Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[Ianhill]

Reality is theres not enough clean water access to make the solar we need without having knock on consequences for existing citizens in the areas that water is needed most.

Same for pump storage most areas are in drought circumstances let alone find enough to fill new plants on top.

Theres only 2 answers cut back or go nuclear, stop wasting billions on failed projects and build the most safety conscious plants in well thought out areas.

 

[ZeroEm]

pump storage

We have plenty of salt water, it's not as salty now, maybe a little acidic.

 

[Hillhater]

We have plenty of salt water, it's not as salty now, maybe a little acidic.

Salt water is Alkaline, and can never be acidic !

 

[ZeroEm]

by Hillhater » Jan 20 2023 4:01pm

ZeroEm wrote: ↑Jan 20 2023 9:03am
We have plenty of salt water, it's not as salty now, maybe a little acidic.
Salt water is Alkaline, and can never be acidic !

The reefs think it to acidic or is something else killing them.

Just stating they need some fluid for pumped hydro. Leave the fresh water alone and pump some sea water in. Renewable and energy storage is not going to be cheap. We need to get over the cost. Just bite the Bullet, Invest in the future.

 

[Chalo]

https://www.techspot.com/news/97306-gravity-batteries-abandoned-mines-could-power-whole-planet.html

Theoretically, gravity batteries can be anything with a lot of weight, like water or solid objects. The IIASA study lowered and lifted sand in abandoned mine shafts, moving it back and forth between upper and lower chambers based on energy needs.

This article is on the woo-woo side, but it illustrates that there are ways to implement practical energy storage that exploit underutilized resources and can be put into service without gigantic cost outlays. I don't think trucking sand is going to be part of anybody's energy storage solution, but there are certainly lower overhead methods that can use the same sites and principles. It doesn't require water, it doesn't require massive new construction.

 

[Hillhater]

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?

Again,..yes, i have read the report, but there is little science in it let alone anything the refutes my comments.
Infact it is incredibly devoid of any scientific statements or evidence..being mainly just a strange attack on a historical situation.
Exxon themselves were not doing any basic scientific research,..they were simply regurgitating the general “ CO2 Greenhouse” theory from other scientific papers . As made clear here..
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/Global/Files/climate-change/media-reported-documents/03_1982-Exxon-Primer-on-CO2-Greenhouse-Effect.pdf
So Exxons predictions were not “accurate” ,..just the obvious result of the science info they were using…and only match the “actual” data because the “actual data “ is not “actual” in the way you might want to believe !….
…Because, in the Harvard report, the warming projection vs actual plot is based on the NOAA etc data…..which is known to have been “adjusted” from the actual raw data,.. ( progressively LOWERED pre 2000, such that a much greater warming trend is apparent !)
This has be admitted by NOAA and has been the subject of much debate in climate circles.
So NO, im afraid none of that report makes any difference to my clear understanding of Anthropogenic CO2 , and global temperatures .
If you actually want to understand correctly (unlikely ?) you need to get past the “Algor ithms”, media BS, and do some basic science fact checking.!

 

[ZeroEm]

by Chalo » Jan 20 2023 8:46pm
This article is on the woo-woo side, but it illustrates that there are ways to implement practical energy storage that exploit underutilized resources and can be put into service without gigantic cost outlays. I don't think trucking sand is going to be part of anybody's energy storage solution, but there are certainly lower overhead methods that can use the same sites and principles. It doesn't require water, it doesn't require massive new construction.

Have been thinking about storage for ten years. I'm sure others for far longer. Never thought about mines.

Decide to ignore anything with cables, gears and anything that would need heavy maintenance.

 

[Hillhater]

….. I don't think trucking sand is going to be part of anybody's energy storage solution, but there are certainly lower overhead methods that can use the same sites and principles. It doesn't require water, it doesn't require massive new construction.

If you could ever get past the concept of “CO2 is bad”,….all this unnecessary, expensive , pointless, sideshow of essential storage,…goes away. !
As does the inevitable huge hikes in energy costs resulting from intermittent, inefficient, generation concepts.

 

[Voltron]

There you have it in a nutshell for some. Deny CO² is a problem, and free yourself from caring about solutions, or feeling responsibility about the struggle future generations will face.

 

[ZeroEm]

Why did not some one tell me. Have spent years worrying and buy energy saver bulbs, AC's, EV's and ebikes. Our electric bill is below $100.00 USD. Have not purchased any gasoline in over 4yrs. Just don't know what came over me.

 

[Hillhater]

There you have it in a nutshell for some. Deny CO² is a problem, and free yourself from caring about solutions, or feeling responsibility about the struggle future generations will face.

What struggle is that exactly ?.. maybe the regular “demand management” power cuts, or the horrendous cost of energy which will destroy the economy of those Woke nations that worship the AGW CO2 mantra ?
Like i said, if you can just think outside the CO2 box, the future becomes brighter
Have you found any proof yet that CO2 is responsible for any global warming ?
…keep looking , it will keep you occupied for a while :wink:

 

[Chalo]

….. I don't think trucking sand is going to be part of anybody's energy storage solution, but there are certainly lower overhead methods that can use the same sites and principles. It doesn't require water, it doesn't require massive new construction.

If you could ever get past the concept of “CO2 is bad”,….all this unnecessary, expensive , pointless, sideshow of essential storage,…goes away. !
As does the inevitable huge hikes in energy costs resulting from intermittent, inefficient, generation concepts.

Even if you deny AGW (which is stupid AF and contrary to everybody with an understanding of cause and effect or the relevant data), you might understand that fossil fuel is a diminishing resource whose production has peaked. This leaves price with nowhere to trend but up, and EROEI nowhere to go but down. Even the most craven capitalist pig will recognize the the smart money must look forward to the next thing.

