diy solar

diy solar

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

Damage from Climate Change Could Cost $38 Trillion Per Year by 2050



More People Than Ever Accept Climate Change Is a Threat


Can natural hydrogen be considered renewable?


Natural Hydrogen​

A few articles about how difficult it will be to find and use economically. Paul Martin has said the only known well produces less overall energy than a typical wind turbine as it just doesn't produce that much. Hydrogen is found in other wells, but usually it's 5~20% hydrogen and 70% natural gas. So, there's a lot of caution about it out there. On the other hand companies are gearing up for exploration. I think the bottom line is we still don't know for sure.

I call bullshit on the $38,000,000,000,000 cost of a temperature rise.

A meteor hitting a major city every year and wiping out a few hundred million folks, yeah, but a little warming trend? If the oceans all of a sudden rose 20 feet, I can see some devestation that year, but the next year its all already under water, so no additional cost.

Ya'll need some God in your lives besides yourselves and your "government climate scientists". As W.C. Fields once said, "there's a sucker born every minute", and "Never give a sucker an even break".
 
I call bullshit on the $38,000,000,000,000 cost of a temperature rise.

A meteor hitting a major city every year and wiping out a few hundred million folks, yeah, but a little warming trend? If the oceans all of a sudden rose 20 feet, I can see some devestation that year, but the next year its all already under water, so no additional cost.

Ya'll need some God in your lives besides yourselves and your "government climate scientists". As W.C. Fields once said, "there's a sucker born every minute", and "Never give a sucker an even break".
In constant 2022 dollars, it took 182 years – from 1789 through 1970 – for the government to spend $30 trillion.

The current debt of 32 Trillion means every citizen owes around $240,000.

You want us to believe that every citizen will need to pay $240,000 EVERY year for climate change alone? Yeah right.
 
There is sort of root concept of economics here.

The assertion that fossil fuels are subsidized is silly.

That's essentially claiming that money is taken from wind, solar and hydro in order to make coal and oil cheaper.
 

Found an answer here.

Passive Cell Balancing​

Passive cell balancing is one of the common methods used in electric vehicle battery packs. It relies on the natural voltage differences among cells and uses passive components, such as resistors or diodes, to redirect excess charge from higher-voltage cells to lower-voltage cells. This process occurs during the charging phase, gradually equalizing the voltages across all cells.

How Passive Cell Balancing Works​

During charging, the voltage of each cell gradually increases. When a certain cell reaches its maximum voltage, the passive cell balancing circuitry shunts the excess charge to a lower-voltage cell, allowing the higher-voltage cell to maintain a safe voltage level. This process continues until all cells reach a similar voltage level.


Is this according to ChatGPT?

If I have a series string of cells, how exactly can a resistor transfer current from one cell to another, discharging the one to charge the other?
Active balancing, a DC/DC converter, could do that. e.g. input from one cell to a DC/DC converter, isolated output boosts to pack voltage.
I think a resistor & transistor is just use to bleed off power from a cell.

First comment to his LinkedIn post says as much. Author acknowledged that (10 months ago) but didn't correct his post.

The only way for this to transfer power would be parallel strings, e.g. 128s2p, could use resistors to transfer current to the twin on other string. But what we've seen instead is a number of cells paralleled.

Also from the link:

"Moreover, active cell balancing consumes additional power, reducing the overall energy efficiency of the electric vehicle."

Passive balancing consumes 100% of the power drawn off a high cell, dissipating it as heat.
Active balancing recovers some large percentage of that power, transferring it to other cells.

Sure, it has some power overhead. Active would only be implemented if there was savings over passive.
 


Notice the article "sinking land is an issue, especially as sea-levels rise".

Libtarded climate fanatics have been trying to characterize subsidence as sea-level rise for years. Do you know why? Because they are liars.

Coasts are always sinking.
 
I call bullshit on the $38,000,000,000,000 cost of a temperature rise.

A meteor hitting a major city every year and wiping out a few hundred million folks, yeah, but a little warming trend? If the oceans all of a sudden rose 20 feet, I can see some devestation that year, but the next year its all already under water, so no additional cost.

