018 6:28pm

sendler2112 wrote:
May 01 2018 6:12pm
Here is the closing paragraph from the hotlink site.
.
What will our climate be like in the future? That is the question scientists are asking and seeking answers to currently. The causes of "global warming" and climate change are today being popularly described in terms of human activities. However, climate change is something that happens constantly on its own. If humans are in fact altering Earth's climate with our cars, electrical powerplants, and factories these changes must be larger than the natural climate variability in order to be measurable. So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.
This is the closing paragraph in the article in the post you replied to:

The paleoclimate record in fact provides excellent evidence that CO2 can have a marked effect on global temperatures, both as a forcing and a feedback. When other natural climate drivers are taken into account, levels of atmospheric CO2 are shown to be consistent with the expected radiative forcing necessary to match past temperature reconstructions.
--bill von

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 » May 01 2018 6:53pm


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 » May 02 2018 1:43am

OK seems like its all going to be about co2 for a while until that wears out..
Even though I have brought it up multiple times and even shown google maps satellite url/views of new HELE coal stations being built I will point it out again. New HELE coal power-station being built in the UAE https://goo.gl/maps/Drgyx1ns6Kn https://goo.gl/maps/hUjWahD9aho
When those of you arguing that coal is killing everyone while drinking a can of coke and eating junk food please understand that HELE coal power-stations, by default, the cheapest versions of them, only emit co2 as everything else is filtered out (up to 99%).
So its no different than you breathing out 40,000ppm co2.
The more expensive HELE coal power-station versions can capture and store the co2, but the cost per MWh is more expensive of course.

https://www.worldcoal.org/sites/default ... 0pages.pdf
Producing electricity from coal can result in the release of trace elements, such as mercury, selenium and arsenic and varying degrees of oxides of sulphur (SOx) and nitrogen (NOx), which can be harmful to human health and the environment. Cleaner coal technologies, such as electrostatic precipitators, fabric filters, selective catalytic reduction systems, wet and dry scrubbers, sorbents and activated carbon injection can reduce the emissions of pollutants from coal combustion by between 90% and 99.9% by stripping out the pollutants before they are emitted in the atmosphere through the smokestack.

*Add/Edit*
I made a meme, "Let's Make Coal Cool Again". I know this may sound amusing, but I had this silly idea that if the government could pay GnR a billion dollars to be the ambassador of clean coal, GNR would accept it. This could make coal more accepted and keep the world going until more practical long-term technologies arrive like the Bill Gates Nuclear reactor, which uses nuclear waste as fuel and is cheaper than coal. Even though paying GnR a billion dollars seems like a waste of money I think its cheaper in the long run and will reduce economic burden and pain than what renewables are causing in states. ( States like South Australia where they cant afford to even recycle stuff because electricity to process it is too expensive http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/ ... f72faec181 )
I think GnR being quite a popular group from a wide audience age range, they would be the best choice to be the ambassador of clean coal.
gnr_coal_cool_meme1.jpg
Let's Make Coal Cool Again
gnr_coal_cool_meme1.jpg (141.84 KiB) Viewed 609 times
https://www.ge.com/power/transform/arti ... l-plants-i
https://www.worldcoal.org/reducing-co2- ... ssion-coal

The reason why co2 ppm levels can be 10 times higher inside than outside is because of YOU and your "pollutant" co2 generating lungs. Humans are carbon-based, because carbon is one of the most abundant elements in the universe, oxygen binds to your carbon as it processed in your body and pass out of your lungs, generating co2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-based_life
Image
The whole "what about the carbon cycle" argument is really just a red-herring/chewbacca-defense used to complicate the argument ( https://youtu.be/clKi92j6eLE ), its totally moronic, because with carbon and oxygen being the 3 and 4th most abundant elements in the entire universe, where these elements sit really doesn't matter, just as carbon base humans merely breathing generates an incredible amount of co2. Two Oxygen atoms easily to bind to a single atom of carbon and become a gas, that's why co2 gas is so easily created.
Its the generation of co2 that is the biggest factor, that is what is important to atmospheric co2 ppm readings.

