World pledges to save 'Mother Earth' despite Trump's snub to climate pact

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, halloween said:

Why should I bother with the financial issues? The announcement of the mine go-ahead is expected TODAY.

So apparently commercial viability of an energy source only counts when it's renewable.

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, halloween said:

Yes it is. In a desert, capacity factor of solar can reach 23%. Tell me, what do you think people are doing for electricity the other 77% of the time? Do you think Adani are building a huge coal mine so they can make a loss?

This doesn't really explain why renewable energy sources have allowed India to drastically cut its need to build solar plants.  And it really doesn't make sense to say the because a solar plant can reach a capacity of 23 percent, that 77 percent of the time you need other energy sources.

[halloween]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

So apparently commercial viability of an energy source only counts when it's renewable.

What are you rabitting about? Renewables are heavily subsidised, the prime mover of the price rises all the leading countries have forced on consumers. The Adani mine has been offered a DEFERMENT of royalties for 6 years, expected to be repaid with interest. any suggestion that it might not be commercially viable is yours alone, unless you have some proof.

[halloween]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

This doesn't really explain why renewable energy sources have allowed India to drastically cut its need to build solar plants.  And it really doesn't make sense to say the because a solar plant can reach a capacity of 23 percent, that 77 percent of the time you need other energy sources.

Your 1st senence doesn't make sense, how about an edit? If you can explain to me where the energy of solar plants will be stored for the 15 or so hours per daythey are producing SFA, you have an argument; otherwise you're talking through your Rs. Industry doesn't work office hours, and doesn't shut down because it's raining.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, halloween said:

Your 1st senence doesn't make sense, how about an edit? If you can explain to me where the energy of solar plants will be stored for the 15 or so hours per daythey are producing SFA, you have an argument; otherwise you're talking through your Rs. Industry doesn't work office hours, and doesn't shut down because it's raining.

You might want to ask Tesla about that. Or other storage technology companies.

[halloween]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

You might want to ask Tesla about that. Or other storage technology companies.

Asked and answered, post #32. I will repeat it for you.

 

"You really have no bloody idea, do you. The battery shown is discontinued as proved to be an expensive WASTE OF MONEY. In industrial terms, it is tiny.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Tesla-Discontinues-10kWh-Powerwall-Home-Battery"

 

 

There is only one known method of storing large amounts of energy, pumping water uphill for hydro use when required. Oz does just that with the Snowy scheme which was initially for overnight production from base-load fossil fuel stations. It is now projected to be expanded and could be used for solar storage. BUT the amount of energy storable and available is limited, and is used for peak load periods, not base load.

[Scott]

Inflammatory post removed:

 

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

[ilostmypassword]

24 minutes ago, halloween said:

Asked and answered, post #32. I will repeat it for you.

 

"You really have no bloody idea, do you. The battery shown is discontinued as proved to be an expensive WASTE OF MONEY. In industrial terms, it is tiny.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Tesla-Discontinues-10kWh-Powerwall-Home-Battery"

 

 

There is only one known method of storing large amounts of energy, pumping water uphill for hydro use when required. Oz does just that with the Snowy scheme which was initially for overnight production from base-load fossil fuel stations. It is now projected to be expanded and could be used for solar storage. BUT the amount of energy storable and available is limited, and is used for peak load periods, not base load.

But your assertions take no account of the stunning decline in battery costs which is expected to continue. In addition, hydro is not the only commercially used storage system. There's molten salts and compressed air.  Moreover, when computing costs of power generation, account also has to be taken of the massive externalities incurred by the use of fossil fuels, with coal being the worst offender.

[halloween]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

But your assertions take no account of the stunning decline in battery costs which is expected to continue. In addition, hydro is not the only commercially used storage system. There's molten salts and compressed air.  Moreover, when computing costs of power generation, account also has to be taken of the massive externalities incurred by the use of fossil fuels, with coal being the worst offender.

Do you have any electrical engineering qualifications, any experience in generation and/or grid control? Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

First you quote Tesla batteries; the 10kWh was heavily discounted at $3500 (B120,000) and WAS good for 500 cycles. If used in a home system at full cycle, it would save B40/night, or B20,000 over its life. You buy one, I won't.

Molten salts and compressed air. Give me ONE commercially viable site. Why not Hydrogen, that's always good for a bloody big bang?

[ilostmypassword]

23 minutes ago, halloween said:

Do you have any electrical engineering qualifications, any experience in generation and/or grid control? Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

First you quote Tesla batteries; the 10kWh was heavily discounted at $3500 (B120,000) and WAS good for 500 cycles. If used in a home system at full cycle, it would save B40/night, or B20,000 over its life. You buy one, I won't.

