Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
- Thread starter Hillhater
- Start date
To do that you'd need to sort it and clean it. And if you did that you could recycle it a whole lot easier than you could burn it.ZeroEm said:
To get those power levels you're going to need to connect to the traction pack. That's not cheap. Best way is with a ChaDeMo or a CCS interface - but again, not cheap.
Hillhater
100 TW
Exactly how is that a help bill ?billvon said:
Some rough numbers ...
Japans electricity consumption...110 GW /hr..or 2,640GWh per day.
To supply even 50% of that , 1,300 GWh using solar would need ..6,500 GW of solar capacity (@20% CF)
I dont believe there is a 1+ GW solar plant yet constructed ?....and we would need 6500 of them
:lol: AND all that is before you think about the conversion efficiency of a hydrogen generator or the costs/ practicalities of a plant on that scale !
IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN !
======================================Hillhater said:
Magnet doubles hydrogen yield from water splitting
Aligning the spin states of oxygen intermediates overcomes a bottleneck in electrolysis
by Mark Peplow
JUNE 14, 2019
Using nothing more than a $10 magnet, researchers have doubled the hydrogen output of a water-splitting electrolyzer (Nat. Energy 2019, DOI: 10.1038/s41560-019-0404-4). If the approach can be scaled up, it has the potential to slash the costs of producing hydrogen from water, making the clean-burning fuel greener.
Hydrogen is often touted as a clean fuel because its combustion produces no carbon dioxide or other pollutants, only water. But about half of the world’s hydrogen is made by steam-methane reforming, which is responsible for about 3% of our global CO2 emissions.
Only 4% of hydrogen is made by the electrolysis of water, largely because the process is so expensive. Reducing the cost of electrolysis—or increasing its hydrogen yield—offers a route for the gas to become an economically viable fuel produced by renewable electricity.
Alkaline water electrolysis is the cheaper of the two commercially available technologies and has been used for over 50 years, but it is less efficient than expensive polymer electrolyte membrane systems. “The advantage of alkaline conditions is that you can use really abundant metals in the electrodes,” says José Ramón Galán-Mascarós at the Institute of Chemical Research of Catalonia (ICIQ), who led the magnet research.
=====================
I love these sorts of predictions.
1876, the President of Western Union: “The idea [of the telephone] is idiotic on the face of it. Furthermore, why would any person want to use this ungainly and impractical device when he can send a messenger to the telegraph office and have a clear written message sent to any large city in the United States?”
1889, Thomas Edison: "Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever."
1895, Lord Kelvin: "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
1903, the president of Michigan Savings Bank: “The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty—a fad.”
1904, a Paris brain specialist: “An auto running at the rate of 80 miles per hour is running without the guidance of the brain, and the many disastrous results are not to be marveled at.”
1910, Harvard astronomer William Pickering: "The popular mind often pictures gigantic flying machines speeding across the Atlantic, carrying innumerable passengers. It seems safe to say that such ideas must be wholly visionary."
1920, New York Times: "A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth's atmosphere."
1946, 20th Century Fox executive: “Television won’t be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night.”
1966, Time Magazine: “Remote shopping, while entirely feasible, will flop—because women like to get out of the house, like to handle the merchandise, like to be able to change their minds.”
1977, Ken Olson of DEC: “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.”
2007, CEO of Microsoft - “There’s no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance.”
And in my lifetime I've heard that:
Solar will never amount to anything
Space travel will never be cheap, reliable or regular
EV's will never make it. Never!
Computers will never change people's lives. No one wants to stare at a screen and type.
Happy to see so many predictions failing.
Hillhater
100 TW
Take this one to the bank bill....
IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN !
IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN !
billvon said:
Yes, I believe this is the problem. The clean plastic that can be sorted is easily recycled. It's the other stuff we pack into shipping containers and dump in Malaysia.
A friend of mine was into recycling greenhouse waste. They generate huge amounts of waste, mostly plastic and rockwool. It's incredibly difficult to separate the plastic from the rockwool. What's even harder is separating the rockwool from the water. What's even harder than that is burning water.
Mind you none of this is impossible to do, it's just very expensive. At the moment we are literally burying our heads to the problems we have with waste. Things are much better than they were 30 years ago, which people take to be an improvement. In reality it was atrocious 30 years ago and is really bad today. As our supply of cheap fossil fuels starts to diminish the problem with our trash is going to become much more apparent.