As this video shows, you exhale 100x more co2 than you inhaled with every breath.
https://youtu.be/ozgROE1xCM4


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_di ... physiology
The body produces approximately 2.3 pounds (1.0 kg) of carbon dioxide per day per person,[121] containing 0.63 pounds (290 g) of carbon.
290grams of carbon atoms, 710grams of oxygen atoms.
We are at just under 8 billion people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
8billion x 1kg = 8 billion kilos of co2 per day from breathing. 8 million tons per day.
8million x 365_days_per_year = 2,920,000,000 tons annual or 2.92billion tons co2 annual.

How everyones breathing co2 emissions compares to coal emissions is quite interesting. Again I can't stress it enough, the location of carbon atoms whether sitting on the ground or inside someone's body makes no difference until those carbon atoms get attached to 2 oxygen atoms creating co2 gas. The argument of were carbon atoms come from is a complete distraction from the relevant or important issue, its a red-herring. If water vapor suddenly increased in the atmosphere by 10 times, would it matter where it came from considering the world is mostly ocean, or would it matter more how the 10 times increase got there??? These carbon-cycle morons are trying to argue its the location of the water thats the problem.
In this chart you can see India has only begun with its fossil fuel burning to catch up to China, and because its a 3rd world country its free under international rules to build as many coal power-stations as it wants. There is no logical reason why India wont eventually consume more electricity than China, especially since its a warmer country, Queensland uses a considerably larger amount of electricity than Victoria simply because its warmer and requires more air conditioners.
Image

Cold water holds 5x more co2 than warm water https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9H3_sMheKk
How Classrooms Slow Your Brain Down due to co2 ppm buildup in rooms
https://youtu.be/as0WDl7lGvU

There might well be co2 attributing to warming but we have had an epic increase in co2 ppm levels and we can't see any more accelerating warming than what has happened over the last 10,000 years, it just continues on at its incredibly slow natural pace. It's a perfect situation for ever lasting scientific debate. I think once we hit 800ppm or at least close and folks cant for the life of them see any difference in their eye based sea level markers the alarmism will be over. But Al Gore will be ultra rich by then and electric flying cars will be exclusive to the rich only because the price of electricity will be too much for the average person, at least if the current trends with renewables continue.

The last 10,000 years have caused the sea level rises, they have marrooned the aboriginals in Tasmania from the mainland as I was saying before with the Wikipedia links, but these movements are ignoring co2 charts because its a movement out of an ice-age.
The science screams you are going to have to wait 1000s of years for sea levels to become a problem and the science says looking back over the 10,000 years that there was nothing you can do about it, controlling co2 levels didn't mean anything over the last 10,000 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aborigina ... settlement
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&start=1825#p1374036

The well-respected science behind Woolly Mammoth is that the last one died about 3600 years ago, of course, due to global warming, not related to co2 levels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolly_mammoth

The reason why Russia keeps building bigger and bigger nuclear-powered ice-breaker ships is because the ice keeps getting thicker vertically rather than horizontally/sea ice extent measurements, this fact doesn't sell well on alarmist news sites.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20 ... the-arctic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-p ... cebreakers

The only clear and easily visible destructive effects we have seen for sure on the environment from the climate change alarmism is from the destruction of forests and other landscapes for the deployment of renewable energy.
Like I pointed out before Germany has removed, probably into the 1,000s, patches of forest for Solar panels that deliver around 10% of the claimed capacity, those lost trees could have helped with co2 sequestration which the NASA models show helps a lot. https://youtu.be/x1SgmFa0r04?t=1m
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozgROE1xCM4
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&start=1725#p1366356
https://goo.gl/maps/WFdC3pmvGjt

The latest "real-world" data shows the world is only getting better with new records of polar bears in the world etc.
https://www.thegwpf.org/as-polar-bear-n ... es-status/
https://polarbearscience.com/2017/02/23 ... ost-30000/
Video by Dr Susan Crockford, a Canadian wildlife expert, documents the latest findings about rising polar bear numbers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bcCTFnGZ0


Instead of looking at NASA/NOAA sea level charts that can show the difference of a millionth of a millimeter, just look at the real world. Look at the polar bears and look at the missing trees from Solar panels.
Image

