Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[billvon]

Another time wasting dodge ??
I did not demand anything .

"But if you avoid the known "El nino" excursion of 2015-2017"

 

[Punx0r]

Yet again your memory fails you .
I have stated several times what my issues are with AGW, solar etc,...and your statement is far from any of them.
Do not attribute false claims to me !

So you don't think burning coal is a good idea? And you don't claim that the resulting CO2 emissions have a beneficial effect on crops and plantlife in general?

 

[jimw1960]

I did say that the known 2015-2017 GISS data is distorted by a known cause and should be excluded from your calculation. Dropping that data from the end of the time series is simple...unlike removing data from the middle of a series.

Funny how you deniers want to throw out the 2015-2017 El Nino years, but you insist on citing the very strong El Nino year of 1998 as the starting point on any time series showing global temperature trends. Classic cherry picking.

 

[Hillhater]

Not my pick jim...infact the series starts from 1990, when the IPCC set their predictions.
And i do not believe 1990 was recognised as an El Nino event year ?
..funny that !
Do you think El nino events are predictable by AGW temperature models?

 

[TheBeastie]

This anti co2 environmental site release a super meme page for nuclear
http://environmentalprogress.org/the-complete-case-for-nuclear/
I think these are my favorites

The raw amount of materials in weight needed in renewables is just ridiculous and there is no way around this, I really think this is one of the core reasons why Bill Gates (the 6 years ago Bill Gates before he came under pressure from the virtue signallers etc) concluded that renewables really are retarded https://youtu.be/IsRlN1oDm60?t=34m44s ,it seems like Bill Gates was almost an Obama hater back then when goes rants about the "wasted money on renewables"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When it comes to the argument you can merge Climate Change and energy generation together I think I have come up with the ultimate way of merging them together here..
I been thinking about basic climate weather 101 theory, and that is the cooler oceans give less evaporation, and thus less precipitation, thus causing more drought conditions.
Australia's recent drought is in no doubt in my mind caused by 2018 being a cooler than normal year, due to the el nino effect etc having cooler oceans simply means less rain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o
Sorry the embedded images in Wikipedia are very uneven in size. Not going to fix it and upload it as its just not worth it, as my post will disappear into a new page-thread in a few days anyway. And it just adds to server load.

While all the general people on ABC media have constantly claimed "the drought is caused by man-made global warming climate change" their news articles that are forced to quote things from the BOM are very different.
"During the summer, you're often looking at a feed of tropical moisture, when you get moisture feeding in from the tropical monsoon coming south,"
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-11/drought-how-bad-is-it-and-why-has-it-been-so-dry/9826130
This is climate weather 101, most of the world's rain comes from tropical oceans. https://youtu.be/zBnKgwnn7i4

One way I was thinking this could be measured is seeing if Solar farms actually have INCREASED generation output, because cooler oceans mean fewer clouds in the sky.
Topaz Solar farm which is my prefered solar farm to look at for real-world data, actually looks set to have an impressive output in 2018, so maybe there is increased general solar output globally for 2018 because of less clouds in the sky because of cooler oceans globally.
Wish there were an easy simple and reliable source for MWh output on large solar in Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm#Statistics

Since the forum can embed Twitter videos I will post this url from Outsiders, they have been following "different" climate specialists who have claimed since late 2017 to expect a cold 2018 due to low sun activity.
So far they have been proven right as far as I am concerned.. This is their video released from today, but whole video isn't here its just a start teaser but its all very interesting.
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsAust/status/1056323585977925632


That video on Youtube about "The truth about global warming" was so riddled with adverts it was unwatchable (unless you are on YouTube Red paid advert free subscription)
Ironically the same video is on the Foxnews website completely advert free. And due to the new forum software update automagically embeds from the foxnews website.
https://video.foxnews.com/v/5851667173001/?#sp=show-clips

The interesting thing to note about this guy is that he has all the climate science credentials, with a "Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His doctoral thesis was titled, Atmospheric anomalies and crop yields in North America."
On top of working at the IPCC 10 years ago and even being a contributor author to a to noble prize awarding work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels
In fact compared to the introduction the FoxNews interviewer gives him the Wikipedia page on him is quite incomplete.

