Checkthisout
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2021
- Messages
- 5,063
They want censorship sooooooo bad.
Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?
- Thread starter svetz
- Start date
E-Bikes Caused Record Fires, Injuries, & Deaths Last Year In NYC
Electric bicycles were responsible for a record number of fires, injuries and deaths in New York City last year.In total, e-bikes caused 267 fires, causing 18 deaths and 150 injuries in the city, the New York Fire Department (FDNY) told Fox News, which notes that the figures represent the highest levels of each statistic - with deaths jumping 200% and fires increasing 21% over last year.
"As we rely more and more on micromobility vehicles to earn a living in our daily lives, we increase the risk of fires caused by lithium-ion batteries. And as mentioned, we had over 100 deaths in this city alone on these batteries," said Mayor Eric Adams (D) during an e-bike safety event last year.
"And one of the problems that we've noticed, when you look at those taped-up batteries, you see that they are refurbished," he continued. "These shops are going inside attempting to refurbish the batteries and do it their own way. This is a safety issue."
"We know these fires can cause serious injury, and even death. We are grateful to our partners in city government for their out-of-the-box thinking on how we can embrace this new technology while also protecting lives," said Kavanaugh.
Meanwhile, NYC has passed several laws to regulate lithium-ion batteries sold within city limits, and has implemented a policy to expedite investigations into the dangers. Last June, NY AG Letitia James warned of "significant risks" associated with e-bikes.
Earlier this month, an e-bike battery exploded in a Queens bike store, resulting in a two-alarm fire. The incident came just days after another e-bike battery fire caused an explosion in a public housing complex in the Bronx, resulting in one death and injuring six others.
Checkthisout
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2021
- Messages
- 5,063
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
From Will's post about batteries (LFP battery price will be less than $56 per kWh within six months), LCOEs for renewables should drop way below fossil fuels making them obsolete for new power generation (if it really happens that is ; -). Existing plants won't go away as the capital is already sunk. Plus, over the next few decades, as demand for natural gas drops the price will drop, which will make it economical for existing plants to keep operating. But eventually, the maintenance costs won't be worth it. Wonder if investors will finally stop backing new pipeline projects?
Last edited:
Electric Cars Will Never Dominate Market, Says Toyota
Electric vehicles will never dominate the market, Toyota Chairman Akio Toyoda has said, in the latest sign that car companies are backing away from the troubled technology. The Telegraph has more.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: Electric bikes have caused a record number of fires in New York City, the Telegraph reports. According to figures released by the New York Fire Department, e-bikes were responsible for 267 fires in the city, claiming 18 lives and causing 150 injuries.
Models Wrong Again: “Hotter Weather Not Diminishing Runoff, River Discharge”!
These results are somewhat in contrast to climate projections, where runoff is expected to decrease only over southern Europe.
wattsupwiththat.com
HighDesertOffgrid
Solar Addict
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2022
- Messages
- 628
they are certainly having trouble understanding why their models are so far from reality. Fluid dynamics can't be accurately predicted in a fish tank. Let alone globally.
Its simpler than that. Its paid science, where they will produce any result they are paid to produce.
Guess who pays them? The same globalist oligarchy behind "climate change" aka neofeudalism agenda.
Net Zero is Dying – But it’s Taking Us Down With It
The Net Zero green energy illusion is dying as reality catches up with it, says Francis Menton in the Manhattan Contrarian. But the economies of the U.K. and Germany are dying as well as Net Zero takes them down with it. Here’s an excerpt.Francis observes that for the U.K. and Germany, “the current situation of steady ongoing decline is inflicting damage that may well not be reversible. Even if energy prices suddenly come down in the U.K. by a factor of three or more, is anyone going to re-build Port Talbot once it has been dismantled?”
Drawing attention to the ongoing decline in German industrial production (see below), Francis concludes: “Net Zero may be dying, but so are the economies of the U.K. and Germany. I just hope that the U.S. can be rescued in time.”
Worth reading in full.
HighDesertOffgrid
Solar Addict
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2022
- Messages
- 628
Considering the trillions of borrowed tax dollars alloted to this farce I would say I am paying them.?
True to some extent, but the amount they print from thin air by banking shenanigans dwarfs any tax generated revenue. (this is why many companies went woke without any consideration to actual customer revenue, this is not accidental - it is fueled by oligarchy's funny money to keep these companies afloat)
The only purpose of taxes these days is keeping the populace under control and "not owning anything". (just try not pay your property tax (rent), you will see real quick who really owns it. Also this is why its almost impossible to get an allodial title almost anywhere in the world. This is also intentional, yet few people even know about it.
HighDesertOffgrid
Solar Addict
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2022
- Messages
- 628
Right. That was why I included "borrowed". Not only is there impossible interest debt, but the inflation caused by dumping un earned money into the system means I have to work twice as hard to buy my things.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Now where did this go wrong?
| The U.S. had a $2T bill for "Climate" and "other stuff". The problem with that is very little of that money went to climate stuff. Instead, it was $115B for bridges, $100B for broadband, $100B to schools, $9B to remediate lead drinking pipes, $300B to healthcare, and so on for many social programs. Some of it was semi-climate-related, e.g. $100B to "improve the grid and spur a shift to clean energy", $105B to cities for climate change damages. As far as I can tell, very little was earmarked for building renewable energy systems, it seems like a few million in grants to get some renewable systems in socially challenged areas, but it's hard to track. What would have happened if we had spent the $2T replacing fossil fuel energy plants? |  |
From Lazard's the "average" LCOE for PV + ESS (energy storage) is $74/MWh. If $2T went into that, that would be $2e12 / $74/MWh = 27e9 MWh, or 27e9 MWh/ (1e6 MWh/TWh) = 27,000 TWh. The LCOE is over the 25-year lifetime. Or, 27,000 / 25 = 1080 TWh/y.
In 2022 the U.S. consumed 4,050 terawatt-hours (ref).
China installed the most new PV last year, assuming 165 GW (~240 TWh/y) is also sustainable by the U.S. then we could convert in one decade at a fraction of the cost per year than $2T. But we have ~25 years, so we could reduce it even more, seems doable.Given the perception is we already spent $2T doing this, I don't see much happening with more big future bills. Even worse, the prediction is we've done so little for so long it's not enough to just convert at this point; we're going to need to pay to remove some.
HighDesertOffgrid
Solar Addict
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2022
- Messages
- 628
$2T(Govt efficiency factor 0.5%) = Two used solar panels from SanTan.Now where did this go wrong?
The U.S. had a $2T bill for "Climate" and "other stuff". The problem with that is
very little of that money went to climate stuff. Instead, it was $115B for bridges,
$100B for broadband, $100B to schools, $9B to remediate lead drinking pipes,
$300B to healthcare, and so on for many social programs.
Some of it was semi-climate-related, e.g. $100B to "improve the grid and spur
a shift to clean energy", $105B to cities for climate change damages.
As far as I can tell, very little was earmarked for building renewable
energy systems, it seems like a few million in grants to get some renewable
systems in socially challenged areas, but it's hard to track.
What would have happened if we had spent the $2T replacing fossil
fuel energy plants?View attachment 191091
From Lazard's the "average" LCOE for PV + ESS (energy storage) is $74/MWh. If $2T went into that, that would be $2e12 / $74/MWh = 27e9 MWh, or 27e9 MWh/ (1e6 MWh/TWh) = 27,000 TWh. The LCOE is over the 25-year lifetime. Or, 27,000 / 25 = 1080 TWh/y.
In 2022 the U.S. consumed 4,050 terawatt-hours (ref).
Given the perception is we already spent $2T doing this, I don't see much happening with more big future bills. Even worse, the prediction is we've done so little for so long it's not enough to just convert at this point; we're going to need to pay to remove some.
42OhmsPA
What's in a title?
Lots of good points covered here (cross posting from another forum).
thecoalhardtruth.com
Off to tend the coal stove.
I should have turned the mini split down and the coal stove up today...
Home - The Coal Hard Truth
The world is rushing to renewable sources of energy. Hit pause on everything you think you know about coal. A global transition to renewable forms of energy is well underway, but are we moving too fast to a future filled with unknown compromises? What are the consequences of rushing to...
thecoalhardtruth.com
I should have turned the mini split down and the coal stove up today...
HighDesertOffgrid
Solar Addict
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2022
- Messages
- 628
Adding more used transmission fluid to the diesel heater.