On a side note, in only the last few weeks I've seen a few places using paper straws instead of plastic. And boy so they suck! It's a good thing they make you feel better about not putting plastic into the trash.
Hillhater
100 TW
Technology will be the reason this will never happen.billvon said:
A solution will be found to provide sufficient levels of power locally such that rediculous ideas like this are never needed.
And its only a matter of time until this whole CO2 hoax will revealed and the motivation for expensive , unrealistic, low carbon solutions, will evaporate.
And you can take that to the bank also !
Yes, that's the ticket. The supposed moon landing, the CO2 hoax, the so-called Kennedy assassination, the alien takeover of Malaysia flight 370, the whole evolution hoax, what really happened on 9/11 - when will all the sheep take their blinders off, ignore the government propaganda and see the TRUTH?Hillhater said:
Hillhater
100 TW
???... having trouble organising your thought now bill ??
ZeroEm
1 MW
Did not know you were one of them, welcome to Texas!
TheBeastie
1 MW
Has anyone watched the newly released HBO miniseries called Chernobyl?
It was entertaining but still kind of painful to watch because they massively exaggerated the dangers/issues suggesting a nuclear blast that could level a sizeable chunk of Europe could happen etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll#List_of_accidents
Here is a far more realistic take on Chernobyl than the HBO TV show here below on YouTube.
The HBO Chernobyl serious was full of so much rubbish, claiming multi-megaton sized nuclear explosion could happen etc. if these very same claims made in HBO's Chernobyl were made by a "nobody" on YouTube, the YouTuber's channel would be arbitrarily banned for conspiracy talk.
This is another example of why I think we need all new level ultra-strong free speech laws, laws so strong that people who merely even consider/conspire to inhibit free speech should be sent to jail, let alone actually doing it, I can't stress this enough.
Ideally, I think the "free market" via free speech should play out nicely over the coming years in YouTube via debunkers that will slaughter all the conspiracy claims that still exist in Youtube/MainStream-Media. There will always be a percentage of dumb people who believe conspiracy theories, but that's literally no different than people who believe the claims of HBO's Chernobyl.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsdLDFtbdrA
[youtube]SsdLDFtbdrA[/youtube]
We live in an incredibly dumb world, and people/ideas need to be more or less very much open for brutal criticism in a verbal/worded fashion. Because very bad things happen in the world when people/ideas/things aren't criticized, far worse than hurt feelings.
This seems to be almost the other main story of the HBO Chernobyl miniseries, it shows the results of an ideology where speaking your mind is the last thing you want to do or be rewarded for, the results cause the Chernobyl meltdown disaster in the first place and deaths that followed. This is the power of broken ideologies, the western world also suffers from broken ideologies. Randomly chosen interesting reference videos on ideologies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhi2icRXbHo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cVdiVDSNLk
It was entertaining but still kind of painful to watch because they massively exaggerated the dangers/issues suggesting a nuclear blast that could level a sizeable chunk of Europe could happen etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll#List_of_accidents
Here is a far more realistic take on Chernobyl than the HBO TV show here below on YouTube.
The HBO Chernobyl serious was full of so much rubbish, claiming multi-megaton sized nuclear explosion could happen etc. if these very same claims made in HBO's Chernobyl were made by a "nobody" on YouTube, the YouTuber's channel would be arbitrarily banned for conspiracy talk.
This is another example of why I think we need all new level ultra-strong free speech laws, laws so strong that people who merely even consider/conspire to inhibit free speech should be sent to jail, let alone actually doing it, I can't stress this enough.
Ideally, I think the "free market" via free speech should play out nicely over the coming years in YouTube via debunkers that will slaughter all the conspiracy claims that still exist in Youtube/MainStream-Media. There will always be a percentage of dumb people who believe conspiracy theories, but that's literally no different than people who believe the claims of HBO's Chernobyl.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsdLDFtbdrA
[youtube]SsdLDFtbdrA[/youtube]
We live in an incredibly dumb world, and people/ideas need to be more or less very much open for brutal criticism in a verbal/worded fashion. Because very bad things happen in the world when people/ideas/things aren't criticized, far worse than hurt feelings.
