Heatwave and Climate Change Puts Pressure on Thailand

[mogandave]

22 minutes ago, placeholder said:

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.

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 nuclear.

 

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

 

Edited May 6 by mogandave

[placeholder]

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

[placeholder]

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.

[mommysboy]

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.

 

 

[mogandave]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

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

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. 

 

 

[placeholder]

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.

[placeholder]

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.

[mogandave]

10 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.

 

 

Do your part and turn off your air conditioner and quit driving.

 

 

[mogandave]

7 minutes ago, 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.

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. 

 

Edited May 6 by mogandave

[placeholder]

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.

[mogandave]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

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.

And?

 

 

[mogandave]

15 minutes ago, placeholder said:

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

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?

 

 

 

[placeholder]

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

[placeholder]

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.

[mogandave]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

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

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.

[mogandave]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

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.

You said “first off”, I just assumed something else was coming. 

[placeholder]

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.

[mogandave]

Using solar and batteries, you have to have twice the capacity of solar, because how ever much power comes out of the batteries at night, must be put back in during the day. 

 

Using wind and batteries, you have to have twice the capacity of wind, because how ever much power comes out of the batteries at night (when the wind typically dies), must be put back in during the day. 

 

Backing up solar with wind and visa-versa, you have to double capacity again. 

 

Again, How long do we want the battery backup to work?

[mommysboy]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

Do your part and turn off your air conditioner and quit driving.

 

 

 

This is something that can only be achieved on a societal level, and enacted by governments.

 

Nobody wants it, but it has to happen.

 

Just one person doing it is pointless self-sacrifice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mogandave]

7 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

This is something that can only be achieved on a societal level, and enacted by governments.

 

Nobody wants it, but it has to happen.

 

Just one person doing it is pointless self-sacrifice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Got it. You can’t be inconvenienced, but you are pushing change that disproportionately hurts the poor.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

Got it. You can’t be inconvenienced, but you are pushing change that disproportionately hurts the poor.

Air pollution hurts the poorest most

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/air-pollution-hurts-poorest-most

 

Poor produce fewer traffic emissions than rich but are most affected, study finds

https://www.uwe.ac.uk/news/poor-produce-fewer-traffic-emissions-than-rich-but-are-most-affected

 

Global air pollution exposure and poverty

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10363163/

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Air pollution hurts the poorest most

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/air-pollution-hurts-poorest-most

 

Poor produce fewer traffic emissions than rich but are most affected, study finds

https://www.uwe.ac.uk/news/poor-produce-fewer-traffic-emissions-than-rich-but-are-most-affected

 

Global air pollution exposure and poverty

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10363163/

 

Written by the rich. 

 

Who will end up not being able to afford air conditioning or be able to drive?

 

I can buy a new EV when it’s mandated, the working poor? Not so much.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Written by the rich. 

 

Who will end up not being able to afford air conditioning or be able to drive?

 

I can buy a new EV when it’s mandated, the working poor? Not so much.

I see you have no answer for the deleterious effect that pollution has on the poor. Ya think being ill is good for their incomes?

And on what actual facts do you lay your claim that renewables will make A/C unaffordable?

Finally, right now there are EVs in China selling for about $5000. The West is terrified that cheap EVs will put paid to their automobile industry.

[mogandave]

31 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I see you have no answer for the deleterious effect that pollution has on the poor. Ya think being ill is good for their incomes?

I do not disagree that air pollution disproportionately hurts the poor. 

31 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And on what actual facts do you lay your claim that renewables will make A/C unaffordable?

Only history

31 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Finally, right now there are EVs in China selling for about $5000. The West is terrified that cheap EVs will put paid to their automobile industry.

That do not meet regulations to operate in Europe or the US. 

 

 

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Only history

ancient history

Battery costs have dropped by more than 90 per cent in the last 15 years, a new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) reveals.

It’s one of the fastest declines ever seen among clean energy technologies, and provides hope that batteries can carry the world to its renewable energy goals.

https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/05/02/battery-costs-have-dropped-90-in-under-15-years-giving-renewables-a-boost-new-iea-report-r#:~:text=Battery costs have dropped by,to its renewable energy goals.

 

It’s cheaper to build new solar than it is to operate coal plants

New analysis released by Lazard compares the levelized cost of energy for various generation technologies on a $/MWh basis and shows that renewables, specifically utility-scale solar and wind, are the economic frontrunner

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/10/23/its-cheaper-to-build-new-solar-than-it-is-to-operate-coal-plants/

 

And that analysis is 3 years old. Prices of photovoltaics has since plummeted. You're living in the past.

[Robert Paulson]

It looks like it’s about to cool off for all you sniveling whiners out there. Go Knows the only reason it was so hot is because you’re entering geezer territory 

[Robert Paulson]

The reason we can’t have cheap cars in the west is special interests. Not anything to do with regulations. It’s all just made up nonsense. As usual. There’s a chicken tax actually and it is literally pure nonsense. Yet it still exists and it’s the reason Americans cant have many cars like the new Toyota pickup we have in Thailand. Regulations my ass

[scottiejohn]

21 minutes ago, Robert Paulson said:

Go Knows the only reason it was so hot is because you’re entering geezer territory 

If your native language is English could you please repost the above in readable English!

If your native language is not English them I apologise and suggest you get a native English speaker to make the rest of your posts!

[BE88]

Heat on earth is mainly due to solar particles which provide an average energy of 400 Watts/m2/day

And, it should be noted that the heat produced by humanity is less than 0.00001 of that graciously provided by the solar star.

[Barnet1900]

On 5/3/2024 at 6:03 AM, GammaGlobulin said:

I just hope that everybody here is paying attention to:

 

INCREASING Water Vapor levels in the atmosphere due to Global Warming.

 

Water vapor is one of the stronger greenhouse gasses.

 

Therefore, it, by itself, might be thought of as a positive feedback loop.  The hotter the temperature, the more water vapor in the atmosphere, and the more water vapor, the hotter the atmosphere will become due to water vapor being a greenhouse gas.

 

Then, of course, higher Relative Humidity leads to heat stress when it becomes less easy to evaporate sweat from skin, causing overheating of the body.

 

Obviously, society must do more to adjust to a world of 2 degrees C above 1850 baseline.  When will we hit 2 degrees C?  Well, the rate of change, the intensity, is increasing.

 

Let's all choose the most dire scenario, the worst-case model, and then we can see that it might be just one decade before we hit 2 degrees C, when we all agreed to 1.5 degrees C.

 

We need to insulate our houses.

And, we need to plant trees like crazy.

And, we need to remove inefficient buildings.

 

Doing this, we can reduce the heat-island effect.

And, we might be able to live in a world of 2 degrees above, for a short period of time, until....

We hit 2.5 degrees above, and then...

We reach 3.0 degrees above, and so on.

 

Soon, fairly soon, where we live will no longer be inhabitable.

 

(It's not IF, but WHEN.)

 

 

 

Great post.

 

I would never have thought COVID would be seen in my lifetime but it did.

 

I can honestly see this heat destroying the Thai economy within 10 years. With this heat nobody goes out, work stalls and people will look at other areas to travel to.

 

Unless Thailand takes this seriously they'll be facing an exodus which will be irreparable. 

 

This, and last summer have been dreadful.