Ya'll need some God in your lives besides yourselves and your "government climate scientists". As W.C. Fields once said, "there's a sucker born every minute", and "Never give a sucker an even break".

You make the mistake, this climate garbage IS their god. And all shall be sacrificed to their god, and if you don't like it, they will force their views upon you in the name of the "greater good".

This is exactly what these climate people think.....EXACTLY.

1713541902282.png
 
Is this according to ChatGPT?
No, as it said in the linked reference, it was from a German government-backed research. Those sorts of things depend very powerfully on the assumptions. Even if you toss out 50%, that's still a big annual cost per year that could be avoided. It's also clear that those costs will grow over time and that they will at some point exceed the costs to fix the root problem.

What's silly is to assume climate change is "free" and causes no harm. The only $ increases I feel fairly confident in are those that we can accurately measure. For example, we have been tracking weather costs long before global warming was even a thing.

1980-2023-billion-dollar-disaster-time-series.png
 
I wasn't referring to "climate always changes" cost estimates.

I was referring to what you posted and linked about battery balancers. Maybe leftover from a different topic.

"Passive and Active Cell Balancing for Electric Vehicles​

Mohit Mistry

Mohit Mistry​


Passionate Entrepreneur - Engineer | Running an Electric Vehicle Startup, CEO at Reevia Motor"

That seems about right. If he doesn't understand battery balancers, he must be CEO not engineer.
 
No, as it said in the linked reference, it was from a German government-backed research. Those sorts of things depend very powerfully on the assumptions. Even if you toss out 50%, that's still a big annual cost per year that could be avoided. It's also clear that those costs will grow over time and that they will at some point exceed the costs to fix the root problem.

What's silly is to assume climate change is "free" and causes no harm. The only $ increases I feel fairly confident in are those that we can accurately measure. For example, we have been tracking weather costs long before global warming was even a thing.

1980-2023-billion-dollar-disaster-time-series.png
Again, the costs are only there if the government is involved using money stolen from its people. Let the private sector handle it. Your house gets blown away in a tornado? Insurance pays. If you rebuild in same spot, and insurance will not cover, then its on you.
Zero cost to taxpayers. Same with beach front mansions, or folks living below sea level. Find a safer place or bear the risk yourself.

I am sick and tired of taxpayers being on the hook for crooks and assholes. No more bailouts or taxpayer funded give aways. That goes triple for Californication, auto industry, banks, and sanctuary cities like NY and Denver.

And ban ALL subsidies while where at it. If it can't survive on its own, then let it die.

If climate change raises sea levels, then either move to higher ground, or drown.
Enough of this grap.
 

Farmers’ Biggest Problems are Green Ideologues, not Climate Change​

The recent autumn and winter months have seen Britain beset by more than the usual number of storms, and more than average amount of rainfall. For most of us, this has been merely unpleasant weather, but it has seemingly caused rivers to breach their banks and put much farmland under water. This is a real problem in its own right. Predictably, now the waters are receding, adherents of green ideology are turning the farming drama into the climate crisis, with talk of “failed harvests” and predictions of our imminent hunger. But where is the evidence?

The Guardian, as we would expect, has been leading the alarmist chorus. “The U.K. faces food shortages and price rises as extreme weather linked to climate breakdown causes low yields on farms locally and abroad,” it proclaimed, adding that “scientists have said this is just the beginning of shocks to the food supply chain caused by climate breakdown”. “I wish people understood the urgent climate threat to our near-term food security,” mourned Associate Professor of Environmental Change at Leiden University in the Netherlands to the newspaper.

Citing his experiences as a carrot farmer, Extinction Rebellion (XR) co-founder Roger Hallam declared on X that, “I know what is going to happen – not because of these particularly bad years, but because of the speed at which things are getting worse now.” Only “urgent revolution” can save us. And this in a nutshell is what the entire green movement has long been warning us of – extreme weather that will force us into hunger, which will drive us into political extremism and social breakdown and the end of civilisation. So are these floods a warning from Gaia that she made no covenant with us, unlike that other God, and that clouds stand ready to unleash her revenge on us for our SUV sins? Are these greens latter-day Noahs, or just a ship of fools?

