it get very convoluted with people.
IMO the reason some people are not on-board with the whole fossil fuels/climate change
plan can be seen in the plots of movies like Fountainhead/Atlas Shrugged , old ideas, but still out there.
View attachment 213494
She supported rational and ethical egoism as opposed to altruism. In politics, she condemned the initiation of force as immoral and supported laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system based on recognizing individual rights, including private property rights. Although she opposed libertarianism, which she viewed as anarchism.
my interest in progress on these issues are not because of any personal fears now, but I do care for my great, great, grandkids.
so I'll support any effort we can take now to increase their chances in the future.
the only risk I can see, as we continue to pump crap into the air, and by doing that increase the world's temperature
could that mitigate the coming ice age. if with stop treating our atmosphere as a toilet are my great, great, grandkids
going to have to wear a coat all the time
View attachment 213504
Not just banned from social media, their careers are destroyed and if that does not get them to shut up, they will be personally destroyed.
aenyc, it was a good idea to put X Ray machines in shoe stores back in the day so people
could get the right shoe fit, but the long term heath effects made it impractical.
Fossil fuels have a great density! But a math question! Sure! Being forewarned of my disclaimer below let's see...How many batteries do you need to replace 5 gallons of propane?
Yep, renewables are pretty nice in comparison.I have been to most of the major Hydroelectric Dams in the State and find them to be surprisingly pleasant for a Government operation. No fumes or toxic irritants there.
ROFL! The companies building solar farms aren't doing it for CO2... they're doing it to make money. Even without subsidies it's cheaper.I have not been 'led to believe' this, I have observed it. Im not saying solar isn't worth it now for many applications, I am saying that we dont have to waste good land for the sake of reducing CO2. Solar has an important role, but that is not it.
Reference please.Governments and corporations are wasting land with it.
I still don't know what you mean by this. Power is power regardless of where it comes from. Combined with battery it can provide power 24x7 to meet all loads regardless if the grid is up or down.Solar does nothing for constant supply when it is needed as we already know.
That's why getting energy storage costs was so key to making the system viable. With energy storage there is no waste.... is largely making power when it is needed least...
reports the Monmouth University Polling Institute.“Most Americans continue to acknowledge the existence of climate change, but the number who see this as a very serious problem has fallen below half. Support for government action to reduce activities that impact the climate has dipped below 6 in 10 for the first time since Monmouth began polling this topic nearly a decade ago,”
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_050624/
the poll notes. This variability, particularly the drop following a temporary rise, could reflect the influence of political leadership and media narratives on public opinion.“Republicans (51%) are the least likely to accept climate change as a reality, which is similar to GOP opinion in 2021 (48%) and 2015 (49%), but down from a momentary jump recorded in 2018 (64%),”
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_050624/
explains Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute.“Support for climate action remains relatively high in absolute terms, but it has softened due to a drop in the sense of urgency on this issue, particularly among younger adults,”
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_050624/
We disagree, I do want governments to invest in saving money just like private citizens and corporations, I don't even object to government mandating new technologies on government buildings, like your Jimmy Carter did. It's a shame that this wasn't continued as now solar and battery technology is behind China. However it was not all that obvious to the average voter that he was right at the time and with many of those things, it is a hit and miss.I don't want a dime of my money spent on a rooftop solar install on a government building that doesn't even function when the grid is down, but merely offsets it own use. Something has to provide the baseload for the grid and a source that is intermittent is not capable of this. I would suggest that encouraging induvidual homes and businesses to go off grid would be superior in the long run.
No, I don't believe the government is implementing climate change under any guise. Yes, I believe that history shows starvation, disease, and lack of resources will cause migration and civil unrest.Do you think that war, terror, disease, famine, and immigration will be reduced because of a global government implemented under the guise of anthropogenic CO2 climate destruction?
Your ancestors almost died then too (ref).There was once 2 miles of ice above where I am right now.
The planet just is, it doesn't adapt. The biologicals on it have to adapt to changes, or die off. We typically have mass die-offs each major temperature transition. refThe Earth is able to adapt and it will.
Agreed. But extreme. We can solve the problems without those measures. A carbon tax to remove GHGs on fuels would do it.we are designed to adapt and we will, either freely or with the iron fist of tyranny.
