Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
Cephalotus   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 585
Joined: Jun 18 2012 12:27pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Jul 30 2019 5:57am

furcifer wrote:
Jul 27 2019 2:46pm
Cephalotus wrote:
Jul 27 2019 12:48pm
Making steel: Can be done
etc...
Lol. :mrgreen:
http://www.hybritdevelopment.com/

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5169
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jul 30 2019 8:18am

Cephalotus wrote:
Jul 30 2019 5:56am
sendler2112 wrote:
Jul 27 2019 1:56pm

Not at anywhere close to this scale that supports modern civilization now. 17.5 TW average.
From that 7 TW is waste heat from power plants and 4 TW is waste heat from combustion engines in vehicles. And we didn't talk about losses from buildings and inefficient industries yet.
Now that is a very good point!

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 413
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Jul 30 2019 10:02am

The Megapack will be utilized for an upcoming energy storage project hosted by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) in Moss Landing, California once final approval from the state’s Public Utilities Commission is received. Under the project, Tesla’s battery-powered utility installation will store 182.5 megawatts of excess solar or wind energy to provide supplemental power during peak grid times for up to 4 hours at a time. It will take the place of natural gas “peaker” power plants, offering a much more efficient and clean alternative for Moss Landing’s energy needs.

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-megapac ... y-battery/

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2753
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jul 30 2019 11:43am

Cephalotus wrote:
Jul 30 2019 5:56am
From that 7 TW is waste heat from power plants and 4 TW is waste heat from combustion engines in vehicles. And we didn't talk about losses from buildings and inefficient industries yet.
Exactly.

There are two things many people miss when talking about energy. The first is that we care about USEFUL energy, not waste heat. For example, moving from NY to California currently takes tons of energy. But the amount of energy absolutely needed to do that? Zero. The goal is to move someone from one place to another, and right now the best way we have to do that is via car, bus, train or plane, and all those things take a lot of energy. But the TASK does not, just the methods we use to accomplish it.

Same thing with light. We care about the light we use to see with, not the energy used to produce it. Skylights, for example, take zero energy, and work just fine. LED lights use 4 to 10 times less energy as incandescents - but the amount of light is the same. Higher SEER air conditioners keep you just as cool, but use less energy. In all cases, it is the work done (to transport you, to light your home, to cool you) that has value, not the energy used to make that all happen.

The second is that a large percentage of our energy use is heat, and that's the easiest form of energy to get. A solar concentrator is a cheap and easy way to produce an almost unlimited amount of heat. But fuel is so cheap that it's cheaper to use fossil fuels to make cement.
--bill von

User avatar
Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2405
Joined: Feb 09 2007 3:02am
Location: Marlboro

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh » Jul 30 2019 2:18pm

the energy would've been wasted regardless.
wether we existed or not entropy fanz.

Image
Kick down the barricades Listen what the kids say.
From time to time people change their minds But the Frock is here to stay.
I've seen it all from the bottom to the top Everywhere I go the kids wanna Frock.
Around the world or around the block Everywhere I go the kids wanna Frock.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9924
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 30 2019 3:13pm

30 Jul: Reuters: China Belt and Road power investments surge from 2014-2019: study
by David Stanway
SHANGHAI – Chinese equity investment in solar, wind and coal power projects in Belt and Road countries has surged from 2014 to 2019, with planned capacity up more than tenfold compared to the previous five-year period, environmental group Greenpeace said…
According to a study published by Greenpeace on Monday, China’s wind and solar power investments in Belt and Road countries amounted to 12.6 gigawatts (GW) since the initiative was launched in 2014. It had invested in just 0.45 GW of solar prior to 2014…

The country has also invested in 67.9 gigawatts of new coal-fired power in Belt and Road countries since 2014, but Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner Liu Junyan said the increase in the share of renewables should be welcomed.
“Chinese investors’ ratio of coal to solar is now the same at home and abroad – both are still six-to-one (in favor of)coal, unfortunately, but I’m amazed to see what five years of equity investment in solar made possible,” Liu said…

China’s total coal-fired capacity also expected to rise by another 45 GW this year, with the total eventually expected to peak at around 1,300 GW, up from 1,140 GW at the end of last year, researchers from China’s State Grid said this month.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chin ... SKCN1UP093.
So,...thats 12.6 GW of “faceplate” capacity for wind/solar giving about 3.5 GW of real output....
Vs, 67.9 GW of coal capacity ..say 60.0 GW useable...
I wonder why , if wind and solar are so cheap ?....alledgedly .
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 526
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 30 2019 6:03pm

Ahh, for some reason I was thinking you meant the traditional way, but with wood or some biomass.