The problem for Hallam is that carrot production in the U.K. shows very little sign of sensitivity to climate change. Since the 1950s, carrot and turnip production has quadrupled. More significantly, yield per hectare – the indicator which is more sensitive to climate and weather – has more than tripled. If Britain was experiencing a climate-related carrot crisis, we would see this indicator plunge, rather than rise. Consequently, and contrary to fears about price rises, supermarkets are selling a kilo of British-grown carrots for 65p. ‘Wonky’ or ‘imperfect’ carrots are being sold at 45p/Kg. The struggle for carrot farmers may therefore be less high water than low prices for their products.

CarrotYieldAndProduction-1024x361.png

And the same story is revealed in UN data for nearly all British-grown vegetables. Inspection of the data reveals nothing resembling a pattern of climate change for the yield of wheat, oats, and cereals in general, onions, apples and pears, dry peas and other pulses, plums, potatoes and other roots and tubers, rapeseed, raspberries and strawberries, sugar beet and tomatoes. The only reductions in yield relate to the production of cauliflower and broccoli, and green peas. However, given that these data are significant outliers, we can for the moment assume that other reasons, perhaps economic or regulatory, better account for apparent declines in yield. Meanwhile, there is plenty of evidence in the U.K. and beyond that the era of global warming – or climate crisis – has been an era of bumper harvests.

cereals_yield-1024x723.png

Caution is required here. The point that sceptics rightly make to alarmists is that weather is not climate. It would be foolish to say that just because there exists no climate signal in agricultural production statistics, there is no evidence of weather affecting farming. There is.

potatoes-1024x723.png

In the 60 years of data about the production of potatoes in the U.K. there have been two unquestionable impacts of weather. The first occurred in the drought and heat years of 1975 and ’76. The second occurred in the washout year of 2012, though not, curiously, in the non-summer of 2008 and the ‘barbecue summer’ of 2009, which left the U.K. Met Office with egg on its face. However, the consequences of these disappointing years for society more broadly is very far from famine. Whereas potato famers produced 100kg of their crop per person in the U.K. in 2011, in 2012 this fell to 72Kg, the difference being made up by imports, mostly the following year. Chips and crisps may have cost slightly more, but nobody went hungry. And imports are perhaps the explanation for the gradual decline of overall production of the crop, too. Despite the ‘crisis’, potatoes are retailing for as little as 75p/kg in supermarkets.

It remains to be seen whether or not, and to what extent, recent weather events have affected agricultural production statistics. Nonetheless, farmers across the U.K. are reporting real problems. A mostly sober article in January’s Farmer’s Guide features the experiences of farmers from Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire, Essex and Lincolnshire following the deluge delivered by Storm Henk, leaving in some places the “highest flood level in more than 70 years”. Again, these are reports of serious problems that can ruin a farm. But the climate change narrative distracts from this necessary discussion. The article concludes with the words of Dr. Jonathan Clarke from the Institute for Global Sustainable Development at the University of Warwick, who claims that “there is an urgent need to consider how our society can become more resilient to the worst effects of a changing climate”. But weather conditions the same as we experienced 70 years ago are not evidence of an “urgent need” as much as they are a reminder of weather being a constant problem, and therefore of academics’ and scientists’ recent departure from both reality and historical fact.
 
So what has been the signal from weather? The Met Office’s data show that, for the country as a whole, March, February, December, October and September of last year brought significantly more than average rainfall. In a series of monthly data spanning 188 years, those months respectively were the 19th, 4th, 11th, 8th, and 63rd wettest of those months for England, and the 31st, 11th, 9th, 7th, and 32nd for the U.K. as a whole. Nasty for all of us, and especially difficult for famers. But does it even stand as evidence of “extreme weather”, as the Guardian claims, let alone man-made climate change-induced “extreme weather”, requiring “urgent” interventions to prevent it getting worse? Isn’t it just… you know… weather?