So while he acknowledges a tiny increase of warming over the last 100 years, it's ultra-tiny.. And the fact is that the average temperature difference between the very bottom and very top of the Great Barrier Reef is an incredible 5 degrees.. And the healthier part is the warmer part.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I still think Hydrogen is our long term future.
Came across this meme casually on Facebook as a method for a Nuclear based high efficiency zero co2 emissions Hydrogen production plant.
https://www.facebook.com/NuclearEnergyGov/photos/a.202159030360188/341144853128271/?type=3&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARBRIuAjNXwkMWFGErY7N-VtqsnL29S3oQi8WAcByJTfwcO370wIcvi0up9l7FQZIAqjH7cFDPUIL16Q0Ib7gRn0LAeJm7SSG1ae1bCjKy4Ll9f219Sz-vijP1WIcss-rjonefGxzxGiRA77SnZLdOWF1u9YqkXX2c65d5BYii6eOcYWCehsJ0_WTI-19ptBFwNSdZOlm2ihel6-UdV7NwAL&__tn__=-R

This page goes over various next gen nuclear technologies
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-advanced-reactor-systems-watch-2030

 

[classicalgas]

Anyone who counts just the waste volume of a particular tech, ignoring toxicity, time of toxicity, and ecological cost of extracting your feed materials, is being deliberately misleading. Read up on the eco costs of mining and refining nuclear fuel and coal, or even cola tar sand and fracked NG.

Solar panels are clean and cheap to make in comparison, especially when you look at lifetime power production vs the one time use of any extractive energy source(fossil fuel or nuclear) Batteries *using current chemistries* are a bigger issue, but there are promising new chemistries that use more available, less toxic materials.

This discussion also seems to be generally ignoring reductions in energy use through wiser choices and more efficient lighting and HVAC. The disconnect seems to be in ignoring the fact that we cannot keep using energy at the per capita rate we have been for the last 50 years, much less increase, as most of these projections assume. We either ramp it down fast, or go extinct. Even if we come up with a highly efficient, energy cheap method to turn atmospheric co2 back into liquid hydrocarbons (there's some lab level promise to this scheme currently) at some point, just the waste heat from our per capita energy consumption(times population) will cook us all.The longer we cobble together short term work arounds, the worse the collapse will be.

Personally, a global pandemic seems like our best hope as a species...but kiss civilization goodbye.

 

[classicalgas]

Anyone who counts just the waste volume of a particular tech, ignoring toxicity, time of toxicity, and ecological cost of extracting your feed materials, is being deliberately misleading. Read up on the eco costs of mining and refining nuclear fuel and coal, or even tar sand and fracked NG.

Solar panels are clean and cheap to make in comparison, especially when you look at lifetime power production vs the one time use of any extractive energy source(fossil fuel or nuclear) Batteries *using current chemistries* are a bigger issue, but there are promising new chemistries that use more available, less toxic materials.

This discussion also seems to be generally ignoring reductions in energy use through wiser choices and more efficient lighting and HVAC. The disconnect seems to be in ignoring the fact that we cannot keep using energy at the per capita rate we have been for the last 50 years, much less increase, as most of these projections assume. We either ramp it down fast, or go extinct. Even if we come up with a highly efficient, energy cheap method to turn atmospheric co2 back into liquid hydrocarbons (there's some lab level promise to this scheme currently) at some point, just the waste heat from our per capita energy consumption(times population) will cook us all.The longer we cobble together short term work arounds, the worse the collapse will be.

Personally, a global pandemic seems like our best hope as a species...but kiss civilization goodbye.

 

[classicalgas]

* And the fact is that the average temperature difference between the very bottom and very top of the Great Barrier Reef is an incredible 5 degrees.. And the healthier part is the warmer part.*...ROFLMAO! The top is where the sunlight is strongest. A reef ecosystem is as much powered by sunlight as is a rain forest. Get it warm enough, or acid enough (absorbed co2 changes the PH of seawater) it will still die...as large areas already are.

Sorry, anyone who thinks Fox is a useful source of facts has lost any credibility at all.

 

[Hillhater]

Anyone who thinks seawater will ever go "acidic" never had any credibility !

 

[Punx0r]

Nor anyone who thinks semantics is the real issue here...

As for thebeastie's lateat diatribe, well, we need a facepalm smilie.

 

[Hillhater]

.....Wish there were an easy simple and reliable source for MWh output on large solar in Australia.....

Have you tried the Open NEM site ?
https://opennem.org.au/#/regions/nsw
I dont think you can drill down to individual plants, but you can get weekly outputs (GWh) State by State for each generation source,..including utility solar, and rooftop solar.
And Anero site will list the solar capacities in each state
Currently they seem to be at about 16% CF.

