Climate Change

[Misab]

On 3/30/2023 at 10:42 AM, KhunLA said:

Is that before or after they accept it from the Americas & Europe? 

 

Being Asia has most of the population of the planet, and accepts other continents trash, where is the surprise.

 

Mind boggling for a country that can't manage it's own trash, imports it.

https://www.trvst.world/waste-recycling/which-countries-buy-garbage-a-look-at-global-waste-trading/#:~:text=China was the largest importer,33 million tonnes in 2021.

On 3/30/2023 at 10:42 AM, KhunLA said:

Is that before or after they accept it from the Americas & Europe? 

 

Being Asia has most of the population of the planet, and accepts other continents trash, where is the surprise.

 

Mind boggling for a country that can't manage it's own trash, imports it.

https://www.trvst.world/waste-recycling/which-countries-buy-garbage-a-look-at-global-waste-trading/#:~:text=China was the largest importer,33 million tonnes in 2021.

KhunLA  you write about trash in Asian rivers: quote:   "Asia has most of the population of the planet, and accepts other continents trash, where is the surprise."  quote ended.

Do you think Asia buys other countries' garbage and throws it into the rivers?  Because that would be a surprise to me

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, Misab said:

KhunLA  you write about trash in Asian rivers: quote:   "Asia has most of the population of the planet, and accepts other continents trash, where is the surprise."  quote ended.

Do you think Asia buys other countries' garbage and throws it into the rivers?  Because that would be a surprise to me

TH can't seem to process/recycle the plastic it produces and discards.  So one does have to wonder where the extra they import is going.  Thankfully, they are supposed to stop importing in a few years.

[Yellowtail]

18 hours ago, Misab said:

How many dead if we turned off all the fossil fuel plants? 

 

My answer is, not as many as if we don't turn off fossil fuels plants.

So you agree that use of fossil-fuels allows the world to support a larger population? 

[Yellowtail]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

So, smog should continue to blanket cities, coal plant emissions should continue to destroy forests, crops, and spread neurotoxic mercury into the atmosphere? And rivers should still be fouled by pollution? Gasoline should contine to contain toxic lead?Because 50 years ago it was permissible? You really want to go with that?

No, what I meant was I do not think companies that made messes legally fifty years ago should be held responsible for their fifty-year-old messes. I am sorry that was not clear. 

 

I think every coal plant should be replaced with nuclear. Solar farms can reduce how much coal plants burn, but they can't eliminate them. 

[Yellowtail]

On 3/30/2023 at 10:15 PM, placeholder said:

First, here is a record of how much costs have declined

Today, solar panels are 94% cheaper than they were in 1989. As the production and energy-generating capacity of solar panels has improved over the last few decades, the cost has dropped significantly.

This is a quintessential example of economies of scale in manufacturing. Dating back even further to the mid-1970s, every time the global cumulative capacity of photovoltaic cells doubled, prices saw the same relative decline, according to cost and capacity data analyzed by Our World in Data.

https://www.rocketsolar.com/learn/energy-efficiency/how-cost-solar-panels-has-fallen

In a way, it's true but only because the cost per kwh is already exceedingly close to zero. Less than 50 cents per kwh.

And you seem to be making the assumption that the only kind of PVs are silicon based. Other non-silicon based technologies are being developed such as perovskites that can be sprayed on a window at a further reduction in cost.

 

If you take an honest look at the curve of your graph, it supports my position.

 

Look at computer costs, The cost comes down exponentially at first, and then levels out. A computer today, costs about the same (or more) as a computer costed ten years ago, and they are just not that much better. 

 

We often hear claims about how solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuel, but with both solar and wind, you still have to have duplicate capacity in fossil-fuel or nuclear generators. I don't doubt we'll continue to see improvements in solar, but nuclear is clearly a much safer bet if CO2 truly is an existential threat. And again, solar does not work at night, and often does not work during the day. 

 

Unless perovskites PVs will work perpendicular to the sun, how spraying it on windows even work, much less reduce costs? Solar panels already cheaper than a good window. 

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

If you take an honest look at the curve of your graph, it supports my position.

 

Look at computer costs, The cost comes down exponentially at first, and then levels out. A computer today, costs about the same (or more) as a computer costed ten years ago, and they are just not that much better. 

 

We often hear claims about how solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuel, but with both solar and wind, you still have to have duplicate capacity in fossil-fuel or nuclear generators. I don't doubt we'll continue to see improvements in solar, but nuclear is clearly a much safer bet if CO2 truly is an existential threat. And again, solar does not work at night, and often does not work during the day. 

 

Unless perovskites PVs will work perpendicular to the sun, how spraying it on windows even work, much less reduce costs? Solar panels already cheaper than a good window. 

There is plenty out there about why your assumptions are wrong.

I got news for you. Photovtaics do work when they're standing upright. They aren't as efficient as when they're perpendicular to the sun's rays but the cheaper they are to make, the less that matters. And the manufacture of spray on Perovskite Solar Cells will vost a small fraction of what it takes to make a silicon-based solar cell

Progress in Spray Coated Perovskite Films for Solar Cell Applications
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/solr.202101035

What's more you take no account of price

PV windows cut energy use by 40% in glazed buildings, says NREL

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/12/02/pv-windows-cut-energy-use-by-40-in-glazed-buildings-says-nrel/

 

This technology turns windows into solar panels, here’s how

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/09/transparent-solar-panel-windows/

 

As for the BS about renewables needing nuclear or fossil fuel as backup, I'll launch another thread that will deal  with the common misconceptions about getting to 100% renewables.

 

[Yellowtail]

43 minutes ago, placeholder said:

There is plenty out there about why your assumptions are wrong.

I got news for you. Photovtaics do work when they're standing upright. They aren't as efficient as when they're perpendicular to the sun's rays but the cheaper they are to make, the less that matters. And the manufacture of spray on Perovskite Solar Cells will vost a small fraction of what it takes to make a silicon-based solar cell

Progress in Spray Coated Perovskite Films for Solar Cell Applications
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/solr.202101035

They want $12 to let me read this. 

43 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What's more you take no account of price

PV windows cut energy use by 40% in glazed buildings, says NREL

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/12/02/pv-windows-cut-energy-use-by-40-in-glazed-buildings-says-nrel/

From the link:

 

 

43 minutes ago, placeholder said:

This technology turns windows into solar panels, here’s how

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/09/transparent-solar-panel-windows/

Nothing really new in this. So (per the link) covering the building 100% will generate UP TO 30% of the power requirement. So AT LEAST 70% has to come from somewhere else.  My position was that a solar panel was already cheaper than a window, how much cheaper are they going to get? 

 

43 minutes ago, placeholder said:

As for the BS about renewables needing nuclear or fossil fuel as backup, I'll launch another thread that will deal  with the common misconceptions about getting to 100% renewables.

I'm looking forward to it. 

[placeholder]

25 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Nothing really new in this. So (per the link) covering the building 100% will generate UP TO 30% of the power requirement. So AT LEAST 70% has to come from somewhere else.  My position was that a solar panel was already cheaper than a window, how much cheaper are they going to get? 

 

This has got to be one of the sillier comments. What don't you understand about the fact that most people would agree that buildings have to have windows to make them a reasonably tolerable place to work? So it isn't like there's a choice between windows and no windows.. So it's a big deal if buildings can cut energy consumption by 30% thanks to coating a window with a cheap film.  And your position was "Unless perovskites PVs will work perpendicular to the sun, how spraying it on windows even work, much less reduce costs? Solar panels already cheaper than a good window."  At least you know now that it will work. And given that one  doesn'tt have much of a choice about using windows. how is it even valid to compare the cost of a solar window to the cost of a solar panel?

[placeholder]

42 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

From the link:

 

 

 

This is for residential solar which always costs far more per KWH than does industrial solar.

[Yellowtail]

9 hours ago, placeholder said:

This has got to be one of the sillier comments. What don't you understand about the fact that most people would agree that buildings have to have windows to make them a reasonably tolerable place to work? So it isn't like there's a choice between windows and no windows.. So it's a big deal if buildings can cut energy consumption by 30% thanks to coating a window with a cheap film.  And your position was "Unless perovskites PVs will work perpendicular to the sun, how spraying it on windows even work, much less reduce costs? Solar panels already cheaper than a good window."  At least you know now that it will work. And given that one  doesn'tt have much of a choice about using windows. how is it even valid to compare the cost of a solar window to the cost of a solar panel?

What is silly about my comment? And what is the 30% savings compared to? Just replacing single glazed windows with double glazed windows saves about 20-30% of heating and cooling costs, which represent the bulk of what office buildings uses. 

 

And it was up to 30%, not actually 30%, and it only works when the sun shines. In any event it would require every building in a city be retrofitted with new windows, to realize a maximum savings of 30%. So with all that cost, time and effort, were still generating 70% of the CO2 we were generating before we started, yes? 

 

Replace a coal/oil/gas fired plant with nuclear, and we eliminate almost 100%.

 

 

[Misab]

23 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So you agree that use of fossil-fuels allows the world to support a larger population? 

I agree that the unrestrained consumption of fossil fuels, will kill most of the worlds population over the next 100 to 200 years

 

[liddelljohn]

Its a well known scientific fact  proven by soil samples and archeology  digs that ancient stone age and bronze age Norweigans and Swedes  grew and cultivated grapes  so those countries must have been warmer 4000 years ago ,  so climate change has been with us before , look at the 16th century england when the rivers used to freeze solid  so they had ice fairs .