For sure, just about any process that uses coal to provide heat can be replaced. It's the cost per BTU that really determines how that goes. You have to think, if it costs a lot to make steel would we even use it? 2035 is a long ways away.

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 526
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 30 2019 6:11pm

billvon wrote:
Jul 29 2019 5:41pm
Just wait until he sees his first refrigerator! His mind will be BLOWN!
Wait until he sees a camp fridge that burns propane. :flame:

User avatar
jimw1960   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 772
Joined: Jul 23 2008 4:44pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jimw1960 » Jul 31 2019 8:19am

Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh wrote:
Jul 30 2019 2:18pm
the energy would've been wasted regardless.
wether we existed or not entropy fanz.

Image
It might have been "wasted" but it wouldn't have transferred a trillion tons of carbon from deep in the ground into the atmosphere.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9924
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jul 31 2019 11:43am

jimw1960 wrote:
Jul 31 2019 8:19am

It might have been "wasted" but it wouldn't have transferred a trillion tons of carbon from deep in the ground into the atmosphere.
Would you like to try another “guess” at that carbon tonnage in the atmosphere ?
It’s. pretty obvious you do not have a clue what the actual figure really is !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5169
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jul 31 2019 12:54pm

Oh man, you just can't stop embarrassing yourself :lol:

If it helps, the order goes thousands (10^3) - millions (10^6) - billions (10^9) - trillions (10^12)...

User avatar
Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2405
Joined: Feb 09 2007 3:02am
Location: Marlboro

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh » Jul 31 2019 1:12pm

jimw1960 wrote:
Jul 31 2019 8:19am
Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh wrote:
Jul 30 2019 2:18pm
the energy would've been wasted regardless.
wether we existed or not entropy fanz.

Image
It might have been "wasted" but it wouldn't have transferred a trillion tons of carbon from deep in the ground into the atmosphere.
wuz talkin bout waste, not transferrence.
Wikpedia wrote:A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent
kay, if it werkz for the goose i may as well give the ole strawman a shot:

an asteroid strike (a big wun, which is inevitable) would also transfer all that carbon into the atmosphere (along with everything/one else).

do you even know about entropy??
Kick down the barricades Listen what the kids say.
From time to time people change their minds But the Frock is here to stay.
I've seen it all from the bottom to the top Everywhere I go the kids wanna Frock.
Around the world or around the block Everywhere I go the kids wanna Frock.

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2753
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jul 31 2019 1:51pm

Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh wrote:
Jul 31 2019 1:12pm
an asteroid strike (a big wun, which is inevitable) would also transfer all that carbon into the atmosphere (along with everything/one else).
True dat.

Fun new source of CO2 - burning permafrost! Over 2 million acres of (former) permafrost is burning in Russia. As the climate warms, the tundra dries out and starts burning. The now-warm permafrost then melts, and the organics in the permafrost starts to burn as well, liberating their carbon into the atmosphere.

Perhaps we should change the name "permafrost." Tempafrost? Permacarbon?
--bill von

User avatar
jimw1960   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 772
Joined: Jul 23 2008 4:44pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jimw1960 » Jul 31 2019 4:42pm

Hillhater wrote:
Jul 31 2019 11:43am
jimw1960 wrote:
Jul 31 2019 8:19am

It might have been "wasted" but it wouldn't have transferred a trillion tons of carbon from deep in the ground into the atmosphere.
Would you like to try another “guess” at that carbon tonnage in the atmosphere ?
It’s. pretty obvious you do not have a clue what the actual figure really is !
35 billion tons of fossil co2 emissions each year amounts to about 10 billion tons carbon. Multiply that by 100 years and what do you get, genius?

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 526
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Jul 31 2019 11:07pm

billvon wrote:
Jul 31 2019 1:51pm
Fun new source of CO2 - burning permafrost! Over 2 million acres of (former) permafrost is burning in Russia. As the climate warms, the tundra dries out and starts burning. The now-warm permafrost then melts, and the organics in the permafrost starts to burn as well, liberating their carbon into the atmosphere.

Perhaps we should change the name "permafrost." Tempafrost? Permacarbon?
I'm not sure I'd call it a "source", it's kind of borderline. I believe most of that carbon is still part of the active carbon cycle and not really sequestered.

Sorry it this seems like a bit of a lecture, but people like hillhater really need to learn how to make the distinction between active CO2 and sequestered CO2. One is good and part of the "natural variation" and one isn't. You and I may get this but I think this is one of the things the Average Joe doesn't, and it tends to confuse them.

More to the point, I think this is one of those things that scientists worry about. Worry in the sense that climate change can have a cascade effect and make it that much harder to put the Genie back in the bottle. As much as I criticize people for being "alarmists" it's hard to see things like this and not wonder if we've already put things in motion and are completely powerless to stop it.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9924
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 01 2019 1:51am

jimw1960 wrote:
Jul 31 2019 4:42pm
Hillhater wrote:
Jul 31 2019 11:43am
jimw1960 wrote:
Jul 31 2019 8:19am

It might have been "wasted" but it wouldn't have transferred a trillion tons of carbon from deep in the ground into the atmosphere.
Would you like to try another “guess” at that carbon tonnage in the atmosphere ?
It’s. pretty obvious you do not have a clue what the actual figure really is !
35 billion tons of fossil co2 emissions each year amounts to about 10 billion tons carbon. Multiply that by 100 years and what do you get, genius?
A hundred years ago it was less than 1.0 Gt
In 1950 it was still less than 2.0 Gt
So,..... try again !
Whilst you are at it, would you care to guess how much of that is still in the atmosphere ?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5169
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Aug 01 2019 5:22am

No guessing required. Take the current mass of the atmosphere and multiply by the current CO2 concentration (w/w) to get total tonnes of CO2. Divide by the increase in CO2 concentration over the last 100 or 150 years to get the mass of excess CO2 in the atmosphere.

Yes, it makes a difference whether you talk CO2 or just C and whether you talk total emitted (just by fossil fuels or all human activities) or total remaining in the atmosphere (ignoring that taken by the oceans and forests) but the, which a 30 second google search would tell you, is roughly the same: 1 trillion tonnes. Or in simpler terms "a lot".
furcifer wrote:
Jul 31 2019 11:07pm

I'm not sure I'd call it a "source", it's kind of borderline. I believe most of that carbon is still part of the active carbon cycle and not really sequestered.
True, permafrost isn't truly sequestered like fossil fuels are, on a geological timescale. But on a human timescale they are. We're concerned about a critical period of only a few hundred years. We consider forests as sequestring CO2 and they're probably less permanent than permafrost.

Yep, climate tipping points are a concern. For something with such a potentially dangerous disastrous outcome they could approach so quietly we don't even notice till it's much too late.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9924
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 01 2019 9:45am

Punx0r wrote:
Aug 01 2019 5:22am
No guessing required. Take the current mass of the atmosphere and multiply by the current CO2 concentration (w/w) to get total tonnes of CO2. Divide by the increase in CO2 concentration over the last 100 or 150 years to get the mass of excess CO2 in the atmosphere.

Yes, it makes a difference whether you talk CO2 or just C and whether you talk total emitted (just by fossil fuels or all human activities) or total remaining in the atmosphere (ignoring that taken by the oceans and forests) but the, which a 30 second google search would tell you, is roughly the same: 1 trillion tonnes. Or in simpler terms "a lot".
That 1.0 Tt iis more like the total carbon in the atmosphere (@410ppm).
It’s not the increase (120ppm), let alone the remaining anthropogenic portion. (??ppm)
Try again ?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2753
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Aug 01 2019 6:23pm

furcifer wrote:
Jul 31 2019 11:07pm
I'm not sure I'd call it a "source", it's kind of borderline. I believe most of that carbon is still part of the active carbon cycle and not really sequestered.
If it's going to refreeze and return to the ice I'd agree with you. I don't know if that's a given in the timeframe we are looking at here (hundreds of years.)
--bill von

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2753
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Aug 01 2019 10:39pm

Punx0r wrote:
Jul 31 2019 12:54pm
Oh man, you just can't stop embarrassing yourself
Let him keep digging; it's fun to watch.
--bill von

furcifer   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 526
Joined: Dec 21 2018 12:36pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by furcifer » Aug 02 2019 12:37am

Punx0r wrote:
Aug 01 2019 5:22am
We consider forests as sequestring CO2 and they're probably less permanent than permafrost.
Actually I don't think we do unless they are brand new forests, which are pretty rare.

I believe technically a process needs to remove atmospheric carbon for thousands of years to be considered sequestration. The only way I can see that changing is if we somehow returned to pre-industrial levels of CO2. Till then we're so far in the red nothing really counts unless it's gone.

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5169
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Aug 02 2019 7:08am

I completely agree that it's not technically sequestered until it's buried in the ground as a solid or liquid compound. Perhaps forests (I agree they have to be new) and permafrost should be considered more of a temporary store. But for our practical purposes any such things that either remove CO2 or keep it out of the atmosphere long enough for the natural carbon cycle to take up the excess is an effective mechanism.
Hillhater wrote:
Aug 01 2019 9:45am

That 1.0 Tt iis more like the total carbon in the atmosphere (@410ppm).
It’s not the increase (120ppm), let alone the remaining anthropogenic portion. (??ppm)
Try again ?
Type "total mass of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" into google and click the top link.

User avatar
jimw1960   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 772
Joined: Jul 23 2008 4:44pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jimw1960 » Aug 02 2019 8:13am

Hillhater wrote:
Aug 01 2019 9:45am

That 1.0 Tt iis more like the total carbon in the atmosphere (@410ppm).
It’s not the increase (120ppm), let alone the remaining anthropogenic portion. (??ppm)
Try again ?
We are on track to double the atmospheric CO2 concentration before the end of this century if no action is taking. That's adding a over trillion tons since pre-industrial. As to guessing how much is still in the atmosphere, I don't have to guess. People a lot smarter than you have already done the math and it will take thousands of years to get back to preindustrial levels even if we stop emitting today: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keeli ... s-take-up/

When you are getting deeper and deeper into a hole, the best thing to do is to stop digging. That applies to both CO2 emissions and your misinformed opinions on the subject.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9924
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 02 2019 11:21am

Punx0r wrote:
Aug 02 2019 7:08am
Hillhater wrote:
Aug 01 2019 9:45am

That 1.0 Tt iis more like the total carbon in the atmosphere (@410ppm).
It’s not the increase (120ppm), let alone the remaining anthropogenic portion. (??ppm)
Try again ?
Type "total mass of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" into google and click the top link.
Since the question was about CARBON...try searching that instead !
Or perhaps you might prefer to find the conversion factor of how much Carbon in a tonne of CO2 :wink:
Last edited by Hillhater on Aug 02 2019 11:45am, edited 1 time in total.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9924
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 02 2019 11:34am

jimw1960 wrote:
Aug 02 2019 8:13am
We are on track to double the atmospheric CO2 concentration before the end of this century if no action is taking. That's adding a over trillion tons since pre-industrial. As to guessing how much is still in the atmosphere, I don't have to guess. People a lot smarter than you have already done the math and it will take thousands of years to get back to preindustrial levels even if we stop emitting today: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keeli ... s-take-up/

When you are getting deeper and deeper into a hole, the best thing to do is to stop digging. That applies to both CO2 emissions and your misinformed opinions on the subject.
Who is in the hole here ?
I notice you have now changed your ranting to CO2, from just Carbon..
Aug 01 2019 3:43am
jimw1960 wrote: ↑Aug 01 2019 12:19am

It might have been "wasted" but it wouldn't have transferred a trillion tons of carbon from deep in the ground into the atmosphere.
And why dont you state that figure for remaining ANTHROPOGENIC carbon in the atmosphere if you are so familiar with it ?
You guys are handy with bullsh1t , but a bit shy on real answers !
Have you figured out how that “fridge” idea was going to chill the icecap yet ?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Post Reply