diy solar

diy solar

Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

aenyc, real chemical pollution, bioengineering and geoengineering
aenyc, what can I do about the above issues? other then the tax money I spend on the EPA.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, and Wisdom to know the difference

what can I do about co2?
convert my ICE to electric.
convert my house to solar and wind.
promote innovative ideas.

give me a problem I can help with, I'm on it like stink on shit
 
Last edited:
TommySr

1. There is no CO2 crisis. CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 does not cause "global warming". (and even shills like svetz repeat it 1000 times still does not make it so)
2. When you convert to EV you are generating a lot of chemical pollution, in addition to CO2 because the process that manufactures EV batteries, Solar Panels and Wind Turbine blades is one of the most toxic processes known to man, and in addition to being toxic, it actually runs ENTIRELY on diesel fuel and while at it, consumes A LOT more diesel than if that diesel/gas was used to power ICE directly.
3. Innovative ideas are great, but innovative ideas must first be put into environmentally and economically sustainable technologies before we start forcing the world to use things that depend on these "innovative ideas". Horse before the cart, TommySr

So please do us all a favor, stop parroting Svetz, and educate yourself.
 

The EU Is Spending Billions On Hydrogen-Ready, But Where's The Hydrogen?​

I’m all in favor of hydrogen-powered plants to produce electricity if only we had cheap hydrogen. But we don’t and likely won’t.




A Bad Bet on Hydrogen Hype

Bloomberg cautions Europe’s Spending Billions on Green Hydrogen. It’s a Risky Gamble

Today, the bright yellow power plant tucked behind a graffiti-covered fence burns planet-warming gas to produce electricity. But if all goes to plan, it will one day switch to emissions-free hydrogen. It’s the first, tiny part of a dream energy system being sketched out by policymakers across Europe, who are banking on the green fuel to meet some of the world’s most aggressive climate targets. That dream rests on converting newly built polluting infrastructure to burn hydrogen, a fuel that’ll be many times more expensive than natural gas and that no one has figured out how to move safely and cheaply in bulk.
Governments and companies that are racing to meet net-zero deadlines but worried about energy security can still build billions of dollars worth of gas infrastructure as long as it’s “hydrogen-ready.” Nine of the world’s 10 biggest carbon polluters have published hydrogen strategies and incentives to grow the fuel’s use, which globally already exceed $360 billion, according to BloombergNEF.
Gas-dependent economies including Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy and the UK are among Europe’s biggest proponents for using hydrogen and some have plans to use it to generate electricity. But there’s no official definition of what makes a plant hydrogen-ready, opening the door for greenwashing. For power plants, burning hydrogen hasn’t even been tested at scale.
“There has not yet been any measurable progress in the construction of hydrogen-ready, gas-fired power plants,” said Eric Heymann, an economist at Deutsche Bank Research.
Then there’s the problem of moving hydrogen around. The Leipzig plant isn’t hooked up to the grid (and hasn’t yet set up its own electrolyzers), which means the highly combustible fuel will have to be trucked in until the second part of the government’s grand plan comes to fruition. It’s building a €1 billion liquefied natural gas terminal in Brunsbuettel, a town along the North Sea, that will initially import LNG but be designed to also handle futuristic clean fuels.
Hydrogen can only be liquefied at -253C (-423F), well beyond the capabilities of today’s LNG ships. So Germany is planning to import hydrogen in the form of liquid ammonia, a combination of hydrogen and nitrogen that can more easily be turned into a liquid. But ammonia is toxic and handling requires better ventilation systems. Many components in the terminal, including control valves and fire and gas sensors as well as inline devices — most of which have not been tested with ammonia — will also need upgrades, according to Fraunhofer ISI, an energy think tank.
Not Viable But Full Speed Ahead



Germany doesn’t have an ammonia pipeline network and there are limitations to moving it via trucks on an industrial scale because it’s hazardous. That means ammonia will have to be converted back into hydrogen, yet there’s no economically viable technology currently available to do that. The terminal’s operator said it will discuss alternative strategies if none emerge by next year.
Wind and solar produce clean electricity — a commodity the world already uses. Green hydrogen, on the other hand, will require building more solar and wind farms when, in many cases, it would be simpler to just use that clean energy directly. By the time hydrogen is made, stored and burned to make electricity again, there’s nearly 70% less energy than at the start — and the cost has tripled.
Plans Only Exist On Paper

For the most part, the plans only exist on paper. That’s because they only work on paper.