Turquoise and Natural hydrogen are interesting, but green hydrogen doesn't have the round-trip-efficiency of other systems... |
I understand you believe that. But, you also have shown any reason why you believe that which I haven't already rebutted. If you assume all scientists are in cahoots and all data is false, then neither of our viewpoints can be valid.Most importantly the realization that the Co2= catastrophe narrative is false
But you have! When you read those crazy headlines you talked about, even watched any news, when you heard a politician say it was a hoax because they were lobbied by the industry, when you doubted the science was real, when a friend made a joke about it... there's no way to escape the propaganda.does not need any support from the oil companies. I have never sat down and read oil company propaganda
Other than GHGs, what is the motivation? Fossil fuel companies won't go away... we still need plastics and tons of other products. But the enormous power they wield today, yeah that will go away and they don't like it.I just understand that there is a motive behind the elimination of fossil fuels, and that motive is not positive for humans or our civilization.
When did we start talking about jailing people for being deniers? Are we going to round up the flat-earthers too? Sounding just a tad desperate/hysterical in your argument.Yes isn't it telling how it is always the pro climate change side that talks about jailing people for "denial". Denial of anything true or fake is a right. Tyranny does not approve of disagreement with it's assertions, does it?
There's ton's of denial as a part of the discussion. What would make you think otherwise?The scientific method is not possible when "denial" is disallowed as part of the discussion.
A government conspiracy? Mainly it's Occom's razor. For all scientists and all governments to be in on it (even North Korea) is so unlikely compared to other possibilities. Plus, our government is so dysfunctional/divided it couldn't pull off a hoax of this magnitude. I'm sure you'll point to the one or two scientists that say it's a hoax, but they've been debunked... that is shown to be taking money from oil companies and usually not ever climate scientists.ALSO, why are you a Conspiracy "denier?"
Why are you?Why are you a truth denier?
I try to stick to facts. So far you've yet to show any evidence of any conspiracy and I've presented facts that it is not a hoax:... there are many a word put to paper that demonstrate the conspiracy that is playing out at this moment. Will you acknowledge that fact?
Ratcliffe outlines his preferred transitional design of an electric vehicle with range extender (REX): “You can charge it in the normal manner. However, tucked away under the bonnet is a small engine and a generator. The engine powers the generator, when requested, which in turn charges the battery. The engine is not connected to the pedal, so is simple, efficient and reliable.”The electric car is not popular today. The early adopters have all bought theirs so now the car giants are having to persuade ‘normal punters’ of the merits of going electric. And they are having none of it.
There is a rather fundamental drawback with the electric car. It simply doesn’t do what you want a car to do. It doesn’t get you from A to B reliably if you are on a long journey. And you have no idea whether you will be able to fill it up. Put it together and it’s referred to as ‘range anxiety’. And it’s very real.
Electric is fine and dandy for the short local journey, but should you decide to head off for the hills, forget it. And hence demand has dried up. Tesla is making 14,000 workers redundant. In March, German sales of electric cars collapsed by 30%. You can’t give a second-hand electric car away in the U.K.
Politicians have been dreaming of vote-winning green agendas and utopian engineering and energy switches. Dreams of course, don’t need to be real. They don’t need to accommodate the needs of the consumer, the practicalities of installing colossal new infrastructure and the small matter of where all this electricity is coming from. Coal?
Flipping transportation from fossil fuels directly to electric is not like flipping a light switch. The very notion is barmy, which is why the USA predicts electric car take up by 2050 in the USA will only be 20%. In Europe, our idealists are heading towards 100%.
I love my truck based SUV. Thank you government regulation.We disagree, I do want governments to invest in saving money just like private citizens and corporations, I don't even object to government mandating new technologies on government buildings, like your Jimmy Carter did. It's a shame that this wasn't continued as now solar and battery technology is behind China. However it was not all that obvious to the average voter that he was right at the time and with many of those things, it is a hit and miss.
We could save more energy by reducing the size of government. Think how many MWh could be saved if there weren't as many government workers to provide power for. Lowering the demand on the system is always a simpler solution to building a bigger system.If power goes off in an office building, that does affect the productivity since a lot of office work is computer based (regardless if it is government or private offices) I suggest you guys find a way to island the properties rather than forbidding to use a generator powered by sunlight for governments.
