Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[Hillhater]

For people like HH, climate change denial is a religion. And it's pointless to argue with people about their religion.

Minor point ( and just another fact you guys are missing ..), but “climate change denial” is not something i have promoted. !
The climate is constantly changing in many ways, and not just temperature…(one way or another)… weather events , etc
What is in dispute is the cause, and magnitude, and consequences, of any temperature changes.
To me , the science and facts are clearly supporting my opinion.
BUT its the AGW alarmists that are simply BELIEVING what they are being told in a cult like manner.

 

[JackFlorey]

Minor point ( and just another fact you guys are missing ..), but “climate change denial” is not something i have promoted. !

You forget that this board records previous posts.

Hummina: We know we are altering the atmosphere content and it is causing global warming. We see the results.
You: NO !

Jones: So you agree the planets surface is warming then?
You: No, it is not consistent with the BOM records.... they are heavily manipulated.

You: Care to remind us of the evidence that shows CO2 has any influence on global warming ?

You: the NOAA have “massaged” historic, ( and current) Data in various ways to convert a cooling trend into a warming trend

You: global warming has nothing to do with the science or the environment, but is a UN plan for wealth distribution

You have denied the planet is warming - that it is in fact cooling. You have denied that CO2 has anything to do with any warming. You have claimed that global warming is a UN conspiracy. That's your religion. You can believe whatever you like; it's a free country.

 

[nicobie]

global warming has nothing to do with the science or the environment, but is a UN plan for wealth distribution

Hahahahahahahahahahaaa... That's a new one to me

 

[ZeroEm]

This is our future with fossil fuels!

With Lebanon’s deepening electricity crisis and fuel shortage, many homes and businesses have switched to solar panels to generate electricity due to widespread power cuts from the country’s unpredictable energy sector.

Read more: https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2021/12/lack-electricity-drives-sustainability-options-lebanon#ixzz7egGtqh9xwww.al-monitor.com

We need Hill Hater if not we would be in an echo chamber.

 

[Ianhill]

This is our future with fossil fuels!

With Lebanon’s deepening electricity crisis and fuel shortage, many homes and businesses have switched to solar panels to generate electricity due to widespread power cuts from the country’s unpredictable energy sector.

Read more: https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2021/12/lack-electricity-drives-sustainability-options-lebanon#ixzz7egGtqh9xwww.al-monitor.com

We need Hill Hater if not we would be in an echo chamber.

I dont think we all have agreed much throughout the whole thread, i think we agree on nuclear been the only true way of lifting all this weight while keeping co2 in check, and thats been left late.

Humans are lazy we will clean up the easy opportunity's we all know what needs doing but nations are addicts we just carry on regardless.

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

You: global warming has nothing to do with the science or the environment, but is a UN plan for wealth distribution

Seize the means of CO2 production

 

[Hillhater]

Minor point ( and just another fact you guys are missing ..), but “climate change denial” is not something i have promoted. !

You forget that this board records previous posts.

Hummina: We know we are altering the atmosphere content and it is causing global warming. We see the results.
You: NO !

Jones: So you agree the planets surface is warming then?
You: No, it is not consistent with the BOM records.... they are heavily manipulated.

You: Care to remind us of the evidence that shows CO2 has any influence on global warming ?

You: the NOAA have “massaged” historic, ( and current) Data in various ways to convert a cooling trend into a warming trend

You: global warming has nothing to do with the science or the environment, but is a UN plan for wealth distribution

You have denied the planet is warming - that it is in fact cooling. You have denied that CO2 has anything to do with any warming. You have claimed that global warming is a UN conspiracy. That's your religion. You can believe whatever you like; it's a free country.

None of that contradicts the fact that i DO NOT DENY “CLIMATE CHANGE “ !
I debate the causes and effects ( EG .warming/ cooling,..CO2 & Temperature,..science vs Modeled Theory..etc)
…It is not a religion, unless you deem Science a religion ?,…
..And thank you for allowing my freedom to believe in that science…
….just as i allow you to believe in Models and predictions.!