Islands are getting bigger, not smaller. This should all be basic common knowledge, less some folks are deliberately refusing it look at the real-world and are instead strictly sticking to media outlets that are based on profiting from their vulnerability to alarmist information. All these articles are great.
Pacific islands 'growing not shrinking' due to climate change
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... hange.html
https://inhabitat.com/sinking-island-na ... y-growing/
Sinking' Pacific nation is getting bigger: study
https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-n ... igger.html
https://www.sciencealert.com/pacific-is ... ing-bigger
Image
When there is so much money and power at stake I am surprised a mob behind Al Gore hasn't funded exploding a low yield nuclear device or conventional MOAB bomb under a small island just to sink it and use the footage for climate change doom, I really don't think it's beneath them. I guess the difficulty and deniability of doing such a thing keeps the islands safe.

I like this guys youtube channels videos on the topic, he uses NASA and NOAA to undermine the arguments a bit like how anyone can use crappy performing realworld/EIA.gov energy generation stats of renewables to undermine renewables.

This is his latest video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzFx_tTx0ms



Thanks for that, that was really interesting, I like the video where the kid gets whacked for accidentally stumbling out in front of the camera when he was clearly told to stay away. I guess that kid can be proud hes making the world a better place.

Back to energy. Here is a reasonably new whacky renewable energy idea. Alge for transportable fuel. Says it requires 40 times less land than terrestrial biofuels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExOXF1x3N1g

One of the things thats easily notable when looking on Electricitrymap is seeing the wind go down to Zero MW generation or at something close and seeing constantly the Biomass generation at near 100% 24/7 which is a world of difference. If you could directly attach cost of outages of wind energy like the countless $14,000MWh spot prices in SA for example, to the LCOE charts, wind would look a lot different on overall cost.
The biomass LCOE numbers look quite fair and can produce the power when you want it and even be portable forms from algae, in the potential future doomsday world where fossil fuels just don't exist it would look quite practical to use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_e ... ted_States

Talking about reliable energy reminded me of this I saw a few days ago.
When looking at news on the web I came across this, where the main Airport for the Netherlands had proudly announced to start running from %100 renewables from the start of 2018 was shut down due to a massive power failure and the wind happened to be near dead for the Dutch. Maybe if it was all biofuels they would have fared better, but I assume it was a combined effect of complexities failure, probably not much power around, in general, couldn't be diverted, intermediate local fossil fuel generator backups ran out.
Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport was temporarily closed early on Sunday as a large power outage hit all operations at one of Europe’s busiest airports.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-neth ... SKBN1I0053
http://www.euronews.com/2018/04/29/powe ... ol-airport
https://news.schiphol.com/royal-schipho ... -from-2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5QCQBNJ62g

Image
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DbyzGAtUwAAFLnr.jpg
Its easy to find the Netherlands wind generation bobbing in and out of 0-1% capacity
sendler2112 wrote:
May 01 2018 6:53pm
Sorry. Somehow I ended up here.
.
http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carbonife ... imate.html
Another great article Sendler.
Frankly, I think it's impossible to read articles like that and choose to believe CO2 is a serious problem.
And to me, it reminds me of how similar the issue is to the sugar industry where they fight the claims sugar is bad for you for money.
This episode from ABC Four Corners, called "Tipping The Scales" shows the greed/influence money causes people to do.
They don't upload it to Youtube for some reason, so new convenient bookmark/time URLs on the most interesting bits.
https://www.pscp.tv/w/1BdGYRAAZjAJX
There is a bit about how honest doctor who was trying to give diet help to reduce sugar to his patients has received "anonymous complains" to the medical board (from the sugar industry) that he's technically not allowed to give such advice and only a full-time dietician is technically allowed to give such advice..

And how the health sector deliberately chose to do unhelpful procedures on people simply because of the money they get paid doing it or to prescribe drugs that don't help. Watch it all or watch this bit to glean what it's about..
https://youtu.be/H4uVNywg848?t=11m56s
To me I find it truly remarkable some folks don't see how traditional industries that are well known to be influenced by money like big tobacco, sugar, and big pharma can't include Al Gores fight on co2 / the fight of forcing people to buy renewable energy that wouldn't have a hope in hell in a free energy market.

