Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

What i see is a plan based on “abundant clean renewable energy” ( abundant…really ?) at $10 MWh(??)…and process it into a carbon based energy at $50 MWh ! ? :shock:
The proposal combines two of the most expensive, unproven, processes ( carbon capture /storage, and GreenHydrogen)
Sounds like a solid idea !
However i am sure they will raise much funding, gov grants, and tax breaks, to enable the promoters of the scheme to become very wealthy ! :roll:
 
Hillhater said:
Seasons greetings, and a healthy 2023 to all at ES.
From a Colonial Cousin, down under.
Click to expand...

Merry crimbo to one and all have a warm one.
 
-7c one night then 11c the next this must be what the menopause feels like, hope everyone had a good xmas and has a happy new year best wishes for 2023 all the best from the welsh tin hat brigade.
 
Happy New Year to my home from the Petro industry.

SB.OilSpill.2.jpg323a99c53f19ad1fd0e74020e76058b9.jpg

Last time this happened here, it started Earth Day. After that they made them keep oil clean up ships on station here, but they weaseled out of that a few years ago.
Guess they didn't use they money they saved to harden their pipeline infrastructure against the ever worsening storms and higher sea levels.
 
R.I.P. Sun Cable project..
https://suncable.energy/
Sun Cable is developing the AAPowerLink – the world’s largest solar farm and battery storage facility in the Northern Territory, with a 5,000 km transmission system to supply Darwin and Singapore with reliable and competitively priced renewable electricity.
Click to expand...
It was never going to be a viable project…..a fools dream !
https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/sun-cable-collapses-despite-backing-from-forrest-cannon-brookes-20230111-p5cbup
 
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063

"Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections"

In 2015, investigative journalists discovered internal company memos indicating that Exxon oil company has known since the late 1970s that its fossil fuel products could lead to global warming with “dramatic environmental effects before the year 2050.” Additional documents then emerged showing that the US oil and gas industry’s largest trade association had likewise known since at least the 1950s, as had the coal industry since at least the 1960s, and electric utilities, Total oil company, and GM and Ford motor companies since at least the 1970s

Results show that in private and academic circles since the late 1970s and early 1980s, ExxonMobil predicted global warming correctly and skillfully.
Moreover, we show that ExxonMobil scientists correctly dismissed the possibility of a coming ice age in favor of a “carbon dioxide induced ‘super-interglacial’”; accurately predicted that human-caused global warming would first be detectable in the year 2000 ± 5; and reasonably estimated how much CO2 would lead to dangerous warming."

Countdown to some denialism, obfuscating and whataboutism in 3,2,1....
 
Uk ev charging prices are getting high, the adoption of ev is slowing due to this fact the grid is using expensive methods of supply and mismanagement of existing power generation sites, its leading to the used car market been stronger than ever while new car market never so weak.

Our shut coal power plants are just wasted site's when they have recent renovation on some and lots of expensive gear sitting idol, its stupid in my view why the sites with good sea access are not been updated to run on lpg to help bring down the cost of electric and allow the ev markets costing figures to actual work, all we want is a good product thats reliable and usable as existing setup with simular costing but that is not the case.

Early adopters pay the price i get that but it seems the price they pay is ever increasing and many are tapping out and getting a second ice car or even reverting back completely.
 
My EV cost are very low. Have avoided using public charging, it's is crazy costly. Don't even know what they are selling a kw for. At home it's USD $0.12 and business pay less then that. Don't know how it's justified charging USD $0.50-$1 per kw. We have a word for it here, it's price gouging.

I'm not driving to work everyday, kw of solar panels would keep my car charged for my use which is low. I'm sure the high cost is trying to recover the cost of the infrastructure. Odd when adding water lines or power lines they charge the current customers for this not the new customers. So we should add a fee on all tags to cover this cost.
 