Yes the grid is a great reason to install an off grid system. It not a great time to invest in using the grid as your battery.Predicting the future is a lot harder then people seem to think, I know I can't, but the trend of solar getting cheaper than fossil has been clear for well over a decade, what I didn't expect is the cost of batteries dropping this fast. With the shortage of power due to electric cars, electric heating, combined with continuing economic growth and a lack of investment in the grid, I expect the grid to become unstable. Even more reason to install solar while politicians bicker about the grid, something I would gladly leave to the experts rather than politicians.
Choosing the most inefficient possible use of propane doesn't prove much here. How about comparing propane for heating? The thing that gets people killed is freezing for due to lack of energy. Heat is the number one energy concern for any building in my opinion.Fossil fuels have a great density! But a math question! Sure! Being forewarned of my disclaimer below let's see...
5 gallons of propane burned in a generator varies depending on load but at best is about 30 kWh. If you burned it in a fuel cell you could get a lot more, but most of that energy you paid for just becomes waste heat.
So, in theory you'd need a 30 kWh battery. But what about in practice? Well, 0 in the daytime if you have solar. I don't typically burn 30 kWh a day unless the air conditioning or heat is on. But let's say I need 10 kWh to tide me for when the sun isn't shining, why I'd need 10 kWh of batteries.
Cost Basis
How do 30 kWh of battery compare to 5 gallons of propane? Let's look at the cost. Will says that LFP is going to be $56/kWh inside of 6 months. so 30 kWh would be 30x56 = 1680. LFP under optimal conditions can go 10,000 cycles (ref), but let's say the standard 3k and let's bump the 30 kWh upto 37.5 kWh to account for a 20% loss at 3k cycles... so that's $2100. Propane is $2.60/gallon here, so 3000 cycles of propane is $39,000 (but with a carbon tax it would obviously more).
So, batteries definitely for the win on the cost. Seeing why fossil fuel companies don't want to go there and have a PR campaign to deny climate change?
Size Basis
A 5 gallon propane tank is pretty small, 18" x 12", or a volume of about 1.5 cubic feet. LFP is about 500 kWh/m3 (ref), so, that's about 2.1 cubic feet for 30 kWh. Yep, propane wins here (but is that 0.7 cuft really worth the extra money?)
Pipelines are ugly, mostly because of the imminent domain theft that they representYep, renewables are pretty nice in comparison.
But when you talk about the ugliness of renewables, I can't help but wonder if you're also fairly comparing it to existing ugliness of pipelines, how black soot coating your windowsills, the black mountains of coal sitting by the power plant waiting to be burned, power plants spewing out gases, etc.
The push for "net zero" and 'going green' is driving incentivization of solar feilds. It may be profitable for some situations, such as powering the pointless lights of Las Vegas during the day.ROFL! The companies building solar farms aren't doing it for CO2... they're doing it to make money. Even without subsidies it's cheaper.
That sounds nice, I would happy if we could get to that point, but the US rooftop PV is largely grid tied, with the grid as a backup which is not helpful for overall system stability. It takes storage, storage is expensive and not without downsides.But I agree we shouldn't "waste" good land and as far as I know they're not (mainly because they're getting built where land is cheap because no one can do much with it). But, don't forget about the good land that is wasted by power plants or has been turned into a superfund site after the plant / well was decommissioned. Chernobyl contaminated 20,000 square miles of land in Ukraine. To power the entire U.S. with solar you need about the area of lake Michigan ref. Distributed across American rooftops you'd never even notice it.
Have you not seen the pictures? Solar fields exist in many places.Reference please.
I mean that batteries are not able to replace all the positive attributes of hydrocarbon fuels. Without the batteries solar becomes close to useless as a grid replacement, unless you are at the North Pole in summer.I still don't know what you mean by this. Power is power regardless of where it comes from. Combined with battery it can provide power 24x7 to meet all loads regardless if the grid is up or down.
Yes energy storage is key. It is not at the same level as established forms of energy.That's why getting energy storage costs was so key to making the system viable. With energy storage there is no waste.
Renewables are viable today as proven with the LCOEs, and the prices are only going down.
18,000 cycles on the battery? Whoa!