A trial in the UK was cancelled when people made an uproar after learning they would have to replace their furnaces and stoves for new hydrogen appliances.

That does not apply to the situation discussed above which proposes burning hydrogen to produce electricity. However, there is a 70 percent loss of energy in the conversion from hydrogen to ammonia then back to hydrogen to burn it.

This makes no sense anywhere. Nonetheless, Germany is spending $20 billion to make electricity plants “hydrogen ready”.

Wasting $20 billion is a monthly occurrence in the Biden administration, but that’s a lot of money to Germany which unlike the US has budget rules.

China Shock



Germany is feeling the pinch of China shock. But the US is on deck too. A global trade war looms.

For discussion, please see China Shock II Is Coming, the EU Will Be Hit Hard, Then the US

Germany has too much else to worry about to waste money on absurd projects.
 
So please do us all a favor, stop parroting Svetz, and educate yourself.
aenyc, that parroting you mention can be heard in billions of voices, and 100's of languages all
over the world.

before this topic if I closed my garage door then started my snow shovel I'd be dead in minutes.

IMG_4215.JPG

after I encountered this topic I can run my snow shovel in the garage with the door closed.

IMG_4252.JPG

co2 is a problem.

my next step is my mowers.(baby steps are steps)
 
Last edited:
aenyc, that parroting you mention can be heard in billions of voices, and 100's of languages all
over the world.

No you are parroting people like her


Now we get to Sabine Hossenfelder (Who seems to be very eager to capitalize on the latest scam aka "climate change")

5 minutes of internet research turned out these gems (I decided to look this up because i have quite a bit of interest in various topics in Physics):


I particularly love this one:

Before I really knew much about physics, I liked Sabine and thought she was “speaking truth to power” in a way. Now that I know quite a bit more, I find that the majority of her audience is more of the “pop-sci” crowd who aren’t really able to form their own opinions and therefore just believe what she says unquestioningly. Among this crowd, she has positioned herself to be an authority, which she really is not. I find her to be extremely opinionated in a way that does not allow for other opinions to exist, meaning that she sees other opinions as being “unable to accept the truth” (where “the truth” here is really just her opinion). One instance of this is how she hates anything related to naturalness and acts like people who want to use naturalness as a motivation for physics are simply “lost in math” (the literal title for her book), but she conveniently leaves out that naturalness has historically been a very good motivator and has found huge success. She also rails against any future colliders, saying they are a waste of money because no one can guarantee any new discoveries will be made at these higher energies, but this is so antithetical to how science works and human exploration in general, not to mention that if you want to complain about wasted money in society, there are WAY bigger fish to fry (like the inflated military budget for instance, which spends more money in 2 days than the entire LHC cost to build over a decade). I am also a bit turned off by the fact that her new role as a “science communicator” (meaning her YouTube channel) comes across as being a bit of a money making ploy, but then again I guess everyone has to pay the bills somehow.

And this

The reason she is something of a controversial figure in the physics community, is that she has very definite opinions - and they are just opinions - about how science should be done.

She presents these in an extremely authoritative way, as if her understanding of philosophy of science is both all encompassing and absolute, when in fact she is not an expert in philosophy of science, and the field is not understood in such an absolute way that views cannot be challenged anyway.

Because her audience is pretty wide, and she may be the only, or one of the few people they listen to on these topics, her opinions can be taken as received wisdom. This has an actual effect on both the popular perception of fields she decides to target (e.g. String theory), even of the perception of these fields by scientists in other areas who haven't studied them, and consequently on the funding that these fields receive.

It's hard to articulate a strong response to what she does, because she's very dismissive. See her recent extremely rude and dismissive twitter thread against a physicist Arttu Rajantie for an example. Arttu argued clearly on historical and scientific basis that an experiment was worth doing and Sabine dismissed him in a horribly disrespectful way, see her replies at the end of his thread. It's hard to see what more could have been done to convince her.

Another reason it's hard to respond to her is that the reasons for thinking string theory is a productive thing to investigate are quite technical sometimes, and although I'm sure some very talented person could make a convincing counterpoint in the popular science sphere, such a person isn't really out there, or if they are they don't have the same platform as Sabine, or people who follow Sabine take it that when she angrily dismisses someone, that's because their point doesn't make sense. This is not the case, her angry dismissals are an effective tactic to convince people to ignore the argument of her adversary.

There are good reasons to think that string theory is a productive field to study. It's not just 'being lost in the math'. Scientists aren't just cynically studying it for the grant money, it represents a possibly huge leap in our understanding of the natural world. When people say it's not testible, well that's a good argument, but you have to keep in mind that the theory is extremely complicated and still quite poorly understood. It is not at all unlikely that continued study will uncover new aspects of the theory which are accessible to experiment. The only way we ensure that this possible resolution to some of the deepest questions about the universe remains forever untested is to cut funding, and stop exploring it, and that's what Sabine wants us to do.


And this, particularly interesting as this goes into her actual field of study, which is Theoretical Physics

 
aenyc, over 2000 people die each year by ICE engine fumes. in 2023 4 people died form EV fires.

seems like a step in the right direction.
 
aenyc, over 2000 people die each year by ICE engine fumes. in 2023 4 people died form EV fires.

seems like a step in the right direction.

That is some bullshit statistic my friend. You are going to have to do A LOT better.
I am beginning to suspect more and more that you are a shill, sadly.

This is NYC alone

And now you are going to tell me i should be worried about ICE fumes? This is like worrying about carbon impact of a nuclear war TommySr.



 
aenyc, that parroting you mention can be heard in billions of voices, and 100's of languages all
over the world.

before this topic if I closed my garage door then started my snow shovel I'd be dead in minutes.

View attachment 216768

after I encountered this topic I can run my snow shovel in the garage with the door closed.

View attachment 216769

co2 is a problem.

my next step is my mowers.(baby steps are steps)
Cows are stated as a problem. If you locked yourself in garage with farting cows would you survive? Ice mower - blower you would not…. Remember they want cows gone too. Me if can’t have a steak then the ppl trying to stop me are going on the plate.
 
TommySr, you are comparing apples to oranges.

The main difference is that EVs go on fire SPONTANEOUSLY. Often during charging, but not necessarily. Sometimes just at random due to a defect/damage to a single cell in the battery!
ICE cars do not do that TommySr.

One more thing - A single Firetruck can extinguish a burning ICE car, but you need several fire departments and as much water as a household uses in 3 years to take an EV fire out. EV fire also produces a MUCH, MUCH more toxic fumes TommySr.

See links in this thread proving it, i have posted many.

But congratulations on more strawmen argument - the main 3 arguments against EV:

1. Battery tech unsustainable both environmentally and economically
2. Grid capacity - need billions of investments to improve for EV support
3. Grid Generation - Insufficient capacity with Today's entire output for even 10% EV
 
Last edited:
TommySr, you need to start educating yourself and not parroting Svetz's alarmism.
Dont peddle catastrophism where there is none.

Instead you should worry about real chemical pollution, bioengineering and geoengineering. These are actual REAL problems.


Oh no no, we can can create electricity out of thin air per his links!:LOL:
 
aenyc, also one more thing, EV tech is a few years old, ICE tech is over 100 years old and they still
have fires.

TommySr, EV tech is actually way older than you think. I suggest you educate yourself on this topic (Also you keep putting up strawmen - ICE car do NOT have spontaneous fires like EVs do, please make sure you remember that little fact)
The problem then and now was source of E in the V.
What they did today is slammed thousands of little LiO cells to make EV battery - essentially a brute force approach to a problem, that is proving unfeasible both environmentally and economically. Tiny LiO cells are ok (but even they can easily catch fire) - when you cram thousands of them into a moving vehicle, well you get what i posted above with EV fires)
I see this trend in many areas, where incompetent, overeducated fools make decisions that ignore common sense and create problem after problem (EV and Software development are notorious two, but there are many others)
 
Last edited:
He can't. Oil companies bought the technology and shelved it a long time ago. It's in a safe with the 100 MPG carburetor.

Maybe unicorn farts then, i am being told by the green crowd they are very effective at generating the E. Or maybe he can use lightning. I volunteer him so everyone else can get more power from the grid to power their AC in summer.
 
maybe he can use lightning.

1.21 libtardwatts should do it.
I volunteer him so everyone else can get more power from the grid to power their AC in summer.

Our state has decided that people without air conditioning can die due to impending and inevitable future heat waves that global warming will cause. Hence if you don't have air conditioning, you're now in a disaffected community and are oppressed.

 
Yes, heatwaves in summer and cold snaps in winter.
No cooling or heating for the plebes, but i am sure those in power will not stop cooling their mega mansions in summer and heating (with conventional fuels) in winter.
Their rules never apply to them, only the plebes.
 

diy solar

diy solar
Back
Top