Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10220
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 23 2019 8:00pm

So i take it that you cannot explain it ? :roll:
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3631
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Feb 23 2019 8:56pm

Without ANY context or explanation of what the acronyms mean, or how the data was arrived at, I'd say it means nothing...
Care to enlighten us with say, a link to the article it came from?

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 439
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Feb 23 2019 9:07pm

Punx0r wrote:
Feb 23 2019 7:31pm
It shows a correlation of 1 between your posts and whatever is posted on denialist blogs by know-nothing, self-professed experts spreading FUD about climate change :thumb:
:lol: :bigthumb:

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 439
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Feb 23 2019 9:07pm

jonescg wrote:
Feb 23 2019 8:56pm
Without ANY context or explanation of what the acronyms mean, or how the data was arrived at, I'd say it means nothing...
Care to enlighten us with say, a link to the article it came from?
+1 :thumb:

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2881
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 23 2019 10:02pm

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 23 2019 6:19pm
Who Can explain the correlation shown in thiis chart ?....
Simple. It shows the US High Cash NIMBYs (without maximum tantrums) vs the concentration of CO2. So as the number of rich, whiny NIMBYs climbs, CO2 climbs to support their habits.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10220
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 24 2019 2:27am

jonescg wrote:
Feb 23 2019 8:56pm
Without ANY context or explanation of what the acronyms mean, or how the data was arrived at, I'd say it means nothing...
Care to enlighten us with say, a link to the article it came from?
It is data analysed from the US Historical CLimatology Network ..
here..
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/dat ... ushcngiss/
...using the temperature “adjustments” compared with CO2 concentrations.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5290
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Feb 24 2019 4:47am

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 24 2019 2:27am
https://stevengoddard
So I was correct, then. You really will believe anything!

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2881
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 24 2019 11:02am

Punx0r wrote:
Feb 24 2019 4:47am
So I was correct, then. You really will believe anything!
If graphs from dodgy sources is today's topic, then this will REALLY prove that we have a problem:
Image
--bill von

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 439
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Feb 24 2019 12:08pm

billvon wrote:
Feb 24 2019 11:02am
If graphs from dodgy sources is today's topic, then this will REALLY prove that we have a problem:
Image
:lol: :bigthumb:

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10220
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 24 2019 6:36pm

So, nobody is prepared to explain the correlation ?..
....just "shooting the messenger" , and avoid the question, ...as usual . :roll:
That, in itself, says much about the respondants.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5290
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Feb 24 2019 7:01pm

Reference something from a source that isn't patently utter garbage and you'll get a better response.

Scientists really do critique the statistical analyses of each other. See the doubts and criticisms raised recently through official scientific channels about the LIGO data. Transparency in science really is enforced by peers.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10220
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 24 2019 7:07pm

Punx0r wrote:
Feb 24 2019 7:01pm
Reference something from a source that isn't patently utter garbage and you'll get a better response.
Which source do you not trust ?
....USHCN , or the CO2 measurements ?
It is simple data, publicly available.
Still trying to shoot the messenger..
Still avoiding the question.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5290
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Feb 24 2019 7:20pm

You post a chart with no context, reference or description and demand people provide an analysis of it when they can only guess what it is? That's either plain lazy or baiting.

I went over and above by googling the chart title. I got only partial matches and they were all junk denialist blogs crying "those darn crooked scientists are cooking the numbers again!", which confirmed my suspicions.

Honestly, I strongly urge you to consider reading a book or something - any source of information besides the dingy corners of the Internet.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1266
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 24 2019 8:23pm

Some new regions were added to electricitymap.org.
.
Ontario is very clean.
.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=co ... Code=CA-ON
.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10220
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 24 2019 9:10pm