As the final similarity with renewables and big pharma is, as Germany has well and truly proven, (despite still having quite a large nuclear deployment themselves) is that despite having a Wind/solar capacity installation technically capable of providing as much as 100% of their energy requirements at times, it doesn't really do much at all in actually lowing overall co2 emissions compared to the Nuclear based France.
To me, it's like taking statins vs exercise and healthy eating.
Image
What will be great is when Germany shuts down the rest of its Nuclear, then its total CO2 emissions vs France should blast higher to as much as 20 times more CO2 overall than France.
Last edited by TheBeastie on May 13 2018 2:43am, edited 30 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
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 » May 02 2018 10:49am

Hillhater wrote:
May 01 2018 5:27pm
Its hard to reason with anyone wjho is convinced that 30bnT is more relavent than likely variation (+_ 10-??% variation). in the "estimated" 750 bnT of natural emissions
Theorys, models, predictions, peer reviewed papers, ....all very unconvincing !
Your claim of 750bn tons of natural emissions is false. The oceans degassing and reabsorbing the same CO2 does not count as a source. The 30bn tons of new fossil CO2 that humans create is more than 100 times all other natural sources combined, including volcanoes. I've explained that to you before but you choose to remain ignorant.

billvon   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2016
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » May 02 2018 11:27am

TheBeastie wrote:
May 02 2018 1:43am
When those of you arguing that coal is killing everyone while drinking a can of coke and eating junk food please understand that HELE coal power-stations, by default, the cheapest versions of them only emit co2 as EVERYTHING else is filtered out. So its no different than you breathing out 40,000ppm co2.
Coal fired power plants account for 42% of the mercury emitted into the ecosystem of the US. They emit mercury, thorium, uranium, particulates, sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide. Many plants are getting better at filtering these pollutants out of their exhaust stream. None are 100% effective. And even those that are 99.9% effective still end up with thousands of tons of those materials - which they put in unlined, open air pits. It then blows away and/or leaches into the water table.

So unless you're eating a lot of mercury, that's another claim busted.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/fi ... v1_tsd.pdf
There might well be co2 attributing to warming but we have had an epic increase in co2 ppm levels and we can't see any more accelerating warming than what has happened over the last 10,000 years, it just continues on at its incredibly slow natural pace.
Image
--bill von

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 » May 02 2018 12:20pm

Beastie also doesn't seem to understand the difference between fossil CO2 and the closed-cycle CO2 from animal/human respiration and why that difference is important. I couldn't make it past the first paragraph of his incoherent manifesto without finding several errors of fact and illogical conclusions.

User avatar
liveforphysics   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 13990
Joined: Oct 29 2008 1:48am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by liveforphysics » May 02 2018 2:02pm

Plants only grow better as CO2 levels increase up to the point the soils acid buffering abilities saturate, then the plants rapidly die from increased CO2. I found this out the hard way in trying to hotrod plants. The roots require O2 and pH close to neutral, the canopy can handle much more CO2 than the roots. Experimentally tested my own human body was able to survive CO2 levels that were killing the plants from acidification of the roots (and given more time perhaps would deplete my human blood pH buffering and start killing me too.)

Humans continued burning things in a closed system irrefutably ensures their conclusion as a species. It would be incredibly clear to see this if the scale of spaceship earth's passenger compartment was sized to be easier to see as finite.
Each carcinogen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for cancer.

Each mutagen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for reproductive genetic defects in your children.

Each engine start sprays them into a shared atmosphere which includes beings not offered an opportunity to consent accepting these cancer experiences and defective genetics life experiences.

Every post is a free gift to the collective of minds composing the living bleeding edge of LEV development on our spaceship.