This seems to be almost the other main story of the HBO Chernobyl miniseries, it shows the results of an ideology where speaking your mind is the last thing you want to do or be rewarded for, the results cause the Chernobyl meltdown disaster in the first place and deaths that followed. This is the power of broken ideologies, the western world also suffers from broken ideologies. Randomly chosen interesting reference videos on ideologies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhi2icRXbHo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cVdiVDSNLk
Hillhater said:
It's been 40 years and the evidence continues to grow in favor of climate change. It's it's a hoax then mother nature is in on it.
To be blunt, climate change and CO2 aren't a hoax. It's measurable and verifiable, all denial aside. The problem is the effects aren't as obvious. This is where the actual grey area is on the matter. Confusing the two just shows a bias and complete lack of either objectivity or understanding.
TheBeastie said:
Geesh, I hope not. YT is becoming a hotbed for the liberal agenda and is a private platform that doesn't have to adhere to the first amendment. This is troubling considering how many people get their "news" from YT and FB. Troubling indeed.
Hillhater
100 TW
Correct !furcifer said:
History demonstrates how the climate is in a continuous state of change. Mother Nature has had a hand in that even before humans came along, and will continue to keep playing her hand !
CO2 levels are increasing and can easily be measured.
However,... that is not the “hoax” part i was referring to..
Where the “theory” fails on scientific evidence is the linkage mechanism between those two and any linkage to Human involvement. That is all just “Theory”. ( IE:, cannot be scientifically verified )..
Meanwhile in real news -
=======================
U.S. solar market celebrates best Q1 in history
By Kelsey Misbrener | June 18, 2019
In the first three months of the year, the U.S. installed 2.7 gigawatts of solar PV, making it the most solar ever installed in the first quarter of a year. With the strong first quarter, Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables forecasts 25% growth in 2019 compared to 2018, and it expects more than 13 GWDC of installations this year, as reported in its new “U.S. Solar Market Insight Report.”
The news comes after the United States surpassed 2 million solar installations in May.
“The first quarter data and projections for the rest of the year are promising for the solar industry,” said Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association. “However, if we are to make the kind of progress we need to make the 2020s The Solar Decade, we will need to make substantial policy and market advances.”
The largest share of installations during the record-breaking quarter came from the utility PV segment, with 1.6 gigawatts coming online, making up 61% of PV capacity installed. The report notes that with 4.7 gigawatts of large scale projects under construction, 2019 is on track to be a strong year for utility PV, with 46% growth over 2018 expected.
. .
The residential market experienced annual growth as well.
According to the report, the U.S. saw 603 megawatts of residential solar installations during the first quarter, up 6% annually.
==========================
=======================
U.S. solar market celebrates best Q1 in history
By Kelsey Misbrener | June 18, 2019
In the first three months of the year, the U.S. installed 2.7 gigawatts of solar PV, making it the most solar ever installed in the first quarter of a year. With the strong first quarter, Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables forecasts 25% growth in 2019 compared to 2018, and it expects more than 13 GWDC of installations this year, as reported in its new “U.S. Solar Market Insight Report.”
The news comes after the United States surpassed 2 million solar installations in May.
“The first quarter data and projections for the rest of the year are promising for the solar industry,” said Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association. “However, if we are to make the kind of progress we need to make the 2020s The Solar Decade, we will need to make substantial policy and market advances.”
The largest share of installations during the record-breaking quarter came from the utility PV segment, with 1.6 gigawatts coming online, making up 61% of PV capacity installed. The report notes that with 4.7 gigawatts of large scale projects under construction, 2019 is on track to be a strong year for utility PV, with 46% growth over 2018 expected.
. .
The residential market experienced annual growth as well.
According to the report, the U.S. saw 603 megawatts of residential solar installations during the first quarter, up 6% annually.
==========================
Hillhater said:
No. I don't know where you're getting this from? Anthropogenic CO2 is measurable, verifiable and calculable.
This isn't rocket science, every time YOU put fuel into your car you are the link between carbon that was in the ground ie. oil and CO2 in the atmosphere ie. your tail pipe. It's a direct link. The same goes for your computer, when you turn it on carbon ie. coal that was in the ground is burned and the CO2 released.
Every gas tank, rail car full of coal, fracked up shale formation, is a hole in the ground where carbon that's been there for millions of years has been released into the atmosphere as CO2.