The next thing isn't fossil fuel, or fission reactors. It's renewables.

 

[ZeroEm]

The first went to menthol now they want to try to bottle hydrogen and sell it. They will keep searching for the next income replacement for gasoline, diesel. Cars will be electric but they want to control how you get and pay for the power.

A 2-3kw solar setup would more than supply all the EV power needed but would need to kept it running. This would not work for those that are not home during the day.

 

[Hillhater]

Even if you deny AGW (which is stupid AF and contrary to everybody with an understanding of cause and effect or the relevant data),

…
…same question to you as all deluded CO2 cult believers,….
..show me some conclusive evidence that CO2 is a direct CAUSE of any atmospheric warming..
( and please dont just say “greenhouse effect” !)

…..]you might understand that fossil fuel is a diminishing resource whose production has peaked. ..

Sure it is deminishing we probably only have a few hundred years left to find a realistic replacement……
….which is not the current range of intermittent , unpredictable, weather dependent, impractical half baked solutions that produce horrendously expensive grid power and are totally dependent on subsidies to survive economically. !

 

[Chalo]

[youtube]BwP2mSZpe0Q[/youtube]

 

[Chalo]

Even if you deny AGW (which is stupid AF and contrary to everybody with an understanding of cause and effect or the relevant data),

…
…same question to you as all deluded CO2 cult believers,….
..show me some conclusive evidence that CO2 is a direct CAUSE of any atmospheric warming..
( and please dont just say “greenhouse effect” !)

Are you suggesting, like a moron, that rising global average temperatures are causing CO2 levels to rise? Because unless that's the case, the causal relationship is pretty indisputable.

 

[Hillhater]

..show me some conclusive evidence that CO2 is a direct CAUSE of any atmospheric warming..
( and please dont just say “greenhouse effect” !)

Are you suggesting, like a moron, that rising global average temperatures are causing CO2 levels to rise? Because unless that's the case, the causal relationship is pretty indisputable.

Open your eyes and reset your brain ….
How can you honestly look at that plot and conclude that the CO2 is CAUSING the temp to increase ?
For the first 30 years the CO2 is increasing before the temperature even starts to rise !
+ The data clearly shows extended periods ..1880-1910, and 1940-1970…where the TEMPERATURE IS REDUCING whilst the CO2 IS INCREASING ! That is 40%+ of the period of those results !
And , if you attempt to forget your preconcieved ideas.. ( impossible for you i know),… it is equally easy to see that chart as the Temperature forcing the CO2 increase !
That chart PROVES NOTHING about the CAUSE of either the CO2 increase , or the Temperature changes .
If anything that data suggests that CO2 is NOT the cause of Temperature increase
Only a complete moron would believe anything else !

 

[ZeroEm]

Temperature forcing the CO2 increase !

Can not wrap my brain around that one. There is more going on in the atmosphere and the earth for temperature changes.
So Venus has a lot of CO2 because the planet is hot?

We need to stop using gasoline, coal, natural gas because it causes to much heat. If we stop the heat then the CO2 will not rise.

 

[Hillhater]

We need to stop using gasoline, coal, natural gas because it causes to much heat. If we stop the heat then the CO2 will not rise.

Do you know the first law of Thermodynamics ?
..Basicly it states that ALL energy eventually end up as heat !
So no matter if it is sunlight, electricity, coal, gas, etc etc…and no matter how you use it to work for you,…eventually it will all become “heat” .
Most of the energy on this planet comes from the Sun, and the majority of that falls on the oceanshence warming them.
Also 98% of all CO2 on the planet is disolved in those same oceans.
Now do you understand Henrys Law ?…if not look it up and consider what might be happening to that CO2 in the Oceans.

 

[Chalo]

[Senseless garbage]

When everybody in the entire world with half a brain and any understanding of the data disagrees with you, you have to furnish the proof they're wrong, not the other way around. So get cracking.

I bet the fossil fuel industry didn't pay you a nickel to buy your opinion. That's pretty sad. You know they don't even believe their own lies, right? Yet you do.

 

[ZeroEm]

CO2 in the Oceans are making the fish smaller.

Fifty Years Ago, Fish Were Bigger; Fifty Years From Now, They’ll Be Gone.

 

[ZeroEm]

Trophy Fish, Key West, 2007

 

[Hillhater]

When everybody in the entire world with half a brain and any understanding of the data disagrees with you, you have to furnish the proof they're wrong, not the other way around.

Do I ? ..why ?
…eventually they will realise they have been using the wrong half of their brain and should not have jumped on the AGW bandwagon.
Why didnt you explain how the CO2 in that chart kept rising during those extended periods of cooling temperatures.
……Ah no, you will just carry on with blind faith in what you have been told by the likes of Hansen , Gore, IPCC, Biden, etc
( what a fine bunch of honest information sources ! )
I will stick with real science .

 

[Chalo]

I will stick with real science .

Too bad you have dismissed all the real science and real scientists. The only ones parroting your BS are the "scientists" (shills) on fossil energy company payrolls.

Enjoy the view of the inside of your own ass.

 

[Hillhater]

I will stick with real science .

Too bad you have dismissed all the real science and real scientists.

…AGAIN… show me the scientific proof that CO2 is the CAUSE of any global temperature increase !

The only ones parroting your BS are the "scientists" (shills) on fossil energy company payrolls. ...

Odd that this discussion started with that report that Exxon predicted the apparent future warming based on the “science” as they understood it !
Most of the OIl and gas companies have jumped on the AGW bandwagon as they can see where the big bucks can be made from subsidies and tax breaks due to Goverment policies supporting Renewables.
They have no interest in the science, they are totally focussed on the money and will follow which ever route max’s out their income.
PS..you still have not attempted to explain the temperature reductions in that chart you posted ?