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 » May 02 2018 6:21pm

jimw1960 wrote:
May 02 2018 10:49am
Your claim of 750bn tons of natural emissions is false. ......
The 750 bnT is incorrect......it should be 750 GT...a typo on my part.
Dont pretend you have not seen that figure before, its the often repeated "Natural Flux" of the "Carbon Cycle" as reported in the IPCC reports amoungst other sources.
Image
But i just used those figures because billvon posted them here....
.........The atmosphere exchanges about 750 gigatons of CO2 a year. Before 1850 it remained in balance; animals, fires, volcanic activity etc released CO2, plants and chemical processes absorbed it.
Then we came along. Today we are emitting 36 gigatons of CO2 a year. Of that, about half is handled by the existing carbon cycle. .....
jimw1960 wrote:
May 02 2018 10:49am
......... The oceans degassing and reabsorbing the same CO2 does not count as a source. The 30bn tons of new fossil CO2 that humans create is more than 100 times all other natural sources combined, including volcanoes. ?....
Well that novel !... Most climate scientists and organisations agree that soil. Vegitation, and oceans are sources of co2 emissions (totaling approx 750gt), as well acting as sinks...but not in total balance.
Most seem to agree that natural sinks adsorb up to 50% of the FF emissions also.
Please explain your math concept that makes 30 , more than 100 times 750 ?? :roll:
And i repeat, that 750gt is only an estimate , extrapolated from data obtained in a small sample of highly variable sources, with an unknown error range ...which is very likely many times more than the 30gt that you quote !
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 » May 02 2018 7:50pm

But atmospheric CO2 is rising. For sure. No question since the 60's when direct measurements became common. And the world has been hotter for the last two decades. Maybe the Sun will give us a break coming up. All of this is secondary to me. We have a much bigger problem. Resource depletion wrecking the free market, debt based economy. We have a lot of growing up to do as a civilization to avoid world war III when oil truly tips over the top in 2050.

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 » May 03 2018 3:31am

Yes.
Anyone can buy a co2 meter and see the co2 ppm levels outside/inside. https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=co2+monitor
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/K6EAAOSw ... -l1600.jpg

Interestingly the co2 NASA sats show the highest co2 ppm levels on maps over Chinese areas with high concentrations of population and little plant life to absorb it, combined effects of industry, low winds for dispersal and just having a lot more people than anywhere else in the world breathing and exhaling co2 adds up.

Its no coincidence that areas like Shandong in China has little green vegetation and a high population would show up on the oco2 NASA satellites so easily. In fact and in general, the very light-green to grey areas line up with the dark red areas on the NASA co2 map quite well.
https://goo.gl/maps/AyHccWbchYM2
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/ ... p?id=89117
Image
2018-05-03.jpg
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

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 » May 03 2018 9:25am

Hillhater wrote:
May 02 2018 6:21pm
The 750 bnT is incorrect......it should be 750 GT...a typo on my part.
Dont pretend you have not seen that figure before, its the often repeated "Natural Flux" of the "Carbon Cycle" as reported in the IPCC reports amoungst other sources.
Image

Please explain your math concept that makes 30 , more than 100 times 750 ?? :roll:
Yes, that same chart was posted in the thread in the Toxic section where you pretended not to understand the difference between "gross" and "net" emissions.

Also, you know that a gigaton is a billion tons, right? 10^9?

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 » May 03 2018 7:53pm

I guess i have to repeat myself again...
The problem with "gross", and "net" , in the climate debate is there is no accurate data for any of these figures.
FFuel emmissions are estimated from consumption. Probably as close as we can get.
Natural emmissions are estimated from very low % sampling regime , the data extrapolated to a global scale
Natural sinks are estimated from even less sampling and many assumptions.
Even these limited sampling systems have indicated huge variations in flux rates over time.
But most of the "models" seem to agree ( convenient ?) that 750gt is the natural flux rate and 29-36 gt is the FF contribution.
Note that although FF is the most monitored , measured, sampled, and calculated,.....it still seems to vary by +_ 10% depending on which source you pick. !
What does that suggest for the "natural" emmission and sink estimates ?.. Even if only the same +- 10% error exists in those estimates then 750 could be out by many times the maximum estimated FF emmissions.
Incase you are struggling with those numbers, the natural emmissions may easily be 825gt , and the natural sinks could equally be 675 gt .
So easily a 150gt "net" error ...or 5 times the suggested FFuel emmissions
So now you may understand why i dont instantly accept the 30 gt "NET" increase in emmissions caused by FFuels
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 » May 03 2018 8:06pm