 

[Lacessit]

On 3/29/2023 at 2:58 PM, JackGats said:

+ 7 degrees will make parts of the world inhabitable, but it will make other parts habitable again.

 

Climate change dogma is a catastrophe. It eclipses every other type of much more serious problems (eg plastic waste).

Climate change is not dogma. It is evidence-based science responding to the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. Even among scientists, thermodynamics is limited to a smaller amount of students.

You are posting the classic diversions of a climate denier. Look over there at plastic waste, or Siberia will become inhabitable. Carbon dioxide as plant food is another.

The main concern of informed scientists is the "Butterfly Effect " first referred to by the German novelist Schiller a few centuries ago. An insignificant change causing a hugely destructive event thousands of kilometres away.

In the case of climate change, albedo and clathrates are the potential triggers of the butterfly effect.

Pro tip: Don't buy real estate in Bangkok. One metre above sea level is not my idea of a safety margin.

[Lacessit]

14 minutes ago, liddelljohn said:

Its a well known scientific fact  proven by soil samples and archeology  digs that ancient stone age and bronze age Norweigans and Swedes  grew and cultivated grapes  so those countries must have been warmer 4000 years ago ,  so climate change has been with us before , look at the 16th century england when the rivers used to freeze solid  so they had ice fairs .

 

Ah, the "natural cycle " argument, which ignores the evidence climate change today is caused by anthropomorphic emissions of carbon dioxide.

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Climate change is not dogma. It is evidence-based science responding to the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. Even among scientists, thermodynamics is limited to a smaller amount of students.

 

That surprises me, I think every second year engineering student has (or at least had) to take it in the US. 

[Lacessit]

42 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

That surprises me, I think every second year engineering student has (or at least had) to take it in the US. 

As I understand it, the subject has been removed from some syllabi as too difficult. I doubt a biology major would get exposed to it.

Possibly it's allied to the touchy-feely mindset of rewarding students for participation. Back in my day, one either passed the end of year exam, or they didn't.

[Yellowtail]

42 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

As I understand it, the subject has been removed from some syllabi as too difficult. I doubt a biology major would get exposed to it.

Possibly it's allied to the touchy-feely mindset of rewarding students for participation. Back in my day, one either passed the end of year exam, or they didn't.

That's pretty scary. 

[BritManToo]

On 3/29/2023 at 10:58 AM, JackGats said:

+ 7 degrees will make parts of the world inhabitable, but it will make other parts habitable again.

 

Climate change dogma is a catastrophe. It eclipses every other type of much more serious problems (eg plastic waste).

Yep, I'd prefer them to clean up the trash, but the inconvenient truth is there's far more money to be made from carbon trading.

[Misab]

17 hours ago, liddelljohn said:

Its a well known scientific fact  proven by soil samples and archeology  digs that ancient stone age and bronze age Norweigans and Swedes  grew and cultivated grapes  so those countries must have been warmer 4000 years ago ,  so climate change has been with us before , look at the 16th century england when the rivers used to freeze solid  so they had ice fairs .

 

You are right, climate change has been here before, and when it comes it happens over thousands of years, you will barely notice it in a lifetime. This time it happens over 100 years.

The Danish artic centre analyses drill samples from the Greenland ice sheet. They state such high concentrations of CO2 as those we have now cannot be measured for the last 800,000 years.

[placeholder]

On 4/3/2023 at 9:35 PM, Yellowtail said:

They want $12 to let me read this. 

From the link:

 

 

Nothing really new in this. So (per the link) covering the building 100% will generate UP TO 30% of the power requirement. So AT LEAST 70% has to come from somewhere else.  My position was that a solar panel was already cheaper than a window, how much cheaper are they going to get? 

 

I'm looking forward to it. 

 

On 4/4/2023 at 8:19 AM, Yellowtail said:

What is silly about my comment? And what is the 30% savings compared to? Just replacing single glazed windows with double glazed windows saves about 20-30% of heating and cooling costs, which represent the bulk of what office buildings uses. 

 

And it was up to 30%, not actually 30%, and it only works when the sun shines. In any event it would require every building in a city be retrofitted with new windows, to realize a maximum savings of 30%. So with all that cost, time and effort, were still generating 70% of the CO2 we were generating before we started, yes? 

 

Replace a coal/oil/gas fired plant with nuclear, and we eliminate almost 100%.

 

 

“Energy-efficient windows can help you save an average of 12% on your energy bills. This means you’ll save between $100 and $600 per year on your utility bills,” Mehta says. “Your exact savings will depend on your climate and how many windows you have.”

https://realestate.usnews.com/real-estate/articles/how-much-do-energy-efficient-windows-cost#:~:text=“Energy-efficient windows can help,how many windows you have.”