Molten salts and compressed air. Give me ONE commercially viable site. Why not Hydrogen, that's always good for a bloody big bang?

Tell me about commercial viability when your calculations take account of externalities

Counting the Cost of Energy Subsidies

Energy subsidies are projected at US$5.3 trillion in 2015, or 6.5 percent of global GDP, according to a recent IMF study. Most of this arises from countries setting energy taxes below levels that fully reflect the environmental damage associated with energy consumption.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm?

And this report doesn't include the huge cost associated with military expenditures that go to protecting fossil fuel sources.

[halloween]

23 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Tell me about commercial viability when your calculations take account of externalities

Counting the Cost of Energy Subsidies

Energy subsidies are projected at US$5.3 trillion in 2015, or 6.5 percent of global GDP, according to a recent IMF study. Most of this arises from countries setting energy taxes below levels that fully reflect the environmental damage associated with energy consumption.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm?

And this report doesn't include the huge cost associated with military expenditures that go to protecting fossil fuel sources.

We were talking about energy storage, but I guess that's too difficult. Now you want to talk about the cost of electricity generation from fossil fuels by adding in as many extraneous costs as possible. That's all very nice, but the bottom line is that the countries that have gone the furthest into renewable generation have the most expensive electricity, to the extent that lower income families are suffering under the increased burden.

As for the greeny BS about the environmental damage from coal-fired generation, it is exactly that. Always, they concentrate on lignite burners, and then extrapolate that to anthracite. Having worked and lived over 20 years in an area with coal-fired stations for more than 60 years, I can assure it is not a pollution hotspot, people are not dying because of it as you would have us believe. Nor do we have or need military protection - talk about clutching at straws.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, halloween said:

We were talking about energy storage, but I guess that's too difficult. Now you want to talk about the cost of electricity generation from fossil fuels by adding in as many extraneous costs as possible. That's all very nice, but the bottom line is that the countries that have gone the furthest into renewable generation have the most expensive electricity, to the extent that lower income families are suffering under the increased burden.

As for the greeny BS about the environmental damage from coal-fired generation, it is exactly that. Always, they concentrate on lignite burners, and then extrapolate that to anthracite. Having worked and lived over 20 years in an area with coal-fired stations for more than 60 years, I can assure it is not a pollution hotspot, people are not dying because of it as you would have us believe. Nor do we have or need military protection - talk about clutching at straws.

I guess you believe that your qualifications as an engineer somehow give you the authority to expound on health matter. I loved your assurances about some area not being a pollution hotspot and people not dying. This is like when someone says I have an uncle who smoked cigarettes all his life and lived to be 100. But thanks for reporting the results of your rigorous study.

I guess there's you and then there are people who actually know and study this subject:

http://wvgazette.com/static/coal tattoo/HarvardCoalReportSummary.pdf

And as those countries that have the most expensive electricity, if you're not including externalities then you're not including all the costs.

[halloween]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I guess you believe that your qualifications as an engineer somehow give you the authority to expound on health matter. I loved your assurances about some area not being a pollution hotspot and people not dying. This is like when someone says I have an uncle who smoked cigarettes all his life and lived to be 100. But thanks for reporting the results of your rigorous study.

I guess there's you and then there are people who actually know and study this subject:

http://wvgazette.com/static/coal tattoo/HarvardCoalReportSummary.pdf

And as those countries that have the most expensive electricity, if you're not including externalities then you're not including all the costs.

I'm not talking about my uncle, I'm talking about a valley with 2 large towns, both with hospitals, either side of 2 power stations and a dozen or so mines supplying plenty of employment. You might think, listening to the BS spouted that they are dying by the dozens.You might think if people were dying it would be noticed.  You might think if the area was heavily polluted it might affect the grape vines, horse studs and dairy farms.

When an anthracite coal station is planned for southern Thailand, that is exactly what was predicted, deaths and pollution.

[ilostmypassword]

23 minutes ago, halloween said:

I'm not talking about my uncle, I'm talking about a valley with 2 large towns, both with hospitals, either side of 2 power stations and a dozen or so mines supplying plenty of employment. You might think, listening to the BS spouted that they are dying by the dozens.You might think if people were dying it would be noticed.  You might think if the area was heavily polluted it might affect the grape vines, horse studs and dairy farms.

When an anthracite coal station is planned for southern Thailand, that is exactly what was predicted, deaths and pollution.