Choosing the most inefficient possible use of propane doesn't prove much here. How about comparing propane for heating? The thing that gets people killed is freezing for due to lack of energy. Heat is the number one energy concern for any building in my opinion.
We disagree, I do want governments to invest in saving money just like private citizens and corporations, I don't even object to government mandating new technologies on government buildings, like your Jimmy Carter did. It's a shame that this wasn't continued as now solar and battery technology is behind China. However it was not all that obvious to the average voter that he was right at the time and with many of those things, it is a hit and miss.
If power goes off in an office building, that does affect the productivity since a lot of office work is computer based (regardless if it is government or private offices) I suggest you guys find a way to island the properties rather than forbidding to use a generator powered by sunlight for governments.
Predicting the future is a lot harder then people seem to think, I know I can't, but the trend of solar getting cheaper than fossil has been clear for well over a decade, what I didn't expect is the cost of batteries dropping this fast. With the shortage of power due to electric cars, electric heating, combined with continuing economic growth and a lack of investment in the grid, I expect the grid to become unstable. Even more reason to install solar while politicians bicker about the grid, something I would gladly leave to the experts rather than politicians.
He probably doesn't understand that based on where he lives .... Probably more concerned about sea level rising.
So, not really seeing any facts as to why climate change is false or more importantly news on climate change which is what the thread is about.
Nonsense, at 80% efficiency in heat extraction that would be 76.8 kWh. But, you could use a heat pump with a COP of 5, so 76.8 kWh of heat would take 15.36 kWh of energy. Or, perhaps that was where you were going?An 80% efficient propane heater can extract 96kwh from 4.5 gallons. So that takes 18 5kw batteries to provide a similar amount of energy
Not in a crisis. I'll get sunshine after a hurricane, but power to pump propane and telephone lines for credit card readers aren't there. That's the way it worked in the last hurricane anyway.If for some reason you find that you have used up all of your propanes 96kwh, you can simply hook up another tank.
We do that now with coal/oil/gas/nuclear. It's not like if we turn off all the lights those things stop consuming fuel. Peaker plants sit mostly offline until there is a demand and they fire up (at enormous cost which is why utilities are deploying batteries).Electricity from batteries can be great for many things, but if you are relying on it as a means to create heat you need to over build sufficiency, and that is not in the budget for many people in the real world.
When I lived near LA every morning the window sill was gritty with black soot. Couldn't wait to get out of there. ; -)What black soot? I don't live in Dickensian London or Shanghai.
That might have been true with some early trials. But the ones built nowadays are paid for by investors expecting return on their investments.The push for "net zero" and 'going green' is driving incentivization of solar feilds.
Storage prices have fallen dramatically to the point where it's cost effective...again, I'll refer you back to the LCOEs.It takes storage, storage is expensive and not without downsides.
How so? I agree they have negatives, but as a believer in GHGs causing climate change seems the negatives of burning fossil fuels is worse.I mean that batteries are not able to replace all the positive attributes of hydrocarbon fuels.
Agreed. But you keep throwing energy storage out rather than seeing it as a part of the solution.Without the batteries solar becomes close to useless as a grid replacement...
Sure it is!Yes energy storage is key. It is not at the same level as established forms of energy.
Ah! That's where our disconnect is. That $1000 is what you can get off Amazon today. You can't take the premium numbers you pay as if that's what utilities pay. They deal in volumes and get substantial discounts. As batteries become more mainstream those lower costs are passed to consumers (similar to how EV batteries are almost at that cost, e.g., a model Y has a 75 kWh battery and the car costs $43k).To accomplish this we need either 65,508 btus of usable energy per 12 hours or 21.6kwh 5x 5kw batteries at $1000 each (Which is being very generous) is $5000 this would allow for just the bare minimum energy requirement for ONE night. Safety factor of 0.18.
I'll have you know I did turn the heat on this winter! For about 5 minutes just to cycle it. Don't worry... next month you'll be laughing at me as I'll become imprisoned due to NWS heat warnings. Who knows, maybe this year I'll find a real cool coat I can go fishing in ; -)He probably doesn't understand that based on where he lives .... Probably more concerned about sea level rising.
fpgt72, it's possible that making our air and water cleaner by removing fossil fuels from theThere will come a time when we see the same thing about electric cars and just how stupid they really are.
I may have made an error in my wording, I mean "governments are implementing 'green' energy incentivization and deployment, based on the idea that the plant food called CO2 is causing detrimental harm.No, I don't believe the government is implementing climate change under any guise. Yes, I believe that history shows starvation, disease, and lack of resources will cause migration and civil unrest.
We are not reptiles, we can ingest food and make heat, if we don't shut down civilization via 'decarbonization' we will survive just fine.
You are making an argument based on an appeal to authority. I do not necessarily accept such arguments, as many have motives, i.e. funding, reputation to consider. I can not test their hypothesis in any way, nor have I seen it convincingly demonstrated outside of computer models and the misleading zooming and scaling of graphs. Those prove nothing.Agreed. But extreme. We can solve the problems without those measures. A carbon tax to remove GHGs on fuels would do it.
Turquoise and Natural hydrogen are interesting, but green hydrogen doesn't have the round-trip-efficiency of other systems...
I understand you believe that. But, you also have shown any reason why you believe that which I haven't already rebutted. If you assume all scientists are in cahoots and all data is false, then neither of our viewpoints can be valid.
All human language could be categorized as propaganda, good and bad, black and white propaganda. I mean it in the popular use sense of against ones interest, or serving anothers purpose without regard to the effect on others.But you have! When you read those crazy headlines you talked about, even watched any news, when you heard a politician say it was a hoax because they were lobbied by the industry, when you doubted the science was real, when a friend made a joke about it... there's no way to escape the propaganda.
Their power will not go away, they have diversified their holdings and will survive regardless. All the oil giants are invested into 'clean energy' and will continue to profit.Other than GHGs, what is the motivation? Fossil fuel companies won't go away... we still need plastics and tons of other products. But the enormous power they wield today, yeah that will go away and they don't like it.
I can't quote it because it is 2 posts ago but you said something to the effect that Oil executives wouldn't wan't to be put in jail for denying climate change.When did we start talking about jailing people for being deniers? Are we going to round up the flat-earthers too? Sounding just a tad desperate/hysterical in your argument.
Those are two different things. I am denying that CO2 level fluctuation is not catastrophic.Denying something with evidence is good. But denying something without evidence or because you have fears that bad things might happen without acknowledging the consequences that it might happen is just hiding from reality. Rather than argue with emotions or rhetoric, facts will get you farther.
Refer to equitorial mount above. The Earth is a sphere of course. Flat Earth is a PsyOp used for discrediting people and ideas based on association.There's ton's of denial as a part of the discussion. What would make you think otherwise?
They get scoffed at for the same reason flat-earthers do, the science doesn't support their arguments. That's when they have arguments, a lot of it is emotional BS, attempts to discredit scientists, or bamboozle people with half-truths and cherry picked data.
I do not buy the theory. It hasn't been demonstrated to my satisfaction.A government conspiracy? Mainly it's Occom's razor. For all scientists and all governments to be in on it (even North Korea) is so unlikely compared to other possibilities. Plus, our government is so dysfunctional/divided it couldn't pull off a hoax of this magnitude. I'm sure you'll point to the one or two scientists that say it's a hoax, but they've been debunked... that is shown to be taking money from oil companies and usually not ever climate scientists.
Now the oil companies, knowing their world dominance is threatened and bamboozling you? Yeah, that's believable.
I'm not sure he's needed now, IMO Gary Kildall gave him MS Dos, and steve jobs invited him to hisDoes the future world need a bill gates?
So, not really seeing any facts as to why climate change is false or more importantly news on climate change which is what the thread is about.
You make a good point about the heat pump system. It is superior from an efficiency standpoint. I was considering resistance heat, but the heat pump system will outperform propane it seems as it is COP of 5.Nonsense, at 80% efficiency in heat extraction that would be 76.8 kWh. But, you could use a heat pump with a COP of 5, so 76.8 kWh of heat would take 15.36 kWh of energy. Or, perhaps that was where you were going?
But... don't forget, 4.5 gallons over 3000 cycles at $2.60/cycle is $35,000. From Will's numbers, the 15.36 kWh battery is only $860. Plus, at it's end of life it has value in it's recycle. Whereas the CO2 from propane has a cost to be removed from the air. ; -)
Seems good to me.
