Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[ZeroEm]

fusion experiment is very exciting. First net gain in 70 yrs. Hope it does not turn out like the other nuclear reactors. Cost more than you ever make back.

 

[Hillhater]

Coal and gasoline are just energy storage systems.

Oh, ..sure, just about everything stores energy, trees, ice, oceans, rocks, etc etc..
It is just that the energy in coal and gasoline are much more readily available and useful
We are talking about electricity, ..
You can store electricity by making hydrogen, charge batteries, or pump water, spin flywheels, etc …
..but i have yet to see electricity being used to make coal or gasoline ?

 

[Voltron]

Hard to see what your point is there.
Are we talking about using things to make electricity, or using electricity to make things?

Can you use electricity to make uranium out of nothing?
Or make the actual water to pump?
Or rocks?
No, no, and no.

Using coal and petroleum is just scooping up millions of years of solar energy, stored by living creatures as hydrocarbons. Mankind isn't creating anything there. Even if it wasn't poisoning the planet with fumes, it's still just plain going to run out eventually. What then?

 

[Hillhater]

Hard to see what your point is there.
Are we talking about using things to make electricity, or using electricity to make things?…

You are not paying attention..
We are talking about materials that can be used readily to make electricity…vs materials that can be used to store electricity. :wink:
“It is just that the energy in coal and gasoline are much more readily available and useful..”
Hydrogen does not exist in useful quantities without investing excess energy to create it

Can you use electricity to make uranium out of nothing?
Or make the actual water to pump?
Or rocks?
No, no, and no.

???…its even harder to see what your point is there !

…Using coal and petroleum is just scooping up millions of years of solar energy, stored by living creatures as hydrocarbons. Mankind isn't creating anything there. Even if it wasn't poisoning the planet with fumes, it's still just plain going to run out eventually. What then?

“Then” …we will have found a better practical way of generating electricity ( like Fusion maybe ?) :wink:

 

[Voltron]

After people do the Gish Gallop enough, yes, I do tend to pay less attention to them.

 

[Ianhill]

Dont get me wrong oil, coal etc was not easy to exploit but compared to the problems of fusion we face its a piece of cake and thats why its so widely adopted to this day its high output to low input that fusion milestone may provide masses of power but to get there is like walking round the world 100 times with 1 human its a long task that may never complete with time factors pressing against its success.

Real engineering just done a a cracking video to explain to us lower level pond scum, basiclly total recall got it right it is all about the tritium and the reactor needs to create a steady supply of it by using breeding blanckets on the reactor its for that reason ITER will be performing tests to not just get net postitive energy but a sustainble supply of materials to run the process.

One issue with that is the reactor contains traces of uranium so the reactor is still expense to dispose and certain metals would need the global yearly supply to achieve a construction all very hard task to work out when some lazy guy with a long drill can keep pulling up sludgey mess that kills shitloads of marine wildlife but we dont live there so dont see much of the shitshow other than a few discovery documentarys and they seemed to have vanished from streaming, its as if big oil gives more shit about cleaning up its traces of corruption bad media covergae than actually just doing right and at least have people with a little faith in them but instead i have none.

We all seen beaches covered in dead bird with oil slicks for many miles of a coast, theres wells that have leaked for over 10 years before rectifying and this is all while the industy is active, god help when this shit show breakdown the sea got no hope of being clean in hundred years microplastics and oil slicks from the leaking wells no one will close due to the fact of whos paying the cost.

The only answer to this boloocks of a future is to have a clean energy source thats so plentiful it can be used to perform the clean up its not like theres not enough humans on the planet we have the man power just not a true energy source that ticks all boxes to make a utopia.

Im still of the opinion where on titanic and its looking skyward the creaking is deafening.

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

Nihilism is pretty stupid, especially when you're talking about the climate. Oil companies have been proven time and time again to be spreading the message of "Why fight it, it's inevitable now" to defend themselves; I refuse to do anything one of these skinsuit wearers wants.

 

[ZeroEm]

The viability of fusion energy. reaction at NIF achieved generating 3.15 megajoules of energy, more than the 2.05 megajoules provided by the lasers used in the reactor. Did this cause the price of gasoline to drop after the news. But in reality producing that 3.15 megajoules took about 300 megajoules from the grid. So not viable yet.