Punx0r wrote:
Feb 24 2019 7:20pm
You post a chart with no context, reference or description and demand people provide an analysis of it when they can only guess what it is? That's either plain lazy or baiting.
I went over and above by googling the chart title. I got only partial matches and they were all junk denialist blogs crying "those darn crooked scientists are cooking the numbers again!", which confirmed my suspicions.
I did not demand any such analysis .
But im glad you wasted so much time searching for sources to discredit, but its simple data available to anyone.
The chart is self explanatory to anyone with a passing interest in climate data.
A simple plot of CO2 concentrations against temerature adjustments made by USHCN to historical records ..before publication.
It is irrelevent who collated the data or assembled the chart , the question is simple, ....
.....what is the explanation for such an obvious correlation ?
But you are obviously unable to provide any sensible input.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2881
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 24 2019 9:45pm

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 24 2019 6:36pm
So, nobody is prepared to explain the correlation ?..
Followed by
I did not demand any such analysis .
Classic.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10220
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 25 2019 1:13am

...Piiinnnggggg ! ....there goes another ricochet past the messenger !
11 responces to the original question..
1 requesting clarification..
10 avoiding the question and instead just taking cheap shots at the messenger.
As i said before ,..these responces say a lot about the writers mind set.!
Even you bill, must know the difference between a demand and a question ?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Feb 25 2019 3:35am

This is a great article on Molten Solt Reactors if anyone is curious..

What I love about the MSR designs (aside from being meltdown/leak proof) is the fact that because it's using a liquid salt uranium mixture it burns comparatively all the nuclear fuel, compared to today's solid fuel nuclear reactors that only burn about 5% of the nuclear fuel.
It's the ability of the molten salt nuclear fuel to move around the reactor vessel via self-heating/moving flow convection and "mix up" to burn all the fuel leaving no "nuclear waste" practically that makes it truly remarkable.
https://www.knowablemagazine.org/articl ... er-outlook
In retrospect, those 1970s-era nuclear planners would have done well to put serious money back into Oak Ridge’s molten salt program: As developers there tried to point out at the time, the continuous purification approach could have solved both the spent-fuel and proliferation problems at a stroke.

Here in the article they show off the heated up/melted liquid nuclear fuel vs its cooled down solid crystal state.
Image
sendler2112 wrote:
Feb 24 2019 8:23pm
Some new regions were added to electricitymap.org.
.
Ontario is very clean.
.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=co ... Code=CA-ON
.
Yep,
France is often/usually below 50grams of co2 per KWh
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=co ... tryCode=FR

But Wind/Solar based Germany or South Australia are often at 400grams of co2 per KWh despite massive installations of Wind/Solar and the most expensive power in the world, and on top they still massively cheat, Germany still has some nuclear and buys a lot of nuclear power over the border from France. South Australia buys a lot of coal power from Victoria's interstate grid.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=co ... ode=AUS-SA
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=co ... tryCode=DE

Like I said in my last post
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewt ... 5#p1445895
The real-world data shows Wind/Solar just is hopeless of effective lowering of CO2 emissions, pushing it is all for political power and money above sensible effectiveness.
Image
If we were comparing emissions as like with vehicle emitting technology it would be considered a complete JOKE!
https://twitter.com/energybants/status/ ... 1797714944

The other thing I have realized is that while electricity map is SEVERELY tweaked to make Wind/Solar look as good as possible it still fails horribly in persuasion on folks that wind/solar is effective on low co2 emissions because it has to also be truthful to some degree at the end of the day.

For example, Electricity map claims that SA or Victorias total online wind-farm capacity is about 1.5GW and 1.27GW but both states actually have almost 2GW online. Electricitymap is doing everything they can to make Renewables look great and effective but its really the perfect site to show off just how great Nuclear is for fighting co2.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=co ... de=AUS-VIC

https://anero.id/energy/wind-energy
South Australia 1,929MW of online-wind farm capacity installed. or 1.929GW
Victoria 1,740MW or 1.74GW

EM deliberately show lower "installed capacity" for both states so that when you see South Australia generating 500MW folks can then go "wow see! thats almost 50% capacity generation", when the wind is actually blowing..

But the reality is when you average it all out like the "France vs Germany" co2 real-world generation chart for the year Wind/Solar above it is just terrible.

So I still love electricitymap all up because it helps people see the real-world data even if its tweaked in Renewables favour, it just can't help hide the truth that wind/solar is a silly waste.