Regardless of the natural variation in CO2 in the environment over the last, say 1 million years, the carbon from fossil fuels was not part of the equation. (it's probably much further back than this)
Greenhouse effect is also known, measurable and verifiable. It's not a "theory".
The only thing that remains a "theory" is how anthropogenic CO2 will influence the climate. I wouldn't call it a theory, it's more "modelling predictions". Actual climate science is so overwhelmingly complex it really can't be expressed as anything but Chaos Theory.
You don't seem like a "denier", which is a term I hate to use because people like to confound it with skepticism. Personally I like to think myself a skeptic. I understand the problem, and I'm familiar with the science and modelling, but I think they lack precision and a broad enough understanding to accurately model the "checks and balances" inherent in the environment. That's certainly not to say anthropogenic CO2 is good for the environment, it's just not necessarily as bad as environmentalists and IPCC models predict. I strongly suspect there may be a lot of confirmation bias in how we are going about collecting data and making models. IMO
Hillhater
100 TW
Sure, we have good “estimates”. Of the amount of Anthropogenic CO2 emitted ( approx 35 Gt) each year .furcifer said:
However , that is a fraction (5% ?) of the estimated “natural CO2 (800+= Gt) emissions....but those “estimates” are based on some random sampling experiments, and as such will have error margins of =+ 10% or more.
So the potential estimation error in natural emissions (160+ Gt ) is 5 times the total Anthropogenic emissions !
..and that is before you consider the known variations in natural emissions that have never been quantified.
But none of that proves any linkage between the level of atmospheric CO2. (From any source !) and climate change.......let alone Anthropogenic CO2 specifically. !
One of the (many) fundamental errors in the IPCC reports /modeling , is that lifetime of CO@ in the atmosphhere is hundreds of years (recently changed to an exponential decay but still implying a extended lifetime)...whilst most scientific research agrees that the real lifetime figure is 5-7 years.
No, it has never been scientifically proven/measured outside a confined lab experiment....which is very different to a planetary system with all the uncontrolled variables that introduces.
Its global effects are only a theory, an extrapolation from a tightly controlled lab experiment.
Predictions are not science. It remains a theory intil measured data reflects the predicted result.
Currently that is not the case.
Hillhater said:
Like gravity is a theory based on tightly controlled laboratory experiments.
That's not how things work. This is why there's consensus among the educated, then agreement falls in a linear manner with intelligence.
Atmospheric CO2 is currently at the highest point in 15-20 million years! That's not a theory, we have measured and verified this!
Even within the natural variation of CO2, the change we have measured in CO2 levels over the last 200 years is the fastest EVER! Usually it takes 10 000 - 20 000 years!
Highest level in 15 million years and a change that 100 times faster than has ever been seen. Those are the facts. They aren't disputed, expect among people who have no clue what they are talking about.
It's also worth noting that the effects of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere aren't a linear relationship. There are compounding effects that result in an exponential increase in temperature. This is not unusual, many systems exhibit this type of behavior.
You may want to think of the earth and the carbon cycle as something like a sponge. Regardless of how big it is, and how much it can hold, fossil fuels are like pouring water on that sponge. So not only is the sponge full, the water is being added faster than it can be absorbed.
This is over simplified but I think even you should be able to understand this analogy. It's too much too fast. Again, you only have to look out your window and see all the cars to get an idea of how much CO2 we are responsible for. Millions, upon millions, upon millions of gallons of gasoline every day, being burned and all the CO2 that's being created.
I have to ask, how would you feel if everyone just dumped their gasoline out of their cars onto the ground once a week? Everyone, every week, for 150 years? Would you still be like "It was in the ground, so it belongs there, there's no problem, gasoline is just a natural thing"? Because that's exactly what we are doing, but instead of a smelly liquid it's colorless and odorless CO2. It is different and this isn't the best way to explain it, but I think people need to start thinking more along these lines. CO2 is natural and essential, but because of how we use and abuse it, it's a pollutant.
Hillhater
100 TW
How exactly do you believe we have “measured” those Co2 levels ...or the rate of change ?furcifer said:
... remember, we have only been able to accurately measure atmospheric CO2 since the 1950’s
Odd ?... i thought it was accepted that the historic evidence confirms that temperature increase preceed the increase in CO2
Similar threads