 

[billvon]

Anyone who thinks seawater will ever go "acidic" never had any credibility !

And anyone who does not think CO2 makes water more acidic does not even understand basic chemistry.

 

[Hillhater]

Now who is being pedantic ?...
Seawater will never be "Acidic"...
That is just an "alarmist" expression to exaggerate variable levels of CO2/ Alkalinity, in the oceans.

 

[wturber]

... We either ramp it down fast, or go extinct. ...

You lose tremendous credibility when you make statements like this.

 

[wturber]

Anyone who thinks seawater will ever go "acidic" never had any credibility !

And anyone who does not think CO2 makes water more acidic does not even understand basic chemistry.

As I recall my basic chemistry, moving from a higher PH to a lower PH that is still above 7.0 would be called "adjusting", "reducing", or perhaps "neutralizing" the PH. I think I would have been scolded if I told my chemistry teacher that bringing a solution from PH 8.5 to 7.5 made the solution more "acidic." Solutions aren't "acidic" unless they drop below a PH value of 7. At least that's what I recall from my high school chemistry classes.

Using terms like "acidify" or "acidic" seem to be more a way of triggering emotional reactions than communicating the actual situation or process. Just like saying that making the oceans less "caustic" might be an attempt to trigger the opposite emotional response since "caustic" and "acidic" tend to carry with them negative impressions.

 

[billvon]

As I recall my basic chemistry, moving from a higher PH to a lower PH that is still above 7.0 would be called "adjusting", "reducing", or perhaps "neutralizing" the PH. I think I would have been scolded if I told my chemistry teacher that bringing a solution from PH 8.5 to 7.5 made the solution more "acidic." Solutions aren't "acidic" unless they drop below a PH value of 7.

In medicine, your blood pH hovers around 7.4. If it gets any lower than that, doctors would say your blood is becoming more acidic. If it gets below about 7.2, that is a dangerous condition called acidosis. Even though it is still above 7, which is considered pH neutral. Acidosis can be caused by many things, but the most common reason is too much CO2 in your blood.

In brewing, ideal mash pH's are around 5.4, which are fairly acidic. Brewers regularly talk about using alkaline buffers to make the mash more basic - even though it is below a pH of 7.

It would harm both endeavors to discourage such language out of a fear that someone might get offended.

Using terms like "acidify" or "acidic" seem to be more a way of triggering emotional reactions than communicating the actual situation or process.

I agree that people can have emotional reactions to things. That is a poor reason to alter language so that it is less accurate, IMO. (Same goes for not using the word "radiation" when discussing EM radiation from phones, and other similar well-meaning redactions.)

 

[billvon]

Seawater will never be "Acidic"...

It will certainly be more acidic in the future. This is already affecting coral.

 

[wturber]

In medicine, your blood pH hovers around 7.4. If it gets any lower than that, doctors would say your blood is becoming more acidic. If it gets below about 7.2, that is a dangerous condition called acidosis. Even though it is still above 7, which is considered pH neutral. Acidosis can be caused by many things, but the most common reason is too much CO2 in your blood.

Yes. Medicine uses the term this way because there is a well established and fairly narrow baseline normal range in blood PH of 7.35 to 7.45. So they abuse the term a bit to simplify the notions of above and below normal. There is no such established narrow range for the ocean. In fact it fluctuates quite a bit depending on location and a host of natural biological factors.

In brewing, ideal mash pH's are around 5.4, which are fairly acidic. Brewers regularly talk about using alkaline buffers to make the mash more basic - even though it is below a pH of 7.

It would harm both endeavors to discourage such language out of a fear that someone might get offended.

I just checked the first four articles that a google search on brewers mash and PH and they all refer to adjusting mash PH. None of them referred to making the mash more basic. Seems like merely referring to adjusting PH up or down is perfectly workable. Medicine could have just as easily come up with terms other than acidosis or alkalosis and that would have been just as functional and in keeping with chemistry terminology. But once the terms are established, it is hard (and hardly worth the effort) to correct. There are quite a few medical misnomers out there.

I don't think anyone here fears offending anybody by the use of the term "acidic." But in reference to basic chemistry, I don't see how something that isn't acidic at all can become said to have become more acidic. It has become less basic. That's basic (no pun) chemistry.