Bill Gates released a new video on social media which is a "thinly veiled" demonstration/speech on how Wind/Solar just wont really do anything to cut co2 emissions because of the real-world industrial complex that makes our lives what it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0__6kx-vTO4
It seems to be a more friendly and popular version of his lash out interview/video that came out last month
https://youtu.be/d1EB1zsxW0k?t=517

On another subject some of the new various 4th nuclear models continue to pass the approval processing system to get their projects built
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Artic ... an-process
https://twitter.com/TerrestrialMSR/stat ... 4359206912

Salt Is A Pillar Of Our Nuclear Future
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca ... 4d66265d59

So to me next gen nuclear really is the solution and as far as I am concerned Wind/Solar is really just money sucking environmentally damaging garbage that hinders the next generation energy future.

Starcore has also been getting through the approval process, there nuclear is gas cooled based
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Artic ... rCore-HTGR
http://starcorenuclear.ca/#!/welcome/
Overall these gas-based coolant nuclear reactors are the most creepy because in my little mind its hard idea to accept you can hold a gas, but the more I learn about nuclear the more you understand that the people behind this stuff are very smart and know what they are doing and it's not really dangerous at all.

The interesting thing about StarCore's business model is they want to do EVERYTHING for the customer/state, that is, abosrb the cost of building the reactor, run the reactor, and when its life ends, remove the reactor.
Their whole contract is about just supplying the low carbon MWh's of electricity to the grid that the state buys and not letting the state worry or have to put any upfront costs for anything.

StarCores model is the EXACT opposite of how Wind/Solar works now where ultimately the government pays for the Wind/Solar project to get built and some other private company just comes along and sits there running it and collecting all the subsidy money on top while taking zero risks. No wonder why electricity bills go up so much with the Wind/Solar model we have now.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even though folks like Bill Gates have now frequently publically lashed out as batteries as being the dumbest solution possible it still struggles to reach the public.

Last month when South Australia needed more power than it could get from any of its sources it turned on diesel generation for about 400MW of power and if you look very carefully you can see that just before they went to diesel same time they discharged ALL of their Tesla battery which is in BLUE colour on this chart in all of its glory and it almost nothing to help in reality.

But the problem is you can hardly see it. Why? Because grid batteries are comparatively very expensive and can be used up in a tiny amount of time, if you measure the land footprint of the SA Tesla battery on Googlemaps and extrapolate its size, it would need to be about 50km2 size to be truly useful, and it still doesn't create power it just "holds" power!

Despite it having the BIGGEST lithium battery in the world and despite South Australia being a TINY state of just 1million you need a magnifying glass to see the Tesla battery total energy grid input in blue colour on the charts. And this shouldn't be a shock to anyone if it wasn't for the fact the general public are being jam-packed with complete garbage information from broadcast spectrum privileged mainstream media that just makes people dumb, I am so looking forward to mobile 5G crushing the broadcast-media establishment. I am interested in seeing how broadcast media tries to get the general internet banned because its hurting their money and power.

Image
The worlds biggest Tesla battery at 130MWh was discharged for about 4 hours at 30MW, but a grid consuming 3000MW of power (100 times more electricity than the Tesla battery every second) you can't really see the Tesla lithium-ion battery contribution the grid, its 1-blue pixel line, its there if you look real hard.
And this is for a rather low population city/state of little over 1 million people. Bill Gates is very much right to lash out and pretty much say its the dumbest solution possible.

Fact is 3000MW is a medium sized nuclear power-station, SA could have built 1 medium sized nuclear power-station and been the Greenest lowest CO2 state in the entire world, but instead, they have around 10 times MORE co2 emissions and the most expensive electricity in the world compared to a country like Nuclear based France.
If people in SA weren't hurting so bad on power bills and economic destruction of job losses because no one can even afford to operate a cafe due to the energy requirements of a commercial grade coffee machine it would be funny joke.