 

[Hillhater]

Nihilism is pretty stupid, especially when you're talking about the climate. Oil companies have been proven time and time again to be spreading the message of "Why fight it, it's inevitable now" to defend themselves; I refuse to do anything one of these skinsuit wearers wants.

Yet you are prepared to accept the fatalistic views of a other “skinsuit wearers” who predict a cataclysmic future !

 

[Ianhill]

[youtube]GGtAilkWTtI[/youtube]

This is the truth its not the evidence of one man or the observation from one group its the collective knowlege of centurys of work with clear cut data thats testable at home with simple apparatuses so hillhater i challange you to show me where this dataset is wrong and how is the science misled if you can show atleast decades of opposing work im all ears.

 

[Hillhater]

Ian, the only “facts” in that are the CO2 measurements !
If you believe in facts, it should be easy for you to see how historic data proves those man made theories to have major flaws !
Note periods of high CO2 with corresponding low temperatures,..and vice versa.
If nothing else, you should see that there is no direct correlation between Temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels.

 

[Ianhill]

Ian, the only “facts” in that are the CO2 measurements !
If you believe in facts, it should be easy for you to see how historic data proves those man made theories to have major flaws !
Note periods of high CO2 with corresponding low temperatures,..and vice versa.
If nothing else, you should see that there is no direct correlation between Temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels.

No you have singled out co2 without correlation with other gases present at the time.

sulpur cooled the northen hemisphere results and made it look like nothing was happening while at the poles and the southern hemisphere where oil was not been burnt in such quantitys felt the result as there was no cooling effect from unburnt fuel.

That graph doesnt deliver anything to dispute the conclusions we have reached without present more evidence for a more complete picture otherwise thats just cherry picking ?

 

[Hillhater]

No you have singled out co2 without correlation with other gases present at the time.

And that is not happening with the current AGW theory focussed on CO2 ??

….sulpur cooled the northen hemisphere results and made it look like nothing was happening while at the poles and the southern hemisphere where oil was not been burnt in such quantitys felt the result as there was no cooling effect from unburnt fuel.

And how is that relavent to data from 100-600 million years ago ?

..That graph doesnt deliver anything to dispute the conclusions we have reached without present more evidence for a more complete picture otherwise thats just cherry picking ?

Cherry picking millions of years of data ?…? :lol:
And yet wetting yourself over 50 years of data is NOT “chery picking “ ..??
..My 600m years of data trumps your 50 years of failed predictions ! ( maybe you have forgotten those warming predictions ?)
Sad to see how you have been indoctrinated by the cult and swallowed their coolaid of mass extinction !

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

The viability of fusion energy. reaction at NIF achieved generating 3.15 megajoules of energy, more than the 2.05 megajoules provided by the lasers used in the reactor. Did this cause the price of gasoline to drop after the news. But in reality producing that 3.15 megajoules took about 300 megajoules from the grid. So not viable yet.

There's a pulse reactor prototype I need to post up, that also has had some massive success in sustaining fusions. Theirs is based on making 2 waves and crashing them into each other.

Also, sodium cooled reactors are love.

Best you have is a 20 year old powerpoint slide? You're getting sloppy.

 

[ZeroEm]

Department of Energy offered $50 million research grants to develop blueprints for a utility-scale pilot plant.power plant plans underway

Wow it's in 20 years. Has been in 20yrs for the last 50. Do think we are closer.

It maybe me but looking 100-600 Million years in the past feel like we could be missing something.

 

[Hillhater]

Best you have is a 20 year old powerpoint slide? You're getting sloppy.

Old,..but the facts have not changed, so still totally relavent !
Do you have anything to contradict the data, or are you just nit picking the age of the publication ?

It maybe me but looking 100-600 Million years in the past feel like we could be missing something.

If you do not look at it,.. you WILL miss something !
But some folk just do not want to know .

 

[ZeroEm]

One thing I get from the chart is man could not have lived back then CO2 levels were to high. As the CO2 levels dropped the tempter drops also.

The correlation reminds me of price of Oil and Gasoline. Do not move in lock step, Oil still affects gasoline.

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

One thing I get from the chart is man could not have lived back then CO2 levels were to high. As the CO2 levels dropped the tempter drops also.

The correlation reminds me of price of Oil and Gasoline. Do not move in lock step, Oil still affects gasoline.

Atmospheric oxygen was also ~30% or more, but other commentators don't allow pesky science to get in their way of their claims.

Do you have anything to contradict the data, or are you just nit picking the age of the publication ?

You'll just ignore it like the rest :lol:

 

[Voltron]

When one is looking to avoid feeling any responsibility for how their cheap energy addiction has affected the whole world in the last 150 years or so, denialism is a great religion.

 

[ZeroEm]

Remember Ozone, wonder why we seem not to respond to high levels of CO2.

 

[Ianhill]

I dont mind people smoking some strong shit to get around but its just when i got to take a hit on the bong without been asked kinda pisses me off, thats what we are doing to every generation in succession not only have we raised CO2 thats just the tip of the iceburg without correlation to other gases present im no gretta thunburg and i drive alot but im not an alcoholic in denial or did i create the meta for it to be like this.

And this is where u fall flat on your face because singling out 1 issue amongst a whole forest of them is pointless as you know, I've read some of your electrical based responses and your no fool which keeps tipping me past the tin hat and makes me think possibly your invested in fossils in some way promote on an electrical forum and get kicks from it.

But deep in your heart you know whats what but can't back down your to invested in your ideas

 

[ZeroEm]

One thing that come to my attention about Gasoline the past few years. No it's not a rant about CO2.

The exhaust, we were raise around it. It's just part of life, most don't give it a second thought. Unless you park in your attached garage with the car running, or try to green up the roads in cities. In San Antonio, TX they want to stop the horse drawn carriages over the horses breathing to much of it, people are ok with the exhaust been breathing it all their lives. Now it you go all electric for a few years and you realize how bad it is. Nabors warms up automobiles in the mornings and we can smell it in our house. Go to any parking lot, dam there it is again. Myself getting tired of breathing others waste.

 

[Hillhater]

One thing I get from the chart is man could not have lived back then CO2 levels were to high. As the CO2 levels dropped the tempter drops also.

If man could have lived back then is irrellevent.
ALL our current life human existance covers only the past million years or so.
And if you look in detail , or read deeper background, you will know that CO2 levels have been shown to generally LAG temperature changes by a few hundred years.
Look at the 450 m yr event .. clearly temp leading co2, AND an inverse relationship.. temp falling and CO2 rising , followed by temp rising and CO2 falling .
But there is NO 100% correlation between temp and CO2.
Looking even at the last 150-200m years, it is clear that as co2 rises, temp falls, then as CO2 falls, temps rise before dropping again.
No logical person could conclude that CO2 controls or determines temperature .
The fact that CO2 levels are currently (abnormally) low, and temperatures are also (abnormally) low, is a coincidence that has previously only occurred once in the past 300m years. High temps and high CO2 is the historic norm for our planet.

…..And this is where u fall flat on your face because singling out 1 issue amongst a whole forest of them is pointless as you know….

Singling out CO2 as the driver of increasing global temperature is the whole basis of the AGW movement .. (Gore, Hansen, UN IPCC, Thunberg, etc).. i am just throwing some real data at that particular missinformation.!
( PS… i have no investment in fossil beyond the cost of filling up the tanks on my 3 diesel fueled vehicles.!,..
…and i am a member on this Ebike forum, because i have several Ebikes !..
…stop reading into things , agendas that do not exist !)

Atmospheric oxygen was also ~30% or more, but other commentators don't allow pesky science to get in their way of their claims.

Would you care to enlighten us as to how you think that changes any of the above historic data ?
And then there is all that “pesky science” of astro physics and planetary movements relative to the sun that has also been convently left out of the global temperature debate…

 

[Hillhater]

When one is looking to avoid feeling any responsibility for how their cheap energy addiction has affected the whole world in the last 150 years or so, denialism is a great religion.

I look at the adoption of cheap available energy as having been the fundamental keystone of development in the modern world.
It has given us practical distance travel , modern materials for building structures at unprecidented rates, industries to provide products and services to enhance our lifestyle and health whilst generating wealth and employment.
This has enabled huge inceases in health, life expectancy, and population numbers.
The current obsession with “Green” policies is beginning to dismantle the stable supply of that cheap energy with consequent knock on effects which the green supporters are in denial of .
I would prefer “clean” energy, but not at the expense of an insecure, unreliable, unprdictable , unaffordable, supply, which is where we are heading with Wind and solar ( even with unimaginable amounts of batteries).

 

[ZeroEm]

Here you go Synthetic Natural Gas With Green Hydrogen. Don't even know what to think about this yet!
Startup Plans to Make Synthetic Natural Gas With Green Hydrogen