Academic Publishing is a Racket
A couple of days ago Peter Civáň wrote an excellent account of why he’s given up refereeing for academic journals. I quite understand. The system is broken and referees are slave labour. Their only recompense is being able to write “Referee for Journal of Futile Endeavour“, on their C.V., hoping this improves employability. It doesn’t, I promise. I’ve sat on numerous appointment panels and only recall one interviewer taking the slightest interest in a candidate’s refereeing efforts. “This chap reviews for a lot of journals; but doesn’t publish much himself,” he observed. The candidate didn’t get the job.I’m sure that’s not Peter’s problem, but – forgive me, and I hope this isn’t taken badly – I do rather sense a shocked innocent recoiling from the brothel curtains. So, let an old roué and sometime Editor for three mid-ranking journals (Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, Journal of Medical Microbiology and International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents) take you on a tour. As for my further credentials, I’ve published over 500 papers and appear on Clarivate’s ‘Most cited‘.
The model I entered, late in the 1980s, was the one that Robert Maxwell built. Maxwell’s genius, with Government help, was to establish new journals or to agree, for a cut, to manage those owned by professional societies. His vehicle, Pergamon Press, recruited senior academics as editors and lesser ones as sub-editors. The subs batted the papers to and from referees and the senior put the journal together. Pergamon promoted itself as ‘the place to publish’, taking trade stands at conferences and ear-bending librarians. They didn’t need to work too hard. The Senior Editor pressed his staff and friends to publish in his new journal. Authors insisted that their university library subscribe. Even if it was still ‘society-owned’ the journal charged libraries far more than an individual subscription. Members could be blackballed for sharing their private copy.
Ker-ching!!!
Academics, who did most of the work, were recompensed by status and hospitality. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy dined me at the Savoy when I finished my three-year stint; Journal of Medical Microbiology had glorious two-day meetings at a hotel near Tintern Abbey. I shudder to recall how many hours I spent to earn these treats.
Maxwell prospered until he over-reached himself elsewhere and walked off the back of the Lady Ghislaine. Subscriptions, subscription rates and journal numbers rose. Pharma companies learnt that a journal’s name added respectability to promotional copy and sponsored supplements on their new drugs, paying handsomely for mountains of reprints. Elsevier entered the fray, bought out Pergamon and became far the largest scientific publisher.
Even so, there were costs. Journals had to be typeset, printed and distributed. At Journal of Medical Microbiology we bickered with Churchill Livingstone about how to balance the number of papers accepted with the costs of page allocation. If we increased the page count it cost the society and increased the postage bill. Alternatively, we could reject more papers, or adopt a narrower typeface. As we did.
The new century changed everything, with online publishing, impact factors and open access.
Online option became online only, turning silver mines into gold mines. No more paper, printing or distribution costs. No more balancing papers with page allocation. It also became far easier to start a new journal, as publishers recognised. No need to pulp unsold issues and bear the loss if no one subscribed.
Just find some rising academic and flatter him, saying what an important person he was becoming and how it’d look good on his C.V. to be Editor of the Journal of Rapid Diagnostics. “You recruit a few sub-editors, work with them to pull in papers and have them refereed; we’ll do everything from there,” they’d promise. Which meant a website and a bit of semi-automated formatting, subcontracted to India. A subscription to his new journal was included in a huge bundle of online subs, which the publisher sold to university libraries.
Only if the journal began to succeed did the publisher take any real interest. After all, they’d taken the same punt on scores of other academics. It’s the venture capital model. Spread your bets all over the table. Anticipate a few big winners amid many losers. Then run winners and cut losers. With the wonderful refinement that, in academic publishing, unlike venture capital, the losers cost the publisher next to nothing. The sucker is the rising academic who wasn’t half as clever as he thought he was. He’s wasted evenings and nights on a doomed venture that would have paid him nothing had it succeeded.
Impact factors are a bureaucrat’s dream. The higher the impact factor, the greater the journal’s status. Accordingly, impact factors are carefully husbanded. Publishing likely-to-be-cited reviews is smart, as are papers from high-profile authors. Themed issues help because authors cross cite one another, inflating impact factors. Things to avoid are case reports and papers on unfashionable topics, which no one cites, however important they are. Controversial papers ought to drive impact, but editors avoid them, fearing that, as with Wakefield, they’ll pull the journal into the mud. Many of us saw that during Covid, but it is not new. A friend struggled for ages to publish a novel hypothesis on the time-course of evolution. I don’t say he’s right or wrong. I don’t know. But I do know that evolution has run swifter than conventional models explain. So novel ideas deserve interest.
And so to Open Access. Around the turn of the century Maxwell’s model met a rebellion of sorts, with libraries finding that they could no longer afford every journal they were pressed to take. What’s more, funders began to say that “The public paid for this research; they ought to be able to see the results for free.” So, a new model – Open Access – developed. Here the academic, university or grant pays to publish the paper, which then becomes openly available. The going rate is £2,000-£4,000 per paper, depending on the journal.
Set up with these good intentions, Open Access has infected not just the bordello but also the surrounding countryside. First, it means that anyone without publication funds struggles to be published, however interesting their observations. If you’re a jobbing physician with a peculiar case series, an independent scientist, or a grant-less writer of theories, then hard lines, unless you have deep pockets.
Second, it has enabled a proliferation of predatory ‘journals’ run by people, often in India and China, who make Major Maxwell look like Mother Theresa. They gull the unwary and desperate into publishing with them at considerable cost and to no benefit. Despite blocking dozens of these shysters, my spam folder remains awash with their invites. Some are genuinely nasty people who threatened an honest librarian, Jeffrey Beall, who published a list of the biggest offenders. All claim to have peer review, but will publish anything if payment, or a promise of payment, is proffered – as demonstrated by folks who’ve deliberately submitted garbled rubbish as an experiment.
Ker-ching!!!
Third, Open Access has opened new income streams to the more ‘reputable’ publishers and their academic society partners. If my paper is accepted by their old, free-to-publish journal, I’m encouraged, as I sign the copyright transfer form, to make it Open Access by paying the appropriate fee. UEA has a bulk-payment agreement with Elsevier, I’m helpfully informed. All I need do is click one little box. I don’t seem to need anyone’s approval.
Ker-ching!!!
If, on the other hand, my paper is rejected by the old free-to-publish journal, I’m immediately encouraged to transfer it to an Open Access stablemate, or the publishers ‘All Topics’ science journal, with rejection hinted to be less likely.
Ker-ching!!!
A mid-range Open-Access journal, publishing 15 papers per month at £3,000 apiece turns half a million pounds a year, with very low costs. Last year I was invited to become a Senior Editor for one such organ. To my surprise, they said they’d pay me $6,000 per annum. On top of which I’d be encouraged to develop themed issues, suggesting topics and finding authors. From these I’d receive a further cut, bringing my income to $12,000 p.a., with most of the work done by junior editors and AI tools. I confess I was tempted, but ultimately turned it down. I didn’t like the way the folks at the bottom got nothing – not even two days at Tintern. And, with profit depending on papers published, there was too much pressure to accept, particularly for those themed issues. Nor do I trust AI to be objective, particularly when it meets a theory that runs against conventional wisdom.
But $6,000 or $12,000 or £500,000 is a drop in the bucket. Anyone wanting to see the real money should look at Elsevier. Back in the 80s it wasn’t in the FTSE 100, though Reed International, with which it later merged, was there. Now it’s London’s eighth biggest company by market capitalisation, and that’s not down to Reed.
Turnover is £8bn per year and profit £1.6bn, while the bright folks who do the legwork do not even get the minimum wage.
Impact factors are a bureaucrat’s dream. The higher the impact factor, the greater the journal’s status. Accordingly, impact factors are carefully husbanded. Publishing likely-to-be-cited reviews is smart, as are papers from high-profile authors. Themed issues help because authors cross cite one another, inflating impact factors. Things to avoid are case reports and papers on unfashionable topics, which no one cites, however important they are. Controversial papers ought to drive impact, but editors avoid them, fearing that, as with Wakefield, they’ll pull the journal into the mud. Many of us saw that during Covid, but it is not new. A friend struggled for ages to publish a novel hypothesis on the time-course of evolution. I don’t say he’s right or wrong. I don’t know. But I do know that evolution has run swifter than conventional models explain. So novel ideas deserve interest.
And so to Open Access. Around the turn of the century Maxwell’s model met a rebellion of sorts, with libraries finding that they could no longer afford every journal they were pressed to take. What’s more, funders began to say that “The public paid for this research; they ought to be able to see the results for free.” So, a new model – Open Access – developed. Here the academic, university or grant pays to publish the paper, which then becomes openly available. The going rate is £2,000-£4,000 per paper, depending on the journal.
Set up with these good intentions, Open Access has infected not just the bordello but also the surrounding countryside. First, it means that anyone without publication funds struggles to be published, however interesting their observations. If you’re a jobbing physician with a peculiar case series, an independent scientist, or a grant-less writer of theories, then hard lines, unless you have deep pockets.