The worst of those months for the U.K. – the ninth wettest December – can be seen in its historical context. The Met Office provides a running average, which would seem to stand as an approximation of ‘climate change’. But despite that moving trendline, there were plenty of comparable Decembers in the mid to late 19th Century, and in the early and late 20th Century.

DecemberUKRainfall-1024x616.png

Moreover, the inter-annual variation of December rainfall spans nearly an entire order of magnitude, from 25mm to just under 225mm. The averaging of such noisy data does not and cannot reveal any underlying changing reality because it does not and cannot tell us anything useful – the trend is a phantom. Even if we were to follow on the Guardian’s and scientists’ injunction to eliminate emissions from fossil fuels, farmers would be no better protected from either drought or deluge. Moreover, if those trends were to be interpreted as probabilistic forecasts on which decisions are based, farmers would go bust in short order, because gambling on either more or less rain is guaranteed to produce a busted flush.

Farmers are not automata whose cyclic programming requires the same conditions each year. Farming is not a process with narrow operating thresholds that have been exceeded. Farming is an art, which requires careful judgement based on experience acquired by generations of farmers developing expertise in coping with hostile circumstances, including both different weather and market conditions.

The evidence clearly shows that continuous and increasing supplies of food are produced despite radical interannual monthly, seasonal and yearly shifts in weather, regardless of any semblance of trends in those variations. It has no doubt been a wet winter and spring. And this wetness may well have an effect on this year’s harvests. But the notion that this has anything to do with climate change, as per the framing of the Guardian‘s radical activists and equally ideologically-driven scientists, puts ideology before reality.

Many farmers have taken to social media to show videos of their submerged farms. And this speaks to the absurdity of framing first-order problems like flooding as extremely abstract climate-related phenomena, for which there exist little if any evidence. The extant raw data, which span 188 years, tell us all that we need to know: some months there is very little rain, and these months may coincide; some months there is a great deal more rain, and likewise this can add up to create a backlog that needs to be drained. That is the full extent of the data that policymakers require to develop drought and flood mitigation strategies, and those parameters are completely unchanged by climate change, if any climate metrics can be squeezed out of the data at all.

In other words, we already know how dry it can be, and we already know how wet it can be. Therefore, we know what we need to do to ensure that there is sufficient water in drought and sufficient drainage in times of excess rainfall. We know, therefore, how badly politicians are already failing at their job. Their preferences for saving us with policies that ban cars and domestic gas boilers, tax flights and cover agricultural land with turbines and solar panels will not change these parameters. And by pushing up the prices of energy and feedstocks, it will likely create an agricultural crisis where none needs to exist. Climate change is a massive distraction from our real and present problems.
 

It's possible to find a ICE car with a smaller carbon footprint than a Tesla​

Ran across the graphic to the right in a Quroa thread, and thought it was
interesting that you could still find an ICE car with smaller life-cycle carbon
footprint than a Model S.
That's on a "dirty" grid, obviously if renewable powered the model S
would be somewhere between 3x and 4x lower overall.
In comparison the Nissan Leaf has a manufacturing footprint of 3,293 kg, so
should have a smaller overall footprint than the mirage. Also ran across this:
main-qimg-15d7a209b9219f50fc24c5db62562721-pjlq

I wasn't referring to "climate always changes" cost estimates.... Maybe leftover from a different topic.
Hah! You fooled me since it was obvious you'd read the passive/active link and therefore knew where it came from, I thought you were talking about the other bit in that post.

The original question was around tesla owners not fully charging their cars repeatedly because getting the last 10% of the juice wasn't worth the time squeeze at the charger. If am EV only balances at the top, then the EVs pack would get out of balance.

...I think a resistor & transistor is just use to bleed off power from a cell.
My BMSes all use resistors to bleed off cells to top-balance them. But, it doesn't happen until they at 100% state of charge.