 

[Hillhater]

global warming has nothing to do with the science or the environment, but is a UN plan for wealth distribution

Hahahahahahahahahahaaa... That's a new one to me

So , you have not heard of the UNFCCC’s plan for a “complete transformation of the economic structure of the world,”

December 3, 2012
The United Nations is met in Qatar to negotiate a “complete transformation of the economic structure of the world,” explained Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at a Monday press conference.
“What is occurring here, not just in Doha, but in the whole climate change process is the complete transformation of the economic structure of the world. It should happen much quicker, but it cannot happen overnight,” she added.
Figueres concluded, “This Conference of the Parties will produce a second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol, the only legally binding agreement. It will have the necessary amendments to go into a second commitment period as of January 1, 2013…. We are also moving toward a universal legally based agreement by 2015 to go into effect in 2020.”
The UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres says a “revolution, the largest, most deeply rooted revolution mankind has ever seen, a deep transformation,” will be required to create sustainable development, adding, “Not one aspect of human life would not be touched by this international action.”
The GCF will transfer wealth from rich to poor nations to ostensibly green Third World economies. Initially, it is to raise $100 billion annually, but that would escalate to as much as $1.2 to $1.6 trillion from American taxpayers alone, depending on the source of funding chosen by the UNFCCC.

The basis for that plan is a “Carbon Tax” , which itself requires the universal acceptance that CO2 is a problem, and hence all the “Green” policies that have been formulated to enforce such plans.

 

[nicobie]

Yes I have, but I don't think anything will come of it. After all it's been over 10 years since that report and nothing I've seen has been done.

 

[JackFlorey]

None of that contradicts the fact that i DO NOT DENY “CLIMATE CHANGE “ !

Someone asked you if you agree that the planet's surface is warming. You said no. That is denial.

Someone else asked you if you agree that anthropogenic changes to our atmosphere is causing warming. You said no. That is denial.

You said that NOAA made it look like the surface of the planet was warming when it is in fact cooling. That is denial.

…It is not a religion, unless you deem Science a religion ?,…

Science agrees that the changes we have made to our atmosphere (primarily addition of CO2 and methane) is causing the surface of the planet to warm. That's science.

Denial says that the planet isn't warming, that it's really cooling, that there's no such thing as CO2 forcing, that anything that happens is natural, that increasing CO2 or methane concentrations won't cause warming. That is the opposite of what science says. And since believers have to reject science to believe that, and since they band together to reinforce their mutual beliefs, it has become a religion, complete with common beliefs and a mutually-agreed upon canon. You can find that canon anywhere deniers post on the web.

Science says that we evolved from less complex creatures. Religion denies this. The Christian religion, for example, says we were created as-is in the Garden of Eden. That is the opposite of what science says.

Science says that the Earth was created about 4.5 billion years ago via condensation from a planetary nebula, as eddies in the nebula turned into concentrations, which turned into small planetoids, which collapsed via their mutual gravity into one rocky planet. Religion denies this. The Christian religion, for example, says that the Earth was created by God in seven days about 6000 years ago. That is the opposite of what science says.

Now, if your claims above (like you "believe in the science") means you have changed your mind about your previous claims - then bravo! Learning from your mistakes and moving on is the sign of someone who is growing and becoming better informed.

But if you are going to go back to "it's all a big conspiracy by the UN" or "the planet is really cooling" then you have not abandoned your religion; you're just trying to dress it up to see if you can get people to confuse it with science.

 

[Hillhater]

Yes I have, but I don't think anything will come of it. After all it's been over 10 years since that report and nothing I've seen has been done.

You may want to check how much of USA taxpayers money Obama gave to the GCF !

 

[Hillhater]

None of that contradicts the fact that i DO NOT DENY “CLIMATE CHANGE “ !

Someone asked you if you agree that the planet's surface is warming. You said no. That is denial.

That is denial of warming,….not of climate changes !

Someone else asked you if you agree that anthropogenic changes to our atmosphere is causing warming. You said no. That is denial.

That is denial of a potential cause of warming,….. .not of climate changes !

You said that NOAA made it look like the surface of the planet was warming when it is in fact cooling. That is denial.

Jack … if i believe the climate is cooling,.. how can i be denying climate change ?
Your definition of Climate Change is solely focussed on warming.

…It is not a religion, unless you deem Science a religion ?,…

Science agrees that the changes we have made to our atmosphere (primarily addition of CO2 and methane) is causing the surface of the planet to warm. That's science.
[/quote]
No Jack, that is only Theory !
…there is no scientific proof that man made CO2 or Methane is causing the planet to warm,.. that is just a unproven theory which some scientists are content to agree with…… whilst others do not !