Voltron said:
Countdown to some denialism, obfuscating and whataboutism in 3,2,1....
Click to expand...
How about a few factual details instead ?….
*. some increase in the planet temperature is inevitable given that it is still emerging from the last ice age and mini ice age.
So warming in itself is proof of nothing.
It is the mechanism of that warming effect that is in debate, …
….but it should be remembered that ice ages are known to be associated with planetary movement cycles.

*. Analysis of historic data (ice cores etc) has shown that there is NO CAUSAL CORRELATION between atmospheric CO2 and planet temperature.

*. The increase in Atmospheric CO2 levels is not due to human activity.
Isotope analysis of samples shows human derived CO2 does NOT accumulate over time ( as the UN IPCC claim), and is still a minor % (<4%) of the total .

*. “Models” are based on human compiled algorithms, which are the result of preformed theory’s and ideas.
IE , the model will inevitably produce the result that the originator expects it to !
A Model is not a conclusive science experiment.
 
You covered denial and obfuscation, but you missed whataboutism.

Most of those claims were covered in that report. Did you actually read it?

But I guess if the release of secret internal files from the scientists employed by the polluters themselves warning there would be problems doesn't convince you, nothing will.

Which leads to the question....what would it take to change your mind? Is there some threshold of evidence that might actually get you to think "well, maybe 8 billion peoples pollution is having an effect"
What would it take to move you from outright denial, to at least maybe humans are affecting things?
 
Sure i read the report …
Unfortunately the whole issue is still based on the basic assumption that CO2 is the controlling factor in planetary warming when there is absolutely NO evidence, or proven science to support that. As i said all the historic data (FACTS) prove that CO2 has NO CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP with temperature.
…beyond that one fact… it is all just BS. !
what would it take to change your mind? ..
Click to expand...
Maybe if one,..just one…of the numerous predictions of the warming cult would have come true !
..remember those.
“ our children will never see snow”
“ there will never be enough rain to fill the dams..”
“ we have only 10 years to prevent disaster…”
…etc..
Remember also,… the planet is warming (currently ) ,..but we cannot prevent it by destroying our civilisation by attempting to reduce CO2.
What would it take to change YOUR mind ?
 
Hillhater said:
Sure i read the report …
Unfortunately the whole issue is still based on the basic assumption that CO2 is the controlling factor in planetary warming when there is absolutely NO evidence, or proven science to support that. As i said all the historic data (FACTS) prove that CO2 has NO CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP with temperature.
…beyond that one fact… it is all just BS. !
what would it take to change your mind? ..
Click to expand...
Maybe if one,..just one…of the numerous predictions of the warming cult would have come true !
..remember those.
“ our children will never see snow”
“ there will never be enough rain to fill the dams..”
“ we have only 10 years to prevent disaster…”
…etc..
Remember also,… the planet is warming (currently ) ,..but we cannot prevent it by destroying our civilisation by attempting to reduce CO2.
What would it take to change YOUR mind ?
Click to expand...

I guess having some of 99% of scientists reverse their agreement on it would be a start to changing my mind.
And if I hadn't spent a lot of time flying in gliders at high altitudes, up into hovering multi thousand foot thick layers of pollution that are completely invisible from the ground, and realized how oblivious people are to where it all goes, it'd probably be easier to convince me too.

See, part of the obfuscation is quoting things that no reputable scientists predicted. You're just listing a bunch of clickbait headlines from tabloids.

You say you might maybe change if any predictions came true, and also that you read that report. The whole alarming point of the report was how accurate the petroleum industry scientists had been with their predictions, from all the way back in the 50's.
And their research ended up agreeing with similar research done by the transportation industry and the coal industry in the decades following that.
And all those related industries decided to lie about it to take in profits before people wised up.
Did you not get that out of reading it?
I even highlighted some accurate predictions in red to make it harder to deny. Do they not meet your "maybe just one prediction being right" threshold?
Or does every single claim, no matter how unreliable, have to be completely refuted, before you'll accept anything?
 