 

 

Solar windows and related transparent solar technologies could provide around 40% of energy demand in the United States, the MSU team believes.

Combined with rooftop solar units, this could rise to almost 100%.

There’s so much glass in the world, the potential is huge.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/09/transparent-solar-panel-windows/

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

 

“Energy-efficient windows can help you save an average of 12% on your energy bills. This means you’ll save between $100 and $600 per year on your utility bills,” Mehta says. “Your exact savings will depend on your climate and how many windows you have.”

How does that differ from what I said? 

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Solar windows and related transparent solar technologies could provide around 40% of energy demand in the United States, the MSU team believes.

With "could" and "believes" being the key words. This looks like great technology, and I don't doubt we'll start to see it on a very small scale in a few years, but nuclear and natural gas are ready now, yes? 

 

The claim is a bit sketchy, in that it (apparently) uses the total area of glass in the US to run the numbers, but I think it safe to assume a large percentage of the glass never gets direct sun. 

 

That they are developing a film to apply to the inside of the existing windows for retrofits is encouraging, but I'm guessing that would only be windows that do not already have integrated sun blocking technology. 

 

Keep in mind, every single pane of glass has to have a solar collector around the entire perimeter, and each one has to be individually wired in. That sounds expensing and high maintenance, but we'll see. 

 

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Combined with rooftop solar units, this could rise to almost 100%.

There’s so much glass in the world, the potential is huge.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/09/transparent-solar-panel-windows/

Again, I read the MSU article (only the free part) and I did not see where they worked at night or in the shade. In fact, the video showed they would not work in the shade, so I think it a good bet it does not work at night either. 

 

Nuclear and natural gas are ready now, and they both work at night. 

[placeholder]

16 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

How does that differ from what I said? 

With "could" and "believes" being the key words. This looks like great technology, and I don't doubt we'll start to see it on a very small scale in a few years, but nuclear and natural gas are ready now, yes? 

. 

 

Nuclear and natural gas are ready now, and they both work at night. 

I'm not sure what it is about nuclear power that right wingers find so attractive? I remember that John Cleese once wrote a letter to his power provider thanking them for the excellent quality of their electricity. Maybe those on the right believe that because nuclear power is so expensive that it must be better?

https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen-2021/

There's lots of fine print below the graph so it's best to download the report via the link on the page I've linked to.

 

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

I'm not sure what it is about nuclear power that right wingers find so attractive? I remember that John Cleese once wrote a letter to his power provider thanking them for the excellent quality of their electricity. Maybe those on the right believe that because nuclear power is so expensive that it must be better?

https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen-2021/

There's lots of fine print below the graph so it's best to download the report via the link on the page I've linked to.

 

This is all you have, really? 

 

 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

This is all you have, really? 

 

 

All I have? A data heavy graph with a link to the latest annual report from Lazard Freres? Where you can dig into the weeds all you like.  I've got a big something here. You've got nothing.

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

All I have? A data heavy graph with a link to the latest annual report from Lazard Freres? Where you can dig into the weeds all you like.  I've got a big something here. You've got nothing.

What do you think the chart shows? 

[placeholder]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

What do you think the chart shows? 

That the levelized costs of nuclear generated electricity is far higher than any other large scale source of power. 

[BritManToo]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What do you think the chart shows? 

I think it shows solar is 10% more expensive than Nuclear and 40% more expensive than coal.

[Yellowtail]

Just now, placeholder said:

That the levelized costs of nuclear generated electricity is far higher than any other large scale source of power. 

How does that address what I said in my previous post? I went to a bit of effort responding to your post and you just post a link to something I've seen before. 

 

The levelized costs in the chart does not include storage. 

 

One of the other reports covered storage. 

 

I do not now nor have I ever claimed that solar farms in the Sun do not generate electricity at low cost. 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

How does that address what I said in my previous post? I went to a bit of effort responding to your post and you just post a link to something I've seen before. 

 

The levelized costs in the chart does not include storage. 

 

One of the other reports covered storage. 

 

I do not now nor have I ever claimed that solar farms in the Sun do not generate electricity at low cost. 

Well, you expressed eagerness when I said I was going to post something about storage costs in the Green Forum. I did and apparently you didn't read it. 

 

[Yellowtail]

21 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, you expressed eagerness when I said I was going to post something about storage costs in the Green Forum. I did and apparently you didn't read it. 

 

If you understand what you link to, and a point to make, why not explain it a bit? 

 

You still have not responded to my previous posts. 

 

In any event, per your previous link I think the cost of storage was several times the cost of the cheapest renewable, which made renewables much more expensive than conventional.