But there are reasons that the "lower PH" and "less alkaline" which are more correct aren't used. It is much the same reason that we see prominent postings of photos showing steam coming from coal fired plants - and often see it and the entire photo colored orange or brown (sunsets are frequently chosen to get this effect). The goal is to influence opinions by triggering non-logical mental processes. And it works. And to be fair, most coal generating stations will show photos with very little or no steam while also showing nice, clear blue skies. We live in a world of hype, exaggeration and "spin."

I think it is generally better to use technically correct and emotion-neutral language as much as possible in science based discussions. Of course that's really unlikely to happen in the debate about how much we are influencing the ever changing climate of the earth.

 

[billvon]

Yes. Medicine uses the term this way because there is a well established and fairly narrow baseline normal range in blood PH of 7.35 to 7.45. So they abuse the term a bit to simplify the notions of above and below normal. There is no such established narrow range for the ocean. In fact it fluctuates quite a bit depending on location and a host of natural biological factors.

Yes. But there is a range within which coral and similar carbonate-skeleton organisms do well. In many places, the ocean's increasing acidity puts them at risk. That may be an uncomfortable truth, but it's wrong to try to hide it (IMO.)

I don't think anyone here fears offending anybody by the use of the term "acidic." But in reference to basic chemistry, I don't see how something that isn't acidic at all can become said to have become more acidic. It has become less basic. That's basic (no pun) chemistry.

Well, let's check with the American Chemical Society, a source that I hope you agree is fairly chemistry-oriented - and who tends to get the basic (again no pun intended) terminology correct.

==================
Effect of Added Atmospheric CO2: Ocean Acidification

As the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, Le Chatelier’s principle applied to equation (1) shows that, CO2(aq), the amount in the oceans, also increases. Le Chatelier’s principle applied to reaction (2) shows that increasing CO2(aq) favors the forward reaction, increasing the HCO3–(aq) and H+(aq) concentrations. Similarly, Le Chatelier’s principle applied to reaction (4) shows that increasing CO2(aq) favors the reverse reaction, increasing Ca2+(aq) and HCO3–(aq), while decreasing CaCO3 concentrations. CO2(aq) is acidic, so reacts with the strongest base present in significant concentration, CO32–(aq), and upsets the carbonate buffer system.

CO2(aq) + CO32–(aq) + H2O ⇔ 2 HCO3–(aq) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)

The net result of these shifts in equilibrium concentrations is increased H+(aq), a more acidic ocean, and decreased availability of CaCO3 and CO32–(aq). The experimental observation is that the pH of the top layer of the ocean has decreased by 0.1 unit, from 8.2 to 8.1 during the past century or so as about 100 GtC (≈ 370 Gt CO2) have dissolved in the oceans. As more CO2 dissolves, these concentration changes will continue and effects on marine life become evident. Examples might include the displacement of some species by others better adapted to a more acidic environment or the inability of some shell-forming organisms to survive in an environment that favors dissolution of CaCO3. The latter is of great concern because many of these organisms are at the base of the oceanic food chain that furnishes a substantial percentage of the human food supply. The extent and direction of the effects of a changing ocean are not yet certain, so a great deal of effort is being expended to find out what they are and will be.
================

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/oceansicerocks/oceanchemistry.html

We live in a world of hype, exaggeration and "spin."

I agree. And hoping that the American Chemical Society (for example) change their language to give it the correct "spin" is, I think, a poor use of everyone's time.

 

[Hillhater]

Co2 to boost the power generation industry ?
Would'nt it be ironic if this new development were to revolutionise power generation using by Supercritical CO2 as the working medium in the power turbines ...
https://www.swri.org/supercritical-transformational-electric-power-pilot-plant
Some explanation here..
http://euanmearns.com/every-big-bit-helps/

....The big deal is this – an SCCD turbine is, potentially at least, able to squeeze more power from any thermal power plant (solar thermal, coal, natural gas, nuclear, geothermal, even shipboard boilers). About 60% of all power in North America comes from the burning of fossil fuels, with many power plants operating at 35% efficiency or less. What if all those power plants could be upgraded over a couple of years to 45% efficiency?

Since each plant is 10% more efficient, 1 in 10 can be shut down without impacting the capital costs at all. There are 600 coal fired power plants in the U.S. If each gets, say, 10% more efficient, then 60 are redundant and can be closed. There are 8,000 natural gas power plants. Since these are now 10% more efficient, we could close 800...