One thing you're not supplying is statistical studies of the health status of the people who live and work there. There are plenty of those out there that clearly show the effects on health and the environment of coal burning.  But please, do keep us updated with the latest postings of your research.

[Smarter Than You]

22 hours ago, halloween said:

And yet, the Indian company Adani is set to develop Australia's biggest coal project. I wonder why.

 

" The standard measure of that shortfall in electricity production compared to nameplate capacity is the “capacity factor”: the amount of electricity a generator produces in a year divided by the amount it would produce if it ran at nameplate capacity for all 8,760 hours. In 2012, German solar electricity production rose to 28 TWh from the 2011 figure of 19.3 TWh. But those solar panels would have produced 254 TWh had they run at full power for all 8,760 hours in the year, so they had a capacity factor of just 11 percent. Production from wind power, despite all the new turbines, actually declined to 46 TWh from the 2011 figure of 48.9 TWh. (Sun and wind anti-correlate, so the solar surge came at the expense of wind.) That puts the capacity factor of German wind at 17 percent. By comparison, fossil-fueled plants can achieve capacity factors of 80 percent or more. And electricity production from Germany’s 12 GW of nuclear capacity in 2012 was 99 TWh, a capacity factor of 94 percent. Even though Germany’s nuclear nameplate capacity was just one-fifth the size of its solar and wind nameplate capacity, those few nuclear gigawatts produced 35 percent more watt-hours of electricity than did all the wind and solar generators put together. "

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/green-energy-bust-in-germany

 

Sorry to start getting technical on you, but ti is important to understand the difference between GW and GWh.  GW are what an energy plant, of whatever type, CAN produce, GWh is a reflection of it DOES produce. At 11% capacity factor, you need a lot more GW to produce the same GWh.

 

In Oz we built the Moree solar farm,. with a plate output of 56MW. " The solar farm is expected to have an operating life of 30 years and generate approximately 4,000 GWh over that time. " https://arena.gov.au/projects/moree-solar-farm/     

 

They hope. OTOH Bayswater power station with 4 660MW Toshiba units (they actually run at 700MW when required after mods) estimates its ANNUAL output at 17 TWh (17,000 GWh).

"And yet, the Indian company Adani is set to develop Australia's biggest coal project. I wonder why".

 

Not really all that clear cut is it?

 

'Green light' for Australia's biggest ever coal mine  

[halloween]

6 minutes ago, Smarter Than You said:

"And yet, the Indian company Adani is set to develop Australia's biggest coal project. I wonder why".

 

Not really all that clear cut is it?

 

'Green light' for Australia's biggest ever coal mine  

What is VERY clear cut is that Indian company WANTS to go ahead with the mine, despite the claim that coal is on the out in India. And the reason, which you refuse to accept, is that the still need electricity for the ~15 hrs/day solar is not available.

[ilostmypassword]

30 minutes ago, halloween said:

What is VERY clear cut is that Indian company WANTS to go ahead with the mine, despite the claim that coal is on the out in India. And the reason, which you refuse to accept, is that the still need electricity for the ~15 hrs/day solar is not available.

And you still refuse to acknowledge the huge strides being made in energy storage and the fact that coal mining creates huge costs not currently reflected in its pricing.

[tartempion]

No one is going to save "Mother Earth"
We are destroying the planet we live on, get used to the idea.
Someone thinks we have a thousand years to go?
I don't think so.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Skywalker69]

5 minutes ago, tartempion said:

No one is going to save "Mother Earth"
We are destroying the planet we live on, get used to the idea.
Someone thinks we have a thousand years to go?
I don't think so.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

[halloween]

6 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

And you still refuse to acknowledge the huge strides being made in energy storage and the fact that coal mining creates huge costs not currently reflected in its pricing.

My phone has a 4.2 Ah battery, which is fantastic compared to 10 years ago. I could power my house overnight on a thousand of those but I'll stick to fossil fuel mains power for the forseeable future. And while that is priced at B4/kwh, I don't care about the hidden costs of mining.

[RickBradford]

The doom and gloom has been going on for so long without anything catastrophic actually happening that any sensible person can see that "save Mother Earth" is simply code for "give us more money and more control over your lives".

 

Quote

Jun. 29, 1989 10:49 PM ET

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco- refugees,' ' threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people*. A fifth of Egypt's arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

"Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what's worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn't have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?" he said.

 

The only thing Green/Left activists at all levels do with any consistency is the Big Fail.

 

* The population of Bangladesh is now 165 million, still on dry ground.

