2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Why not explain it? 

 

If Los Angeles depends on Phoenix for power when it rains, vice-versa, then both have to have the capacity for both.

I'm getting tired of this. First off, it's distributed power. So it's not a case of one city depending on one other city. And the point is that batteries can be cheap enough at $20 to provide plenty of reserve power.  And among other calculations that went into the MIT study, was research on weather from which algorithms were derived. Get back to me in the unlikely event that you read the article that I have linked to several times.

15 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  He turned up with a magazine with his photo on the front page and his address , that wasn't accepted , so he used his drivers licence, which was accepted 

After he was turned away he had to fetch his driver's license:

Writing in his Daily Mail column, he said: "I want to pay a particular tribute to the three villagers who on Thursday rightly turned me away when I appeared in the polling station with nothing to prove my identity except the sleeve of my copy of Prospect magazine, on which my name and address had been printed.

"I showed it to them and they looked very dubious… within minutes I was back with my driving licence and voted Tory."

https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-pays-tribute-to-polling-station-staff-who-refused-to-let-him-vote-without-photo-id-13128674

8 minutes ago, mogandave said:

And?

 

 

Do I really have to explain the obvious to you? The hours a battery can discharge are based on a constant flow. So if less power is consumed at night then you will need less batteries discharging power.

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

So you have to have five times the capacity. 

 

Twice the capacity of each wind and solar, and once capacity of fossil fuel or nuclear, correct? 

 

And how many weeks of battery capacity?

You seem utterly resistant to recognizing the the role that interconnectivity has to play in all this

6 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I think you need to associate with a better circle of friends & family.  We were raised NOT to take advantage of people, as there is no need to, to be happy. 

 

Quite the opposite, if using such tactics, if you enjoy looking in the mirror.

More information about yourself. Who knows, it may even be true. But true or not, it's utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

No, in the morning the batteries have already bee. used for 10 hours. 

 

But yes, as long as you have fossile fuels and or nuclear to back it up it’s great. 

 

First off, you take no account of the fact that nighttime consumption is far lower than daytime consumption. Utilities often charge lower rates at night than during the daytime precisely for this reason.

24 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I never needed to stoop to those low tactics, and honesty with like mined horny people always worked for me.  No need for all that silliness, as there's always some wanting to share smiles with me.

Well, good for you. And when you and your clones become the only males on planet earth the problem will be solved. Until then, the issue isn't about you.

Just now, placeholder said:

It would certainly be far better if emissions were drastically cut.

 

Actually that would be 4 days. Which is why interconnectivity is important. The wider the grid, the more resilient it is against such events.

Come to think of it, it's generally quite windy when it rains so who knows how many days it would take.

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Regarding stopping fossil fuels: it's not an economic decision, but an existential one.  Emissions need to be drastically cut. If we do it now, perhaps life will be livable in 50 years time, if we don't well it doesn't bear thinking about.

It would certainly be far better if emissions were drastically cut.

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

And how long, and how much power does it take to charge them?

 

Still, at 100 hours, if it starts raining in the morning, and rains for three days it’s done. 

 

 

Actually that would be 4 days. Which is why interconnectivity is important. The wider the grid, the more resilient it is against such events.

13 minutes ago, mogandave said:

And as has been shown countless times, the articles you link to generally do not include what is driving costs. 

 

i have provided information about the sharp rise in cost of coal and gas. Do you really need the link spelled out for you. As for the cost of "fuels" such as wind and solar, last time I checked, they were free.

Just now, mogandave said:

And as has been shown countless times, the articles you link to generally do not include what is driving costs. 

 

Every solar and or wind installation must be backed up with fossil fuel or solar. 

 

How many days/weeks/months of capacity should a a battery backup provide?

Much of this depends on the connectivity of the grid. The wider the range of power sources that can be drawn on, the less important the fossil fuel backup becomes.  As I have noted before, here is an article from Vox that explains research from M.I.T. that delves deeply into the issues. The conclusion that research came to was that it would take batteries with a cost of $20 per kwh of capacity to reach 100%. These batteries can generate power for 100 hours vs. at most 8 hours for lithium. But to reach 95%, batteries would only need to have a cost of $151 per kwh. At the time, it was expected that this wouldn't happen before 2030 at the earliest. But has been consistently been the case when it comes to predictions about batteries, progress has run way ahead of schedule. Even lithium batteries have now broken that barrier. And iron-air batteries can be manufactured for a cost of $20 per kwh of capacity.

Getting to 100% renewables requires cheap energy storage. But how cheap?