sendler2112 wrote:
May 02 2018 7:50pm
....... All of this is secondary to me. We have a much bigger problem. Resource depletion wrecking the free market, debt based economy. We have a lot of growing up to do as a civilization to avoid world war III when oil truly tips over the top in 2050.
I agree, the CO2 debate like debating religeon....the various viewpoints will never converge.
But i doubt The next war will be over oil, or water(even more vital) , or energy sources of any form.
Man has always found far more trivial reasons for creating warfare.
Religeon is probably the most common, with Race closely involved.
Simple greed for food, money (gold) , land, etc
Even Power and Ego, have been causes of major conflicts.
It doesnt take much of an excuse for humans to start killing each other.
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 » May 04 2018 2:46am

Hillhater wrote:
May 03 2018 7:53pm
But most of the "models" seem to agree ( convenient ?) that 750gt is the natural flux rate and 29-36 gt is the FF contribution.
Note that although FF is the most monitored , measured, sampled, and calculated,.....it still seems to vary by +_ 10% depending on which source you pick. !
What does that suggest for the "natural" emmission and sink estimates ?.. Even if only the same +- 10% error exists in those estimates then 750 could be out by many times the maximum estimated FF emmissions.
Incase you are struggling with those numbers, the natural emmissions may easily be 825gt , and the natural sinks could equally be 675 gt .
So easily a 150gt "net" error ...or 5 times the suggested FFuel emmissions
So now you may understand why i dont instantly accept the 30 gt "NET" increase in emmissions caused by FFuels
So, your argument is that based on your personal estimates of the uncertainty of measurement for natural carbon emissions & sinks, the natural net carbon emission (without any influence from man) would swing wildly from negative to positive over a period of decades? In a way it hasn't ever done before? And the recent steep rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature over the same period man started burning fossil fuels is pure coincidence? Right.

By any chance was your last job working for Big Tobacco arguing that there was no "evidence" of a link between smoking and lung cancer?

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 » May 04 2018 3:20am

If you are not able to see the potential errors in the estimates, and the relative scale of those errors compared to the best estimation of FFuel emissions, then you are devoid of logical thinking.
There is plenty of evidence to show CO 2 levels have varies wildly over history, prior to any possible human influence,
Because Co2 levels , mans FFuel use, and temperature appear to change in correlation with each other does not prove either one is caused by any of the others.
It has been shown that increase in ambient temperature has a significant effect on soil and ocean CO2 emission rates. and it has also been shown that the CO2 increases, lag the temperature increase ....(even though you dont agree)
So , no, i cannot agree to FFuel being the primary cause of increase in CO2 levels.
That is just too simple and convenient explanation in a very complex ecosystem.
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 » May 04 2018 8:04am

Hillhater wrote:
May 03 2018 7:53pm
I guess i have to repeat myself again...
The problem with "gross", and "net" , in the climate debate is there is no accurate data for any of these figures.
We know with very great accuracy how much petroleum, coal, and natural gas is produced and burned every year. This is the NEW CO2 that is being added as a NET SOURCE. Everything else in your picture is just the same carbon exchanging back and forth from the oceans and forest cover. This fossil CO2 is adding to the concentrations in the atmosphere and the NET uptake of CO2 by the Oceans and resulting acidification. The fact that the increased CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning can also be confirmed with high accuracy by isotopic analyses. Fossil sources of CO2 are isotopically "dead," meaning they have zero carbon-14 isotope, the fact that increased atmospheric CO2 is also accompanied by a higher percentage of dead carbon confirms this as the source. Also, if the source of the increase is due to fossil fuel burning, you would also expect a decrease in oxygen concentrations, because each carbon molecule is binding up two oxygen molecules. This is also confirmed by observations.