[boomerangutang]

25 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

The doom and gloom has been going on for so long without anything catastrophic actually happening that any sensible person can see that "save Mother Earth" is simply code for "give us more money and more control over your lives".

The only thing Green/Left activists at all levels do with any consistency is the Big Fail.

* The population of Bangladesh is now 165 million, still on dry ground.

                              3 out of 5 of the largest sea-fueled storms since precise recordings began in the mid-20th century, have taken place in the past 12 years.  The top two were in the past 4 years.  Conclusion:  Typhoons/Hurricanes are getting bigger, decade by decade.  They get fueled by warm sea water.  The warmer the water, the bigger the storm.  

 

 Below, from USA Today. . . . . .

 

The world's top 5 strongest hurricanes and typhoons since 1970, based on sustained wind speeds:

 

1. 2015: Hurricane Patricia (Eastern Pacific). Patricia reached a top wind speed of 201 mph on Oct. 23, 2015, as the storm took aim at Mexico's western coast. Catastrophic damage is expected.

 

2. 2013: Typhoon Haiyan (Western Pacific).Deadly and destructive Haiyan had winds of 195 mph as it slammed into the Philippines in November 2013. It was the deadliest typhoon in recorded Philippine history, leaving more than 7,300 people dead or missing, primarily from its massive 15- to 19-foot storm surge that demolished and swept away everything in its path.

 

3. 1980: Hurricane Allen (Atlantic). With winds of 190 mph, Allen remains the strongest storm ever (as measured by wind speed) in the Atlantic basin. Although it weakened to a Category 3 as it made landfall in Texas, the storm still killed over 260 people in the Caribbean, U.S. and Mexico.

 

4. 1979: Typhoon Tip(Western Pacific). Tip's maximum wind speed was 189 mph on Oct. 12, 1979. The typhoon has the world record for lowest barometric pressure (25.69 inches) ever recorded in a tropical cyclone. (In addition to wind speeds, a storm's intensity can be measured by barometric pressure. The lower the number, the more powerful it is.) It's also the largest tropical cyclone on record (based on its diameter of 1,350 miles). After weakening to a Category 1 typhoon, the storm hit Japan, killing dozens of people in the resulting floods.

 

5. 2005:Hurricane Wilma(Atlantic). The most recent major hurricane (Category 3 and higher) to strike the U.S., Wilma's wind speeds topped out at 184 mph in the Caribbean Sea on Oct. 19, 2005. With a barometric pressure of 26.05 inches, Wilma is the most intense storm on record in the Western Hemisphere. Wilma killed 87 people in the Caribbean, Mexico and U.S.

[boomerangutang]

35 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

* The population of Bangladesh is now 165 million, still on dry ground.

Bangladesh is among the most vulnerable countries in the world, and you know it.

 

Many villages have floating school boats, which are funky 25' long crafts made of bamboo and thatch.

 

Many villages also have bamboo frames in the central area, which we might call 'jungle gyms.'  They're basically for hardier folks to climb up high, when serious flooding takes place.

 

There are many regions ww which are vulnerable to rising sea levels.   Some standouts:

most Pacific Islands. Shanghai, Bangkok (and middle of Thailand), NYC, Miami (plus most of FL), London, HK, Paris, half of Nigeria, Netherlands, Much of China's east coast, New Orleans, Several of India's largest cities, .......the list is a lot longer.

[RickBradford]

Quote

3 out of 5 of the largest sea-fueled storms since precise recordings began in the mid-20th century, have taken place in the past 12 years.  The top two were in the past 4 years.  Conclusion:  Typhoons/Hurricanes are getting bigger, decade by decade.

 

They are also getting rarer. The US has recently set a record for the longest-ever period without a CAT 3 hurricane hitting the country (last one was Wilma in 2005).

 

Quote

(CNSNews.com) – No major hurricane has made landfall in the continental United States for a record-breaking 129 months, according to data going back to 1851 compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

This is predicted by global warming theory, which states that polar temperatures will rise quicker than tropical ones. Hence, there will be a lower temperature gap between polar and equatorial temperatures, and that temperature gap plays a significant role in driving weather, including storms and hurricanes.

 

In fact, if the climate alarmists had any sense, they should be trumpeting the low hurricane activity as vindication of their warnings about global warming. But that wouldn't fit the precious "narrative", that all global warming is bad, bad, bad.

[sirineou]

On 6/5/2017 at 8:00 PM, halloween said:

Asked and answered, post #32. I will repeat it for you.