But, there are active balancing components that transfer energy at any state of charge. I remember Will saying in a video he doesn't like them, but I don't remember why,...possibly problems with early tech or that by carefully matching the internal resistances of cells they just don't go out of balance. It doesn't sound like active balancers are used in EVs though, YMMV.

The Tesla manual recommends taking the battery to 100% and leaving it there to balance (ref), so that definitely sounds like a passive system.

Might be an issue for your FCEV? There's no way to manually top that battery off occasionally for balancing is there? Or does your Mirai have active balancers?
 
This is really an excellent essay - all you need to know on the cLIEmate change debate.

Climate Change is Class Warfare​


The climate is up the spout and we’re to blame. The planet is boiling like a pan of porridge. We face the possible extinction of all life on earth. ‘Science’ says so. Anyone who questions it is a demonic scoundrel. The climate catastrophe is a 100% solid-gold, slam-dunk irrefutable fact.

Hmm. And yet, it is clear to anyone who has paid the slightest attention, that the tired, hysterical predictions of the climate alarmists (made repeatedly over four decades and based on their hypothetical computer-models) have proved to be spectacularly wrong, again and again and again. It does not take much digging (we have the internet these days) to discover that the outlandish claims of climate alarmists are flatly contradicted by lots and lots of perfectly good scientific evidence and data. We’re not talking here about fringe science put about by whackos. We’re talking about official data – mainstream science, published in respected journals. (Some of it is featured in my ‘climate-denier’ film, Climate: The Movie, available for free online).

The world is not boiling. We are, as any geologist will tell you, in an ice age – one of the coldest periods in the last 500 million years. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is not unnaturally or frighteningly high. Compared to the last half billion years of earth’s history it is extremely low. And there is no evidence that changing levels of atmospheric CO2 (it has changed radically many times in the past) has ever ‘driven climate change’. If there had been, Al Gore would have said so in his silly film, but he didn’t. Hurricane activity is not increasing, nor are the number of wildfires, nor are the number of droughts, and so on and so on. This is what the official data say. You can look it up.

Of course this is all a bit embarrassing for the science establishment. The climate alarm is worth billions to them in climate-related funding. A lot of jobs depend on it. A lot of reputations are at stake. And it’s deeply awkward for the renewables industry, which turns over around a trillion dollars a year.

The climate alarm is not supported by scientific evidence. It is supported by bullying, intimidation and the censorship of anyone who dares to question it. Climate catastrophism is politics, shamelessly dressed up as science.

The climate scare was the invention of the environmentalist movement, which stands opposed to vulgar, dirty, free-market capitalism. They say there are too many people, consuming too much. We must be restrained and contained, for the sake of Gaia. The solution to the global, existential climate problem is higher taxes and more regulation.

At any social gathering, you can pretty confidently predict who will think what about climate, by asking them about taxes and regulation. People who love the Big State can’t get enough of climate chaos. People who want lower taxes and less regulation will roll their eyes and say rude things about little Greta.

Across the Western world, the state has grown enormously over the last century, vastly increasing the number of people whose livelihoods depend on state-spending, and whose jobs are related, directly or indirectly, to government control. In the U.K. and U.S. both, more than twice as many people now work in government as work in manufacturing. And this does not include all those (in the third sector etc.) who rely indirectly on government largesse.

These people depend on government. They are paid for out of taxation. In such circles to proclaim the joys of a small state, lower taxes and less government is a breach of social etiquette. You have crossed a moral line. You will be suspected of liking Donald Trump, of voting Brexit, of hating lockdown and compulsory vaccination, of defending the Second Amendment, of being a climate denier.

And indeed all this may well be true. These views tend to hang together. As do the views of those on the other side. To repeat, the climate alarm is in fact politics dressed up as science. We are, as more people are beginning to realise, engaged in a class war. On one side, the tax-consuming regulating class that feeds from taxation and bosses us about. On the other, the rest of us in the private sector, who rather resent paying taxes and being told what to do and how to live our lives.