Good. It sounds like your system is working well for your needs. IF you needed propane I'm sure that you, living in hurricane territory, would have a spare tank.Not in a crisis. I'll get sunshine after a hurricane, but power to pump propane and telephone lines for credit card readers aren't there. That's the way it worked in the last hurricane anyway.
Yes I know that. Hydroelectric can meet demand very quickly without the need for radiation or 1000 year mistakes.We do that now with coal/oil/gas/nuclear. It's not like if we turn off all the lights those things stop consuming fuel. Peaker plants sit mostly offline until there is a demand and they fire up (at enormous cost which is why utilities are deploying batteries).
Pollution, the actual environmental threat.With renewables and the grid and batteries I'd even argue we can much more precisely right-size. Sun not shining over Miami? Borrow some from Tampa. Not saying it's not a complex problem, it already is. Managing is the FERCs responsibility.
When I lived near LA every morning the window sill was gritty with black soot. Couldn't wait to get out of there. ; -)
I'm sure they are, and they will. They are still a disgusting eyesore.That might have been true with some early trials. But the ones built nowadays are paid for by investors expecting return on their investments.
Modern humans require energy to flourish. We can't make enough batteries without destroying vast swaths of land and poisoning humans and the environment in the process. As a non believer in Co2 induced catastrophe I would like to see every little boy in the Congo able to afford a propane stove to cook with, not for him to be slaving away in a cobalt pit until he is poisoned to death.Storage prices have fallen dramatically to the point where it's cost effective...again, I'll refer you back to the LCOEs.
How so? I agree they have negatives, but as a believer in GHGs causing climate change seems the negatives of burning fossil fuels is worse.
Because energy storage is not at parody with hydrocarbon fuels across the board.Agreed. But you keep throwing energy storage out rather than seeing it as a part of the solution.
Consumer prices are the important factor here.Sure it is!
Ah! That's where our disconnect is. That $1000 is what you can get off Amazon today. You can't take the premium numbers you pay as if that's what utilities pay. They deal in volumes and get substantial discounts. As batteries become more mainstream those lower costs are passed to consumers (similar to how EV batteries are almost at that cost, e.g., a model Y has a 75 kWh battery and the car costs $43k).
Yes cost wise over the long term. Lets say that Tp can be purchased at 80% off by the shipping container full. I could save money on TP if I were to just lock in the price today and buy 6 containers. I will never have to buy it again, and lifetime TP costs will plummet for my family. Yet I can't afford any of that so I will buy a few packs at a time.So lets take your numbers and let's use natural gas which which is cheaper than buying propane. $5000 in batteries @ 3000 cycles, vs. $1.452 to $9.52 per therm a consumer pays for natural gas (ref). for 3000 nights is $2,831 to $18,000. The prices are highly susceptible to world events (e.g., war or cold weather drives it up). So batteries still sound pretty good to great. Throw in the 30% tax incentive and that $5k drops to $3600.
If you use Will's numbers for batteries (which are still dropping) then it's closer at $1209 ($850 with tax incentives) and a hands-down winner. I know, as a consumer you can't access those prices today. But the point is utilities can and do, and before long you will be able to as well.
Very complex topic. I could argue for and against all options. I am not really a fan of Natural gas in distribution systems as it presents a lot of points of potential failure. Although I have lived in a home with it and found it to be fine for heating, but complex gas systems make me a little nervous.Safety is an interesting question. We've all heard about lithium fires, natural gas fires, and CO poisoning, so hard to say which is best. If you believe in climate change the best solution and lowest cost seems pretty obviously.
AC is the easy part. PV-inverter-ac. Done. When the sun is making you hot the PV is running the AC, this is the epitome of success in renewable energy.I'll have you know I did turn the heat on this winter! For about 5 minutes just to cycle it. Don't worry... next month you'll be laughing at me as I'll become imprisoned due to NWS heat warnings. Who knows, maybe this year I'll find a real cool coat I can go fishing in ; -)
Buy a couple of bottle jacks and lift your house up a foot and reattach. 12 inches will buy you 100 years. Never worry again!I don't really worry about any of it, just to old and won't probably won't see how any of it turns out. At 3mm sea rise per year (yeah yeah I know the rate is increasing) it's a little hard to get worked up about it.