 

"You really have no bloody idea, do you. The battery shown is discontinued as proved to be an expensive WASTE OF MONEY. In industrial terms, it is tiny.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Tesla-Discontinues-10kWh-Powerwall-Home-Battery"

 

 

There is only one known method of storing large amounts of energy, pumping water uphill for hydro use when required. Oz does just that with the Snowy scheme which was initially for overnight production from base-load fossil fuel stations. It is now projected to be expanded and could be used for solar storage. BUT the amount of energy storable and available is limited, and is used for peak load periods, not base load.

How about compressing air.

I was reading of a company in Spain who was developing a car that worked on compressed air.

Why not use air that is readily available all around us, during the day, to drive a motor powering a generator at night.

[ExpatOilWorker]

44 minutes ago, sirineou said:

How about compressing air.

I was reading of a company in Spain who was developing a car that worked on compressed air.

Why not use air that is readily available all around us, during the day, to drive a motor powering a generator at night.

 

VERY inefficient way of storing energy. You are basically throwing 50-75% of the energy away. 

[ilostmypassword]

35 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

 

VERY inefficient way of storing energy. You are basically throwing 50-75% of the energy away. 

Right now the most efficient compressed airstorage in commercial use has an efficiency rating of 54%.

" A General Electric 7FA 2x1 combined cycle plant, one of the most efficient natural gas plants in operation, uses 1.85 MJ (LHV) of gas per MJ generated,^[6] a 54% thermal efficiency."

However, the Germans are working on a system that will have an efficiency of roughly 70%

"The theoretical efficiency of adiabatic storage approaches 100% with perfect insulation, but in practice round trip efficiency is expected to be 70%."

 

And of course, in the case of solar or wind, if you don't store it the excess then the excess energy will have a storage efficiency of 0%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage

[halloween]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

How about compressing air.

I was reading of a company in Spain who was developing a car that worked on compressed air.

Why not use air that is readily available all around us, during the day, to drive a motor powering a generator at night.

The usual answer is Hydrogen production from electrolysis, and it is used in a few small projects. I'm not sure of the efficiency level, it would probably depend on how the hydrogen was used. What I do know is that hydrogen is a very dangerous gas to work with. It has a very high explosive range (4-75%), leaks will self ignite from static electricity, and it burns with a very hot pale blue flame. Great care must be taken when working with it and bronze anti-spark tools used.

Power stations use hydrogen to fill their alternators as it reduces windage friction, and their are strict procedures for filling and flushing. nitrogen is used as an intermediary step so that an air/hydrogen mix never occurs.

I was involved in a 2000psi hydrogen leak fire (flange gasket blowout). On a bright sunny day the flame was difficult to see except where it was cutting through steel pipework 9orange flame) some 6 metres away.

[halloween]

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Right now the most efficient compressed airstorage in commercial use has an efficiency rating of 54%.

" A General Electric 7FA 2x1 combined cycle plant, one of the most efficient natural gas plants in operation, uses 1.85 MJ (LHV) of gas per MJ generated,^[6] a 54% thermal efficiency."

However, the Germans are working on a system that will have an efficiency of roughly 70%

"The theoretical efficiency of adiabatic storage approaches 100% with perfect insulation, but in practice round trip efficiency is expected to be 70%."

 

And of course, in the case of solar or wind, if you don't store it the excess then the excess energy will have a storage efficiency of 0%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage

What has a A General Electric 7FA 2x1 combined cycle plant got to do with compressed air? It is a natural gas burning unit.

[sirineou]

23 hours ago, halloween said:

The usual answer is Hydrogen production from electrolysis, and it is used in a few small projects. I'm not sure of the efficiency level, it would probably depend on how the hydrogen was used. What I do know is that hydrogen is a very dangerous gas to work with. It has a very high explosive range (4-75%), leaks will self ignite from static electricity, and it burns with a very hot pale blue flame. Great care must be taken when working with it and bronze anti-spark tools used.

Power stations use hydrogen to fill their alternators as it reduces windage friction, and their are strict procedures for filling and flushing. nitrogen is used as an intermediary step so that an air/hydrogen mix never occurs.

I was involved in a 2000psi hydrogen leak fire (flange gasket blowout). On a bright sunny day the flame was difficult to see except where it was cutting through steel pipework 9orange flame) some 6 metres away.

Thank you  Haqlloween

As the passengers of the Hindenburg  quickly found out, Hydrogen is indeed a volatile agent.

But you are correct the crux  of the problem is indeed efficiency.

I said it before  The stone age did not end because they run out of stones. And the same will occur with the petrochemical era. We are so close, It would be a shame to fail now.