 

[billvon]

Would'nt it be ironic if this new development were to revolutionise power generation using by Supercritical CO2 as the working medium in the power turbines ...

Are you kidding? That would be great. It would get tons of CO2 sequestered. A tiny fraction of the needed reduction, of course, but a start. (And increasing efficiency would result in less CO2 overall being emitted.)

 

[cricketo]

Co2 to boost the power generation industry ?
Would'nt it be ironic if this new development were to revolutionise power generation using by Supercritical CO2 as the working medium in the power turbines ...
https://www.swri.org/supercritical-transformational-electric-power-pilot-plant
Some explanation here..
http://euanmearns.com/every-big-bit-helps/

....The big deal is this – an SCCD turbine is, potentially at least, able to squeeze more power from any thermal power plant (solar thermal, coal, natural gas, nuclear, geothermal, even shipboard boilers). About 60% of all power in North America comes from the burning of fossil fuels, with many power plants operating at 35% efficiency or less. What if all those power plants could be upgraded over a couple of years to 45% efficiency?

Since each plant is 10% more efficient, 1 in 10 can be shut down without impacting the capital costs at all. There are 600 coal fired power plants in the U.S. If each gets, say, 10% more efficient, then 60 are redundant and can be closed. There are 8,000 natural gas power plants. Since these are now 10% more efficient, we could close 800...

Yeah, we need to keep finding excuses to keep burning Got to remember the soda industry too.

 

[Hillhater]

Actually its better than that guy thinks..
From the comments section on that site...

Since each plant is 10% more efficient, 1 in 10 can be shut down….
BUT..actually...
When you increase efficiency from 35% to 45% you have an effective increase of 45/35 = 28.6%, not 10%. So you would be able shut down 168 of the US’s 600 coal plants, not just 60, and 2,288 of the US’s 8,000 gas plants, not just 800.
U

So , in effect you would be eliminating 28.6 % of the CO2 produced from electricity generation.
That aught to keep a few alarmists cool for a while ! :wink:

 

[cricketo]

Actually its better than that guy thinks..
From the comments section on that site...

Since each plant is 10% more efficient, 1 in 10 can be shut down….
BUT..actually...
When you increase efficiency from 35% to 45% you have an effective increase of 45/35 = 28.6%, not 10%. So you would be able shut down 168 of the US’s 600 coal plants, not just 60, and 2,288 of the US’s 8,000 gas plants, not just 800.
U

So , in effect you would be eliminating 28.6 % of the CO2 produced from electricity generation.
That aught to keep a few alarmists cool for a while ! :wink:

Except all plants aren't going to get upgraded in a couple of years for variety of reasons. Meanwhile US population grows 0.7% per year. By the time these plants are upgraded we will be building more coal-fired plants to keep up with the energy demands of the increased population. Add electrification of commercial transportation into the mix. All that patchwork is just a distraction, there is only one ultimate solution.

 

[Hillhater]

It seems to get better still..
NET POWER
A radical US startup has successfully fired up its zero-emissions fossil-fuel power plant.
https://qz.com/1292891/net-powers-has-successfully-fired-up-its-zero-emissions-fossil-fuel-power-plant/
A variation on the same theme ..UCCO2.. And a working pilot plant with claimed efficiency of up to 60% !
Now planning a 300MW commercial plant !

Net Power’s $150-million pilot plant near Houston makes use of the Allam Cycle, named after its inventor Rodney Allam. As Quartz previously reported, here’s how it works:

In a small turbine, a combustor burns natural gas and pure oxygen—producing only carbon dioxide and water—in a chamber that’s already full of supercritical carbon dioxide at high pressure and temperature. That’s no small feat; it’s like trying to light a match while someone else is doing their best to put it out with an extinguisher. The combustion produces additional carbon dioxide, some water, and lots of heat. This hot, high-pressured mixture is then passed through a gas turbine, where the pressure turns a shaft to generate electricity.

The slightly cooled mixture exits the turbine, then is separated into parts. The necessary amount of carbon dioxide is compressed to become supercritical again and added back to the initial chamber, keeping a steady amount of the gas circulating through the system. The remaining, pure stream of CO2 can be buried underground. And the (clean) water is dumped. The heat transfer in this process is so efficient that for each unit of energy trapped in natural gas, the Allam cycle produces 0.8 units of electricity (compared to 0.6 units produced in the most advanced natural-gas power plants).....