 

[Ianhill]

Did someone say something ? No ok.

The only proof for some is when its clearly happened, bit like the religion again telling someone there no god is useless they just need to see the injustice for themselfs and make an opinion and even then there be some deniers left spouting of the bible for the savour they believe in lord oil.

 

[TheBeastie]

Seems like there are more new battery promises out there than ever, good luck to them.
But I will get interested and believe it when I see an even remotely trustable person with their face on camera making a youtube video showing off a mere prototype cell etc, remarkably we never even see that.

While that is all happening the fuel-cell technology continues to move along

Check out this 2.4kW fuel-cell module, it can can operate down to -5 Degrees Celsius (unlike lithium batteries) and with a 2 hour flight time and a 5kg payload on this hexacopter air frame.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbhKL0uQN6E
[youtube]fbhKL0uQN6E[/youtube]

All while Bill Gates funded TerraPower Natrium reactor gains more traction, such modern nuclear projects will be perfect for generating hydrogen.

GW: Your goal is to bring the cost down from $4 billion to $1 billion for a reactor. How is that possible?

Burkey: With a demonstration, there are many first-of-a-kind things we have to build. There’s quite an expensive fuel fabrication facility that won’t be developed a second time. We have to get the NRC license, for instance. So there are many first-of-a-kind costs in the $4 billion that don’t recur in the commercial plant, which is typical in technology development.
https://www.geekwire.com/2022/new-day-for-nuclear-power-why-terrapowers-cfo-is-confident-about-the-future-despite-challenges/
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/US-study-assesses-potential-for-coal-to-nuclear-co
Construction of the Natrium reactor is scheduled to begin in 2024. The reactor could produce up to 500 megawatts (500 million watts) of electricity.
https://medium.datadriveninvestor.com/gates-nuclear-company-raises-750-million-79f9aabe710e



And here is something bigger, 670bhp Hydrogen fuel-cell drift car.
Interestingly this video appears to be a record breaker for the Top Gear channel in views count in just one week, so much clean power https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCeqP91QUdI
[youtube]FCeqP91QUdI[/youtube]



And now this is on its way.
Flying motorcycle called XTURISMO by AERWINS Technologies, https://aerwins.us/xturismo/

• Cruising Range Max 40 Km

• Max. Speed 80〜100 km

So now you can fly into the most congested or hilly place 40km away in just minutes.
This version is via an inefficient internal combustion engine + battery, so that the flight motors are all electric, but their next version will be far more efficient fuel-cell based. If the FC hexcopter above can fly for 2 hours with a large payload then the fuel-cell version XTURISMO will fly just as far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX5Sm7ttt-k
[youtube]QX5Sm7ttt-k[/youtube]

 

[ZeroEm]

Don't see anyway around Nuclear. That is until we find a better more abundant power sources. One thing is for sure if we keep using hydrocarbons the cost will keep rising until we can not afford it. Nuclear needs to run steady and now we have ways to keep the demand steady.

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

While that is all happening the fuel-cell technology continues to move along

Whenever someone wants millions in venture capital and promises to "revolutionize transport" it's always through some flying vehicle. Never anything else. They also never talk about such a vehicle would ever be safe :lol:
I can't watch any of the videos- I'm typing from work- but all fuel cells have a lifespan and a continuous drop in electricity generation from their first startup. Did they talk about those hurdles at all?

Don't see anyway around Nuclear. That is until we find a better more abundant power sources. One thing is for sure if we keep using hydrocarbons the cost will keep rising until we can not afford it. Nuclear needs to run steady and now we have ways to keep the demand steady.

It's the only route to replace our coal/gas/petroleum plants. Difficulty in the USA is, the sheer scale of protection and anti-proliferation methods are so intense they're acting as a double-edged sword. But it's not the only thing that needs to be done, we've never built any buildings efficiently or "properly" to not use as much energy as they do now.

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

DOE says 80% of all coal plants could be converted to nuclear.

 

[ZeroEm]

To me fuel cells are like a controller to a battery (not the same as batteries discharge electricity). It is made to attach to a potential energy source and convert it to electricity, heat and liquid discharge. Don't really understand why Fuel Cells are so expensive and don't see the prices coming down anytime soon.

Wasting energy is top of my list. One of the biggest issues is not how much we can make it's the energy usage swings. This is the complaints about solar panels that deliver when we need it most in the summer. In winter it would be the opposite. Texas has a short winter and getting shorter. Mostly January now.

Housing standards need to be updated in many ways. The structure needs to be stronger as storms are stronger. More insulation, AC to the House then DC inside. White Roofs or build the roof to maximize slope for solar, location has an effect on most things.

by CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING » Sep 18 2022 7:31am

TheBeastie wrote: ↑Sep 17 2022 6:51am
While that is all happening the fuel-cell technology continues to move along

Whenever someone wants millions in venture capital and promises to "revolutionize transport" it's always through some flying vehicle. Never anything else. They also never talk about such a vehicle would ever be safe :lol:
I can't watch any of the videos- I'm typing from work- but all fuel cells have a lifespan and a continuous drop in electricity generation from their first startup. Did they talk about those hurdles at all?

ZeroEm wrote: ↑Sep 17 2022 10:05am
Don't see anyway around Nuclear. That is until we find a better more abundant power sources. One thing is for sure if we keep using hydrocarbons the cost will keep rising until we can not afford it. Nuclear needs to run steady and now we have ways to keep the demand steady.

It's the only route to replace our coal/gas/petroleum plants. Difficulty in the USA is, the sheer scale of protection and anti-proliferation methods are so intense they're acting as a double-edged sword. But it's not the only thing that needs to be done, we've never built any buildings efficiently or "properly" to not use as much energy as they do now.

 

[Hillhater]

To me fuel cells are like a controller to a battery (not the same as batteries discharge electricity). It is made to attach to a potential energy source and convert it to electricity, heat and liquid discharge. Don't really understand why Fuel Cells are so expensive and don't see the prices coming down anytime soon.

Wasting energy is top of my list……

Wasting energy is a good enough reason alone to avoid (H2)Fuel Cell power.
The throughput efficiency (EiEo) of converting electricity to Hydrogen in a Electrolyser, then back to electricity via a fuel cell,..is apalling around 50-60%.
And that is without system losses or energy consumed to compress and store the hydrogen.
Currently fuel cell vehicles are just show ponies, virtue signaling , and are no where near economic or practical for general use.

 

[ZeroEm]

Can see using Hydrogen for short term storage. Over night use or 3 day supply, compressing/liquefying it is a another issue. The other we don't talk about is Hydrogen leaks thru almost everything, it so small. Could imagine the daily loss of all that leakage. We would need to be making more power than we are now to waste so much. There are some issues before we get to main stream use if that ever happens.

Then on the other hand Gasoline evaporates fast and goes bad with in a year and that don't seem to bother most or they don't know about it. It has bothered me for years, glad that don't use it anymore.

 

[Hillhater]

Can see using Hydrogen for short term storage. Over night use or 3 day supply, compressing/liquefying it is a another issue.

For commercial, or any practical use as energy storage, compression is necessary. (Liquifaction is uncommon)
350-750 bar is common storage pressure.

 

[ZeroEm]

Have been trying to get my head around Liquefaction of most gases for some time now. Years ago thought they just compressed it. Read on dry ice/CO2 then realized that sub zero cooling was needed to get the gas to compress. As with Hydrogen what I know so far is they only do this to transport long distances then return it back to gas to sale.

by Hillhater » Sep 19 2022 7:19pm

ZeroEm wrote: ↑Sep 19 2022 8:35am
Can see using Hydrogen for short term storage. Over night use or 3 day supply, compressing/liquefying it is a another issue.
For commercial, or any practical use as energy storage, compression is necessary. (Liquifaction is uncommon)
350-750 bar is common storage pressure.

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

Can see using Hydrogen for short term storage. Over night use or 3 day supply, compressing/liquefying it is a another issue. The other we don't talk about is Hydrogen leaks thru almost everything, it so small. Could imagine the daily loss of all that leakage. We would need to be making more power than we are now to waste so much. There are some issues before we get to main stream use if that ever happens.

Yep, and even though you CAN burn H2 in engines, it will always cause Hydrogen embrittlement in Iron and steels; it's genuinely better in nearly every way to retrofit modern vehicles for CNG instead, because stock tanks can take it and they only requires upgraded injectors, pumps and fuel maps. Octane rating is even higher too (127! On par with racing gas!) so literally every high-compression and boosted engine would see power gains, and because they're less carbon physically in the fuel engines will carbon less and thus, last longer. Hell, you'd even cheapen out on catalytic converters even. You're just burning less stuff.

Then on the other hand Gasoline evaporates fast and goes bad with in a year and that don't seem to bother most or they don't know about it. It has bothered me for years, glad that don't use it anymore.

All volatile fuels do. If something has a lot of energy, its by nature unstable in some way and that is obvious in boiling or heat generation or radioactivity.

To me fuel cells are like a controller to a battery (not the same as batteries discharge electricity). It is made to attach to a potential energy source and convert it to electricity, heat and liquid discharge. Don't really understand why Fuel Cells are so expensive and don't see the prices coming down anytime soon.

Wasting energy is top of my list……

Wasting energy is a good enough reason alone to avoid (H2)Fuel Cell power.
The throughput efficiency (EiEo) of converting electricity to Hydrogen in a Electrolyser, then back to electricity via a fuel cell,..is apalling around 50-60%.
And that is without system losses or energy consumed to compress and store the hydrogen.
Currently fuel cell vehicles are just show ponies, virtue signaling , and are no where near economic or practical for general use.

Yeah, I hate to give more points to Elon but he was completely right about fuel cells when it came to efficiency problems. Plus there's the whole issue of practical cost; the Mirai for example, is a 3 ton SUV that still has batteries and inverters to power it's motors, and the fuel cell acts more as a range extender. The fuel cell stack and compressed tank storage is still seriously large, and all fuel cells require platinum or other catalyst metals in the stack that aren't cheap. You're genuinely in a region where it may be Cheaper to use more batteries and go EV or cheaper to go a Gas/petroleum engine and be a PHEV. Of course, building a vehicle and it's big selling point that it runs CNG instead of gas likely isn't FUTUREEEEEE enough for your average shareholder anymore...

You can see it here, it's all the yellow tanks:

BIG EDIT:
I decided to look up energy density because I forgot about that factor versus octane rating and...

CNG has a relatively low energy density compared to other fuels. It requires approximately 0.51 cubic feet of CNG to equal the btu value of one gallon of gasoline. In other words, a CNG tank with an interior volume of 20 gallons would hold the energy equivalent of 6 gallons of gasoline.

So uh, go me :lol:. Still tho, it's not the first time Propane (Density around ~90% of gas) or CNG has been used- Powernation did a series on modifying the Ford I6 300ci motor, and the one they used was a pressure pump that was factory-built to run propane. Many of them are, in fact.

 

[Hillhater]

How much Copper can we find ?
A conventional 660 MW thermal driven generator has less than 20 tons (17 in one report) of copper in its windings etc.
..IE that is 0.030 tons per MW capacity
A conventional Wind turbine generator has approx 1 ton of copper PER MW capacity in its construction !
….( some DDrive designs use 4 tons per MW.)
https://imedea.uib-csic.es/master/cambioglobal/Modulo_I_cod101601/Ballabrera_Diciembre_2011/Articulos/Garcia-Olivares.2011.pdf

Offshore wind farms can use over 10 tons per MW by the time the power is delivered to shore !
Solar PV uses 4.5 tons per MW acording to the solar industry. ?

A well-designed solar PV plant might use approximately 9,000 pounds of copper per megawatt of peak capacity – a figure that does not appear to vary significantly over installations ranging from large rooftop units to multi-megawatt utility farms.

https://issues.solarindustrymag.com/article/rise-solar-unique-opportunity-copper

Taking into consideration the respective CF s for each system (0.8 for thermal,..0.3 for wind, ..0.2 for PV) ..we get..
Thermal..230 GWh annual output per ton Cu
Onshore wind..3.0 GWh annual per ton Cu
Offshore wind..0.3 GWh annual per ton Cu
Solar PV….0.4 GWh annual per ton of Cu
So, best case is 75 times more copper needed
…or 750 times more for offshore wind generation !

….i think i will buy into Copper futures ! :wink:

 

[Voltron]

One plus of solar installations is when they're blown up in a regional conflict, afterward they don't spew massive amounts of methane like the Nord pipelines, or radiation like Zaporizhzhya nuke plant in Ukraine.