This is the real basis for the consensus on climate change. The consensus exists among our sprawling, tax-consuming establishment. This is not a small group of people. It is an entire class. It is, if you will, the ruling class. It controls our civil service, our schools and universities, large parts of our arts and science establishments and much of the media. It is an intolerant class, deeply aware of its own interests. The taboo that surrounds climate scepticism is a reflection of its power.

It would be nice to think that politely pointing to the actual scientific data might put an end to all the climate chaos nonsense. Sadly it won’t. Because this ain’t about science.
 
The original question was around tesla owners not fully charging their cars repeatedly because getting the last 10% of the juice wasn't worth the time squeeze at the charger. If am EV only balances at the top, then the EVs pack would get out of balance.


My BMSes all use resistors to bleed off cells to top-balance them. But, it doesn't happen until they at 100% state of charge.

But, there are active balancing components that transfer energy at any state of charge. I remember Will saying in a video he doesn't like them, but I don't remember why,...possibly problems with early tech or that by carefully matching the internal resistances of cells they just don't go out of balance. It doesn't sound like active balancers are used in EVs though, YMMV.

I'd think it is doable active or passive.

Whenever battery voltage gets high enough to discern differences in SoC, BMS can make a mental note of calculated Ah imbalance for any runners.
After that it can bleed off or transfer charge over time regardless of overall voltage and SoC.
Just needs brief time above the knee, not sustained.

But if it screws that up, it could over-discharge. Need to learn the pack and do the right amount.


I thought I read Tesla had a more sophisticated balancer than the Leaf.
Any might be OK early on, but depending on what happens with aging, if some walk down in SoC, could need more aggressive balancing to keep usable.

There are DC/DC converters that could boost from single cell to some elevated voltage. I would put those on cells, boost possibly to an intermediate 12V or 48V capacitor for a series group of cells, ultimately boost to pack voltage. Or with more complexity, have the first stage DC/DC boost to another or possibly switch to any other group of cells.
 

The Connecticut Nuclear Data Center Controversy Exposes Tech Giant Renewable Hypocrisy​


Tech giants which in public virtue signal their commitment to useless renewables are quietly arranging more potent and reliable energy sources for their own needs.

Don’t let a hyper-data center suck up CT’s electric power
by Bryan SaylesApril 19, 2024 @ 12:01 am
Fred V. Carstensen’s March 22 “Opinion: CT SB299—afraid of the future, data centers and AI” ignores the legislative events and legitimate concerns that led to SB-299 being introduced in the first place.
For starters, House Bill 6514 (HB-6514), a law passed in 2021, incentivizes data center development. Under HB-6514, any data center built or rehabilitated in Connecticut does not pay property or sales and use tax for the life of the facility, typically 20 to 30 years. Instead, it is required to pay the host municipality a Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT), an often absurdly low fee negotiated with the host municipality.

Siphoning 15% of nuclear power production to power Quinn’s Waterford data center will create grid scarcity. Instead of selling full capacity to the grid wholesale market, Dominion will only be offering 85% of daily capacity. That shortage will handicap wholesale electricity markets run by Independent System Operator-New England (ISO-New England).

Read more: https://ctmirror.org/2024/04/19/ct-data-center-nuclear-plant-bill/
15% of the capacity of a nuclear power plant, for one data center? No wonder they are quietly sidelining wind and solar.

I decided to delve more deeply into this nuclear tech center controversy. Turns out all the tech giants want properly reliable energy for their data centers.

Amazon, Google and Microsoft signal growing interest in nuclear, geothermal power
Rising demand from artificial intelligence is forcing big technology companies to look beyond wind and solar for clean energy.
By Heather Clancy
March 25, 2024
The push to commercialize artificial intelligence is swelling the electricity demands of the three biggest cloud computing companies — Amazon, Google and Microsoft — and they’re looking for carbon-free energy, including nuclear and geothermal, to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from that growth.
In mid-March, Talen Energy announced a $650 million deal with Amazon Web Services to sell a data center powered by one of the largest U.S. nuclear plants. The Pennsylvania campus hosts a 48-megawatt computing facility, and Amazon plans to build a 960-megawatt campus there.
“To supplement our wind and solar energy projects, which depend on weather conditions to generate energy, we’re also exploring new innovations and technologies, and investing in other sources of clean, carbon-free energy,” Amazon said in a statement. “This agreement with Talen Energy is one project in that effort.”