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity

Just now, sidneybear said:

I'd much rather read your paraphrased opinion of what you find online, rather than just links to it without your own analysis, or author's voice. Anyone can Google and post links, many of which might present both sides of the same argument, but it takes skill to interpret them and apply their content to real world situations.

 

In relation to these batteries, what's your opinion on how production could be scaled to make renewables a real contender, obviating the need for base load generation (fossil fuels and nuclear) that still can't be done without when there's no sun and wind? $20 per kWh is $20,000,000 per GWh, GW being the realm that power generation is usually talked about. A 1 GW nuclear power reactor, for example, can produce nearly 24 GWh of power per day. it feasible to scale up the production of three batteries to that level, by when, and at what environmental impact? Of course, batteries are useless unless they're charged, so what kind of renewable generation infrastructure would need to be built to replace nuclear and fossil fuels, taking into account increased demand from EVs? I'm interested in your own analysis, rather than just links here.

 Assertions without evidence are empty. Why should I care what you would rather read? Why should I spend time paraphrasing when I offer brief, clear  quotes that support my arguments? What purpose would that serve?  And I don't see why I should, given that those quotes are accompanied by links to sources that do an admirable job of explaining of these complex issues.

It seems to me that you prefer what are colloquially referred to as B.S. sessions. Sessions where you can claim without offering any independent evidence that climatologists are publishing false results in order to serve their paymasters . Or you  characterize authoritative sources as liars without your offering any independent evidence. You have clearly demonstrated that when your assertions are countered with evidence you resort to unsupported slurs or empty denials. It's you who need to change your method of discourse. Not me.

Just now, mogandave said:

This must be why the cost of electricity has plummeted…

As I pointed out previously with evidence to back it up, the cost of coal and LNG rose sharply. And nuclear power plants have had huge cost overruns. What's more, while solar and wind power are now dominating in the construction of new power plant capacity, they still compose a fraction of the installed power base.

Anyone who doesn't have doubts about Trump's mental condition should read this article:

Trump calls prosecutor a 'f**king a**hole' and compares himself to Al Capone in bizarre speech

In a wild tirade, former president Donald Trump has blasted classified documents prosecutor Jack Smith as a "f**king a**hole" during a speech where he likened himself to notorious gangster Al Capone.

Trump, visibly irate, claimed he had been "indicted like Alphonse" and unleashed a verbal onslaught against Smith during a high-ticket fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago, with guests paying £30,000 each to attend. 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/trump-calls-prosecutor-fking-ahole-32739414

1 minute ago, sidneybear said:

The point I'm making is that you don't overlay your own insights,  opinions, or knowledge onto anything. You just post links all the time.

 

Did you find a solution to the storage problem yet? One that exists and is feasible in the real world, rather than the academic world?

No, I back up my arguments with evidence or use it to show that the arguments advanced by others are false. 

As for the storage issue. I already posted evidence of a company that has produced low cost iron-air batteries that cost $20 per kwh of capacity. They have almost completed their 3/4 of a billion dollar manufacturing plant to put the finished product into large scale use. It's called Form Energy.

And there are plenty of other contenders including companies manufacturing zinc-based storage batteries. Also, Natron, is now manufacturing sodium based batteries which are cheaper than lithium, charge faster, and have a wider range of temperature tolerance. I can only post this information. I can't help it if you don't read it.

1 minute ago, sidneybear said:

You talk in links, rather than from your own knowledge. I studied the Blackrock case as part of my MBA. What I told you is well known in management circles. Suffice to say that Larry Fink has since started walking back his enthusiasm in ESG and all things green, such are the colossal financial losses associated with fads like these.

You're an anonymous poster. Your claims about your qualifications are unproveable. Which leaves us with evidence. I offered actual evidence.  If you have evidence to counter what I offered from Bloomberg about Blackrock's investment portfolio, share it with us.

And, of course, as I repeatedly pointed out, the person who raised the Blackrock issue did so irrelevantly. I cited research only from Lazard, Ernst & Young, and McKenzie Woods. He countered with that dubious info about Larry Fink and Blackrock.

57 minutes ago, susanlea said:

Wrong on both points. The rate is steady at 0.15 degrees per decade and temperatures rose by 1.1 degrees since 1900. You don't even know what you are posting.

You sure about that?