ZeroEm said:
Talking about banning Natural Gas cooking stoves here in the US again. Clam the emissions are bad for you. Like cooking with gas. Wonder if this means LP Gas grills too. Will need to buy a outdoor electric grill to put next to the swimming pool. 20ft 240v 50a cord for it.
The Truth About The Gas Stove Ban
Click to expand...

Its carbon monoxide build up over time, new homes have ever increasing insulation levels that help lead to poor airflow in the home, but in reality outside of media news theres already regulations on extractor airflow over a gas appliance within a given distance of it but that dont fit the narrative.

And thats what pisses me off with current media its not that the threat is not real its the fact they amplify the threat make a more striking headline, as the best debated topics are the most controversial

Just look at this thread with its naming and how many pages its gone on for as an example if you want to debate an electical forum just ask whats the best form of supply same as going on a classic car forum and saying who makes the best cars etc bit different but same point.
 
by Ianhill » Jan 17 2023 9:28am

Its carbon monoxide build up over time, new homes have ever increasing insulation levels that help lead to poor airflow in the home, but in reality outside of media news theres already regulations on extractor airflow over a gas appliance within a given distance of it but that dont fit the narrative.

And thats what pisses me off with current media its not that the threat is not real its the fact they amplify the threat make a more striking headline, as the best debated topics are the most controversial

Just look at this thread with its naming and how many pages its gone on for as an example if you want to debate an electical forum just ask whats the best form of supply same as going on a classic car forum and saying who makes the best cars etc bit different but same point.
Click to expand...

Waste bothers me more than anything else. I'm for cleaning up emissions in a big way. Don't think banning gas stoves is in the right direction unless we were down to just gas stoves.

Utilities here are using Coal and Natural gas to make most of our electricity. Just think it is better for me to use that gas to heat with and not buying electricity that was made by gas.

Been a trend to not vent stove tops to the outside. New hoods just blow air around the room and have grease catchers. Have not seen a vented hood outside of my grandparents house. It had an 8" pipe with a fan in it. New house's here are all electric, next generation knows less about air quality in homes. Older homes here been burning down with electric heaters (wiring over heating). Could see banning gas stoves in new homes, would not recommend it for older homes.
 
4 inch is the standard size we got over here, theres activated carbon filters but like you say they dont catalyse anything just grease and odour catchers.

People using candles is another issue but at the end of the day im not the nanny police id rather educate people just open a door and use all the house airspace dont sit in a cupboard bonging all day.
 
Hillhater said:
Nice compact idea, but isnt it just a pumped hydro system using the rock density to increase the water pressure ?
The same result could be obtained with just a conventional pumped hydro using the same amount of water but with 2.6 times the working head of this rock piston idea.
Click to expand...

Many places with high populations and high energy requirements are flat for hundreds of kilometers. I haven't seen any cost breakdowns, but I can imagine that a highly engineered approach like this could be more economical overall than long transmission lines plus line losses, or proportionally taller storage towers.

If they can't make an economic case for their system, it won't be adopted.

Before you get around to "yes but": Clean and sustainable energy systems can sometimes have higher direct costs than the cheapest kinds of fossil energy, but that's only when you fail to account for the expensive externalities that result from pollution and resource extraction. Same goes for fission power if you price in perpetual waste storage and accidents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jimmyhackers
solar grid tie/meter electrical questions (UK)
Replies
11
Views
525
d8veh
D
IamIan
Combining Power Sources for Peak Vehicle Efficiency
Replies
2
Views
1,504
Logic11
L
H
HYGROpower ?
Replies
1
Views
1,569
Chalo
Chalo
H
Full cost comparason between Wind , solar, coal, gas, Nuclear
Replies
0
Views
1,702
Hillhater
H
L
DIY ThermoAcoustic Stirling Generator: Looks like a bicycle frame doubling as a range extender to me!?
Replies
17
Views
1,485
Logic11
L
Back
Top