Read more: https://www.greenbiz.com/article/am...nal-growing-interest-nuclear-geothermal-power
From Times of India;

How AI may force Google, Microsoft and others to push their nuclear energy game plan
Sourabh Kulesh / TIMESOFINDIA.COM / Mar 8, 2024, 14:14 IST
Tech giants like Apple, Google and Microsoft are working to become carbon neutral in their operations by 2030. But as the next-gen AI technology grows, offices and data centres are becoming more energy-hungry. As per a report published last year, by 2027 AI servers may use between 85 to 134 terawatt hours (Twh) annually – which approximately equal to what Argentina, the Netherlands and Sweden each use in a year.
To solve this problem, these companies have been pushing for nuclear energy as a source to power their AI tech.
“If you were to integrate large language models, GPT-style models into search engines, it’s going to cost five times as much environmentally as standard search,” Sarah Myers West, managing director of the AI Now Institute, a research group focused on the social impacts of AI, recently told CNBC.


Last year, Microsoft agreed to buy power from Helion starting in 2028. Microsoft signed a deal last summer with Constellation, a top nuclear power plant operator, to add nuclear-generated electricity to its Virginia data centers.

Read more: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...ar-energy-game-plan/articleshow/108323674.cms
Don’t forget, these are the same hypocrites who until recently were ignoring nuclear in public and pushing renewables, until they suddenly discovered they themselves needed reliable, industrial scale energy.
 
From Google;

Five years of 100% renewable energy – and a look ahead to a 24/7 carbon-free future
June 24, 2022
Google operates the cleanest cloud in the industry, and we have long been a leading champion of clean energy around the world. Since we began purchasing renewable energy in 2010, Google has been responsible for more than 60 new clean energy projects with a combined capacity of over 7 gigawatts — about the same as 20 million solar panels. Our long-term support for clean energy projects has contributed to the rapid growth of the industry, remarkable declines in the cost of solar and wind power, and innovative new contracting models and industry partnerships to accelerate corporate clean energy procurement.

Read more: https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/sustainability/5-years-of-100-percent-renewable-energy
Microsoft;

Advocating for decarbonization of the power sector
Aug 16, 2023 | Michelle Patron – Senior Director of Global Sustainability Policy
This month, Seattle hosted the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Senior Officials’ and Ministerial Meetings, and Microsoft was honored to welcome the APEC member energy ministers and their delegations to our campus for a private-sector decarbonization roundtable.
APEC’s member economies play a critical role in advancing Microsoft’s and the world’s clean energy goals. The 21 economies account for more than half the world’s energy demand and over two-thirds’ the world’s electricity generation.

At Microsoft, our long-term vision is to reach a state where, on all the world’s grids, 100% of our electricity, 100% of the time, is generated from zero-carbon sources. On the path to reaching this vision, our target is to cover 100% of Microsoft’s load with renewable energy purchases by 2025; meaning that we plan to have clean energy contracted for 100 percent of carbon emitting electricity consumed by all our data centers, buildings, and campuses.

Read more: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-...sustainability-decarbonization-fusion-energy/
Soon it won’t just be the tech giants.

Large data centres will continue to be a part of the AI revolution, but you can’t do everything via a connection to a remote data center. No imaginable internet network could carry all the data traffic which would be required to do everything remotely. So a lot of AI hardware will have to be installed in homes, right next to where it is used, to realise the full potential of the AI revolution.

Computer manufacturers are already anticipating this demand for AI in the home, and are rushing to market with AI ready desktop and laptop computers. They are developing PCs filled with power hungry AI chips capable of efficiently executing massively parallel neural net programs, in addition to the usual graphics chips and CPUs.