Robust acceleration of Earth system heating observed over the past six decades

In this study, we demonstrate that since 1960, the warming of the world ocean has accelerated at a relatively consistent pace of 0.15 ± 0.05 (W/m2)/decade, while the land, cryosphere, and atmosphere have exhibited an accelerated pace of 0.013 ± 0.003 (W/m2)/decade. This has led to a substantial increase in ocean warming, with a magnitude of 0.91 ± 0.80 W/m2 between the decades 1960–1970 and 2010–2020, which overlies substantial decadal-scale variability in ocean warming of up to 0.6 W/m2. Our findings withstand a wide range of sensitivity analyses and are consistent across different observation-based datasets.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-49353-1

An expected acceleration
The most notable thing about the current apparent acceleration in warming is that it was expected.

Climate models have long shown a faster rate of warming in current and future decades than has been observed to date, though there is some disagreement among modelling estimates. 

The table below shows a compilation of both observed rates of warming to date and different model projections out to 2050. 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-why-the-recent-acceleration-in-global-warming-is-what-scientists-expect/#:~:text=Trend (C%2Fdecade)&text=Global surface temperatures have warmed,given the shorter time period.

Just now, susanlea said:

I just used your words. 

These are my words?

"Another nothing post from a guy using fossil fuels every minute."

23 minutes ago, susanlea said:

Another nothing post from a guy using fossil fuels every minute.

One sure way to know that someone has got nothing is when they make it personal.

35 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I'm a Marxist and I don't believe that at all.

Marxism is more to do with a fair wage for the skilled labour force and a more equatable distribution of wealth and land to the people.

 

Marx would not have supported abortion in any way shape or form as he believed women were property, so no equality or women's rights in Marxism.

 

Health care should be publicly funded, but killing unborn babies isn't health care.

This is like someone calling himself a Christian but they don't believe that Jesus was the son of God.

And whatever Marx's other beliefs might have been, they're not relevant to Marxism. This is like saying that because Marx disapproved of eating eggs, Marxists shouldn't eat eggs.

Just now, susanlea said:

Bit of a nothing post. I have no issues with using some solar products. Solar cars are terrible though and solar planes would crash.

 

The fossil fuels are still king.

More irrelevant nonsense from you. Who is promoting cars or planes that run solely on solar power? And far more new renewable power plants are being built than fossil fuel power plants.

At a Glance: How Renewable Energy Is Transforming the Global Electricity Supply
Even as Fossil Energy Still Provides Most of the World’s Electricity, New Electricity Generating Capacity Is Dominated by Renewable Energy Projects

https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2023/how-renewable-energy-is-transforming-the-global-electricity-supply.html

Massive expansion of renewable power opens door to achieving global tripling goal set at COP28

https://www.iea.org/news/massive-expansion-of-renewable-power-opens-door-to-achieving-global-tripling-goal-set-at-cop28

14 hours ago, Cory1848 said:

In the first part of your response, I don’t know who you’re quarreling with, or about what. And in the second part, you didn’t read what I wrote, and you don’t know what the word “Marxist” means.

Yes, among extreme right wingers there is this Pavlovian reflexive use of "Marxist" to mean anyone they disagree with. Above all else, Marxists believe that the state should own all means of production for the benefit of workers. Obviously nothing to do with abortion.

Just now, susanlea said:

So there is wide disagreement on inferior energy sources.

This is like saying there's wide disagreement about the effects of greenhouse gasses on global warming. Only if you count the ignoramuses who deny any connection between the 2.  There isn't wide disagreement that the costs  of solar has beaten coal for the past few years. And it's now beating gas as well.

Solar Is Cheapest Energy Source Says IEA
By Irina Slav - May 28, 2023, 10:00 AM CDT
IEA: new solar projects are the cheapest source of power on a LCOE basis.
Substantial cost related to renewables that gets overlooked on a regular basis is the need for storage capacity to offset the intermittency problem.
The IEA calculates that on a value-adjusted basis—and with cost assumptions in place—solar comes in at $60 per MWh while gas is $20 more expensive at $80 per MWh.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Solar-Is-Cheapest-Energy-Source-Says-IEA.html

1 minute ago, susanlea said:

Not totally and not without cost. You are not a CEO, engineer or scientist. Go back to your cheap beer and flip flops. You will be dead before renewables takeover.

But here is news about a report from scientists:

Getting to 100% renewables requires cheap energy storage. But how cheap?

To spoil the ending: The answer is $20 per kilowatt hour in energy capacity costs. That’s how cheap storage would have to get for renewables to get to 100 percent. That’s around a 90 percent drop from today’s costs. While that is entirely within the realm of the possible, there is wide disagreement over when it might happen; few expect it by 2030.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity

Form Energy to begin manufacturing iron air batteries in Weirton to stabilize electrical grid

https://www.wesa.fm/environment-energy/2024-02-19/weirton-form-energy-battery-manufacturing