Picture it like this: you have two big swimming pools next to each other with pumps that pumps water back and forth between the two at a high rate. There is some uncertainty in this rate, but we know that it is pretty high. The pools never overflow because there is no net addition of new water, no matter if the pumping rate is high. Now someone comes along and turns on a small garden hose that trickles into one of the pools at a steady rate that is only a small fraction of the rate the pumps, but we know what this rate is with high accuracy. Eventually, the pools are going to fill up and overflow because you are adding NEW water to the system. Further, since you know the rate of the flow from the hose and the size of your pools, you can accurately predict when the pools will fill up, even without knowing the rate of exchange between pools with high accuracy. I don't imagine you will be capable to understand this analogy, but there it is. You have been told. You could research yourself and find out that I am right if you would read something other than denier propaganda. Now it is your choice of weather you want to remain ignorant of the truth.

billvon   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2016
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » May 04 2018 10:48am

jimw1960 wrote:
May 04 2018 8:04am
I don't imagine you will be capable to understand this analogy, but there it is. You have been told. You could research yourself and find out that I am right if you would read something other than denier propaganda. Now it is your choice of weather you want to remain ignorant of the truth.
To paraphrase Upton Sinclair:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his entire worldview depends on his not understanding it.”
--bill von

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 » May 04 2018 1:05pm

Hillhater wrote:
May 04 2018 3:20am
There is plenty of evidence to show CO 2 levels have varies wildly over history, prior to any possible human influence,
Awesome, you made a quantifiable and verifiable claim. OK, so given that atmospheric CO2 concentration was ~290PPM in 1880 and was ~400PPM in 2015 giving a rate of change of 110PPM OR 38% over 135 years. Please tell us the dates of when a change of this magnitude last occurred.

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 » May 05 2018 8:19am

New Nate Hagens (forward thinker) video.
.
https://youtu.be/rrN0lbbSVOA
.
compare and contrast to the "Superheroes" video
.
https://youtu.be/YUSpsT6Oqrg
.

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 » May 07 2018 4:06pm

Global battery shortage has been hanging up Tesla production and now hits Hyundai.
.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/11 ... tric-sales
.

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 » May 07 2018 10:50pm

sendler2112 wrote:
May 07 2018 4:06pm
Global battery shortage has been hanging up Tesla production and now hits Hyundai.
.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/11 ... tric-sales
.
Yeah, I think think the real reason why Elon Musk has been getting so agitated by even those that are part of the "supporting analysts" for Tesla when being quizzed about the company, isn't because of Model 3 production, but cheap battery supplies.
I can't find the URL for it but I watched on the CNBC business tv channel a whole bit about how those 2 analysts who quizzed Elon on the investor call were known long-term bulls/supportive of Tesla stock, which is why of course they probably pressed Elon so hard on questions because they want to be able to reassure their buy Tesla stock claims.. But Elon just didn't want a bar of it on being quizzed on the company
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/elon ... all-2018-5

It seems pretty clear the Model 3 production problems were largely due to Elon wanting to try advanced robotics in manufacturing where he was told it wouldn't make things any faster or cheaper but he wanted to try them anyway. Now that part of the production setup failed, its back to normal methods now and Tesla will eventually meet their production targets on the Model 3.
But now the real problem that I think is deeply frustrating Elon is the fact battery materials are only going to get more expensive and there is nothing he can do about it. Apparently, the biggest shorters of Tesla stock aren't shorting because of car production count problems but because they see the battery just going up in price long term.
But anyone can dig up a reneweconomy battery article and claim "batteries are going to get way cheaper".
The issue with Tesla is that the self-driving tech etc is behind or no better than other major manufacturers, the only real advantage Tesla has is the cheapest and best performing batteries and its initial headstart in the EV market, but that doesn't help much if EV batteries are set to stay stagnant or more probably increase cost over the next few years if the shorters are correct.

So I think we are really at that point of what do you want to believe, a very openly agitated man or other.

For me I am not that interested in Tesla as a car company makes it or not, I am more interested in the battery side of things.
Because I think the biggest hope hardcore renewable energy fans have is affordable lithium storage will make wind-farms more viable. I think all the bad headlines of states/countries having the most expensive electricity in the world also all very coincidentally having the largest wind-turbines per capita in the world is hard to avoid connection and reality.
While mainstream media will deliberately ignore this connections for the medium term and continue to be very supportive of wind-farms, (such as strictly only pointing their installed capacity rather than saying anything about their expected capacity factor) this support will only go on for so long before they decide some accurate truth might provide a better read for their customers.
Last edited by TheBeastie on May 07 2018 11:19pm, edited 5 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

Post Reply