Second, it has enabled a proliferation of predatory ‘journals’ run by people, often in India and China, who make Major Maxwell look like Mother Theresa. They gull the unwary and desperate into publishing with them at considerable cost and to no benefit. Despite blocking dozens of these shysters, my spam folder remains awash with their invites. Some are genuinely nasty people who threatened an honest librarian, Jeffrey Beall, who published a list of the biggest offenders. All claim to have peer review, but will publish anything if payment, or a promise of payment, is proffered – as demonstrated by folks who’ve deliberately submitted garbled rubbish as an experiment.
Ker-ching!!!
Third, Open Access has opened new income streams to the more ‘reputable’ publishers and their academic society partners. If my paper is accepted by their old, free-to-publish journal, I’m encouraged, as I sign the copyright transfer form, to make it Open Access by paying the appropriate fee. UEA has a bulk-payment agreement with Elsevier, I’m helpfully informed. All I need do is click one little box. I don’t seem to need anyone’s approval.
Ker-ching!!!
If, on the other hand, my paper is rejected by the old free-to-publish journal, I’m immediately encouraged to transfer it to an Open Access stablemate, or the publishers ‘All Topics’ science journal, with rejection hinted to be less likely.
Ker-ching!!!
A mid-range Open-Access journal, publishing 15 papers per month at £3,000 apiece turns half a million pounds a year, with very low costs. Last year I was invited to become a Senior Editor for one such organ. To my surprise, they said they’d pay me $6,000 per annum. On top of which I’d be encouraged to develop themed issues, suggesting topics and finding authors. From these I’d receive a further cut, bringing my income to $12,000 p.a., with most of the work done by junior editors and AI tools. I confess I was tempted, but ultimately turned it down. I didn’t like the way the folks at the bottom got nothing – not even two days at Tintern. And, with profit depending on papers published, there was too much pressure to accept, particularly for those themed issues. Nor do I trust AI to be objective, particularly when it meets a theory that runs against conventional wisdom.
But $6,000 or $12,000 or £500,000 is a drop in the bucket. Anyone wanting to see the real money should look at Elsevier. Back in the 80s it wasn’t in the FTSE 100, though Reed International, with which it later merged, was there. Now it’s London’s eighth biggest company by market capitalisation, and that’s not down to Reed.
Turnover is £8bn per year and profit £1.6bn, while the bright folks who do the legwork do not even get the minimum wage.
Hedges
I See Electromagnetic Fields!
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2020
- Messages
- 21,590
My master's thesis, back in 2011, I could have paid for open access. Maybe something in the $100 or so range?
If I had been proud of it I might have, but results weren't so impressive. Was it Thomas Edison who said, "I didn't fail 1000 times, I succeeded in identifying 1000 materials that aren't suitable for incandescent filament."?
"
Dear Author, |
You had 6 new downloads in December 2023 across your 1 paper in SJSU ScholarWorks. Your current readership: |
2355 Total Downloads |
Probably mostly other students, looking for clues on how to do something matching my keywords. Free to them, since the schools have a subscription. I can't access my own paper (I have bound hardcopy and a downloaded copy), but one contractor did have subscription and I saw online through them.
Third Electric London Bus Catches Fire in Month
An electric bus has caught fire in London, making it the third to burst into flames in the capital this month. The Independent has more.
Waiting for more info pic.twitter.com/tdIn5XmJuQ
In a message to staff, bus operator Go Ahead said a “precautionary fleet check” of around 380 electric buses is now underway. It added that the “events of this kind that took place inside our premises” on Wednesday “are very rare”.
“Very rare” – haven’t we heard that somewhere before?
In what world is three fires in a month “very rare”? It’s a weekly occurrence.
Worth reading in full.
Meanwhile, electric bikes have caused a record number of fires in New York City, according to the Telegraph. According to figures released by the New York Fire Department, e-bikes were responsible for 267 fires in the city during 2023, claiming 18 lives and causing 150 injuries, with fatalities increasing 200% (i.e., threefold) compared to the previous year.
Bob B
Emperor Of Solar
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2019
- Messages
- 9,223
Get ready for the coming little ice age!
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=61284 So burn down the windmills and electric cars and fire up that V-8 powered leaf blower. The climate change alarmists have known about this but have desperately tried to cover it up. Science deniers!
diysolarforum.com
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Who the heck is scirp? Let's google them....Get ready for the coming little ice age!
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=61284 So burn down the windmills and electric cars and fire up that V-8 powered leaf blower. The climate change alarmists have known about this but have desperately tried to cover it up. Science deniers!
Similar threads