While initially these “AI ready” products will be quite rightly derided as a joke, a product looking for a purpose, it won’t take long for programmers and entrepreneurs to make them more interesting. The hunt is already on for the breakthrough software app which drives the next cycle of PC upgrades. I anticipate over the next 10 – 30 years power hungry AI systems will become increasingly integrated with all our lives, and everyone’s energy needs will surge.

We’ve barely scratched the surface of the surge in energy supply levels ordinary households could demand in the near future. As our houses will fill with machines which take care of everyday chores without any human intervention at all, the promise of AI is that within most of our lifetimes, everyone will have the opportunity to live like the rich people of today who have teams of servants looking out for all their needs, providing household energy supplies keep up with demand.

In the rush to automate everything, politicians who stand for green power rather than more power will be brushed aside.

Of course, with every household running AI systems which emit thousands of watts of heat on a near continuous basis, people in urban areas will need more powerful air conditioners as well to deal with all that additional waste heat.

Imagine a large inner city apartment block, where every apartment’s energy use over the course of less than a decade goes up by an additional 3-4 thousand watts. That one large apartment block could be pumping megawatts of extra heat into the surrounding environment over today’s heat emissions, once all the near future AI toys are installed. And of course, that apartment block won’t be alone, all their neighbours will be doing the same. This coupled demand for energy and more air conditioning will likely create a positive feedback cycle of increasing energy use and urban heating, along with ever more powerful air conditioners to push back the rising urban heat load dumped into the environment by all those newly installed AI systems. The pump motors in those bigger air conditioners will themselves contribute to the surge in urban heat pollution.

My prediction, when the AI revolution really kicks in and reaches into every corner of everyone’s lives, the only reason for say installing rooftop solar will be if you need a small topup, because you can’t suck enough electricity out of the grid to run all your toys.
 

Real World Data - ICE & PHEV are worse than Reported

There's a recent report in the EU that's making headlines in a variety of ways, the gist of it is that the emissions reported by car manufacturers for ICE and PHEV are way low. The typical headline slants are PHEVs are bad, ICE is bad, and/or manufacturer's are bad. There's also a big hit on hybrids, but I don't think anyone expected a hybrid to be much different than an ICE.

At first I was thinking it's probably like the MPG ratings in the U.S., you don't see what the manufacturer claims because the real world isn't like the "lab conditions" they use to generate the numbers. But some of the numbers are way off, Mercedes for example was > 3x the reported emissions.

Probably the only place the numbers make a difference is in the life-cycle comparisons of GHGs of ICE vs. EVs. For example, Mitsubishi was a little over 200%, so from my prior post that means the Tesla Model S is "greener" than the Mirage. It's also obvious their "real world" data was having PHEVs doing long range rather than where they shine as daily short-range commuters. That's fair if you're judging manufacturer's reported data, but IMO not particularly fair to PHEVs as I don't believe it represents their real-world usage.
 

Real World Data - ICE & PHEV are worse than Reported

There's a recent report in the EU that's making headlines in a variety of ways, the gist of it is that the emissions reported by car manufacturers for ICE and PHEV are way low. The typical headline slants are PHEVs are bad, ICE is bad, and/or manufacturer's are bad. There's also a big hit on hybrids, but I don't think anyone expected a hybrid to be much different than an ICE.

At first I was thinking it's probably like the MPG ratings in the U.S., you don't see what the manufacturer claims because the real world isn't like the "lab conditions" they use to generate the numbers. But some of the numbers are way off, Mercedes for example was > 3x the reported emissions.

Probably the only place the numbers make a difference is in the life-cycle comparisons of GHGs of ICE vs. EVs. For example, Mitsubishi was a little over 200%, so from my prior post that means the Tesla Model S is "greener" than the Mirage. It's also obvious their "real world" data was having PHEVs doing long range rather than where they shine as daily short-range commuters. That's fair if you're judging manufacturer's reported data, but IMO not particularly fair to PHEVs as I don't believe it represents their real-world usage.

Hence the problem with calculating emissions in Grams Per Mile rather than as a percentage of tailpipe concentration.

The PHEV is zero for its first 27 miles then the same as a hybrid after that.
 
Back
Top