While the Wind looked pretty good on the SA chart above, there has been the occasional WEEK where South Australia has had almost zero wind blowing, so it's almost all thermal generation emitting co2.
Image
Last edited by TheBeastie on Feb 25 2019 7:44am, edited 19 times in total.
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles rangehttps://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Consider PAS as your only throttle https://goo.gl/Kg1F8F
Fuel-Cell is the ultimate battery coupled with 4th-gen Nuclear
https://goo.gl/TcKtHs https://goo.gl/ZhFFot https://goo.gl/gfa215
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5290
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Feb 25 2019 5:03am

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 24 2019 9:10pm
The chart is self explanatory to anyone with a passing interest in climate data.
A simple plot of CO2 concentrations against temerature adjustments made by USHCN to historical records ..before publication.
You are aware of the difference between correlation and causation, right? Ref: Bill's chart on No. of pirates Vs. atmospheric CO2 concentration.

I can tell you the one thing your chart shows: That some temperature measurements taken ~100 years ago were less accurate than ones taken today. It's seem metrology made some advance over the last century. Who'd have thunk it?!

Of course, you have an agenda and will read into that chart whatever conspiracy reinforces your prior beliefs [why isn't there a "thumb down" smilie?].

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10220
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 25 2019 6:02am

It seems you havnt bothered , or dont want, to understand what the chart displays .!
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1266
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 25 2019 6:39am

TheBeastie wrote:
Feb 25 2019 3:35am
This is a great article on Molten Solt Reactors if anyone is curious..
As developers there tried to point out at the time, the continuous purification approach could have solved both the spent-fuel and proliferation problems at a stroke.[/i]
The concept of online fuel processing at each reactor was always the big hangup at Oak Ridge. But that was 1966. We can do much better with materials and design now. Which Thorcon, Terrestrial Energy, and Moltex have resolved by using central reprocessing plants. Moltex still uses molten fuel in rods as they believe the regulators will be more familiar with this format and quicker to accept it's certification because of the conventional tracking of fuel assemblies it allows. Thorcon and Terrestrial Energy use sealed cans that lift out and are transportable every 7 years to go back for service. They operate at near ambient pressure and use passive convective cooling. If the reactor ever did get too hot, a simple freeze plug melts and drains the molten salt to a catch tank where it goes sub-critical due to the lack of a moderator, solidifies in the tank, and just sits there. No human or electrical intervention needed. Truely walk away safe if society does collapse.
.
Too bad nuclear energy has been criminalized in the minds of the public for 30 years. People have no clue as to the scale of our energy consumption and what it does for human wellbeing. Wind and solar are not dense enough to replace even half of the 17 TW we are now using and storage at this scale is ridiculously expensive and will be immediately resource constrained long before we get even within a couple orders of magnitude of the 400 TWh that would be needed to continue running everything in the North during the dead of winter.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Sa ... Experiment
.
http://thorconpower.com/design
.
https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/techn ... -it-works/
.
https://www.moltexenergy.com/stablesaltreactors/
.

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5290
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Feb 25 2019 8:56am

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 25 2019 6:02am
It seems you havnt bothered , or dont want, to understand what the chart displays .!
I certainly bothered and I'm fairly comfortable I have grasped what it appears to show. Namely that greater correction has been applied to temperature measures recorded when CO2 levels were lower.

What do you believe it shows?

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1266
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 25 2019 6:30pm

Electrical pricing by region August 2017.
.
Image
.
.
https://stopthesethings.com/2017/08/13/ ... ed-france/
.

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 439
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Feb 25 2019 7:10pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Feb 25 2019 6:30pm
Electrical pricing by region August 2017.
So you'd consider that site a good source ? Citation from the top of the page :
We’re not here to debate the wind industry – we’re here to destroy it.

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3631
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Feb 25 2019 7:38pm

Re: South Australia's high retail electricity price - it has always been high. Even in the 1980s when solar was non-existent and wind generators were a twinkle in one's eye, South Australia paid almost twice as much for power as the rest of the country.

It's because it has poor coal reserves, and most of it's generation comes from expensive gas (which earns more on the export market than being used locally for power generation).

I feel like I've already said this a dozen times now...
Last edited by jonescg on Feb 25 2019 8:25pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply