I love Svetz recaps, so its only fair that the counter argument is also presented
Here is a recap:
Here is a recap:
Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?
- Thread starter svetz
- Start date
Contrails, shmontrails.
What you need to do is research using its Proper name:
Stratospheric Aerosole Injection.
And
Solar Radiation Management.
Go ahead and look those terms up. I am sure this stuff is all safe and effective.
Controversial spraying method aims to curb global warming
Planes spraying tiny sulphate particulates into the lower stratosphere could help shield Earth from just enough sunlight to help keep temperatures low
www.cbsnews.com
Magic Words
The Magic Words – #SolutionsWatch | The Corbett Report
www.corbettreport.com
Last edited:
MurphyGuy
It just needs a bigger hammer
- Joined
- May 20, 2020
- Messages
- 4,129
MurphyGuy
It just needs a bigger hammer
- Joined
- May 20, 2020
- Messages
- 4,129
There is a lot of testing, but most of it is horse crap.. not all, but most. So much of the "quality" controls are rubber stamped that they're not even worth the ink on the stamp.
We had a salt spray cabinet.. the coated parts had to meet certain salt spray testing standards. We bought the cabinet for $24,000, I think we used it twice. The first time was to test it out to see how it worked on our finished parts, the 2nd time was when the Vice Pres of North American operations for GM came to visit.. we decided to get it running to put on a show.
If a company has a reasonably good level of confidence that a part will meet quality standards, and if the quality testing is going to cost them time or money, you can bet the rubber stamp is being used.
Most of what I did was focused on fixing repeated manufacturing problems or designing and building equipment to process parts. I was involved with designing and building process ovens, water purification systems, heavy metal waste treatment, air handling units, pollution controls, and a lot of post-stamping operations. Did a lot of work with coatings, adhesives, prototype work, and designed a bunch of automation and power distribution stuff. A great deal of it was low level work.. I wasn't launching robots to other planets or working on rail guns or anything like that.
Some of the automation I worked on was cutting edge.. but that was cutting edge for the 1990's.. pretty basic stuff by today's standards.
For example.. one of the coating lines was having a quality issue.. the workers were missing defects on the coating.. Eight months and several people replaced on the job and it was still happening. So they call me in.. I worked the production line for a few days, then ordered the shop lights in that area to be changed to a different kind of bulb with a higher frequency light, which shifted more blue... problem disappeared.
Eight full months of problems.. even the manufacturer of the coating was called in.. "How many engineers does it take to change a light bulb?"
LOL
I was making fun of the Murphy post “contrails”Contrails, shmontrails.
What you need to do is research using its Proper name:
Stratospheric Aerosole Injection.
And
Solar Radiation Management.
Go ahead and look those terms up. I am sure this stuff is all safe and effective.
Controversial spraying method aims to curb global warming
Planes spraying tiny sulphate particulates into the lower stratosphere could help shield Earth from just enough sunlight to help keep temperatures low
Magic Words
The Magic Words – #SolutionsWatch | The Corbett Report
The crap Bill Gates wants to do with dusting will kill solar panel generation. Probably kill us too.I don't know why that would sound like a conspiracy to you, but if it does, perhaps you should seek mental health services.
Here's a picture of a normal day. Those lines are contrails.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
The reason I keep moving the thread recap to the end is to make it easy for people to find. It's a big thread and having an index to topics is very useful.
So sure, let's go through them again to dispel any lingering doubts. Possibly rational discussion about the facts why deniers believe what they do will help bring some clarity to the issue. See posts #761 & #760 for where these arguments were originally debunked.
Solar panels are not toxic. This is an emotional argument as "Toxic Waste" sounds dangerous. But really, it's a classification, here's the definition:
What the designation means is that the items should be recycled rather than tossed into a landfill. PV Solar panels that a solar farm would use don't have anything exotic in them (e.g., they're aluminum, silicone, copper, silver).
The article is also biased in that doesn't compare the waste from renewables to fossil fuels or the environmental damage they do (e.g., oil spills that devastate coastlines, radioactivity from coal, underground fires, leaky pipelines, train derailments polluting wide areas, or:
This might interest you too:
You know where the lead is in a solar panel, right? It's mostly in the glass. So, it's the same issue as any window - it's not that just solar panels are introducing some new never seen before problem. How recyclable is that glass you ask... ~100%.
How dangerous is that lead in the glass?
Not that the glass in panels is not 24% leaded.... but that's why folks worry about glass in a landfill... it leaches out in acidic fluids.
Where does the acid come from? Acid Rain.
Where does the acid rain come from, oh right... fossil fuels. Get rid of fossil fuels and landfills around the world become safer.
So in comparing apples to apples, hopefully, it's obvious that the article is PR crap and demonstrates how some can fall prey to it.
The land use problem isn't as big of a deal as people like to make it out to be. If you do some quick math you'll see the U.S. roadways consume 2.5x the landspace that would be needed for the power we consume. If we put that much asphalt down and took up that much space for cars, we can do it for solar. Doesn't even need to be on land, roof tops, over water, used to shade sidewalks downtown. California is talking about putting panels over aqueducts to minimize water loss ref. | 
To the right, the red dot represents what Elon Musk estimates is required. Be generous and double it, yeah... still not that much. |
If you search for things on the web you can find whatever you want it to say. This particular site is a media site that says it is designed to instruct voters on how to think about issues and is funded by, among others, the Koch brothers who have a somewhat vested interest.
What the article says is the root of the problem is "This is an extraordinary heat event we are experiencing [and it] is unprecedented", which should wake you up to global warming if you're going to believe any of it.
Renewables don't cause blackouts, it's not having them that does.
The title is clickbait, when you read it you see it says the outages are caused by are all mismanagement:
- In October, Pacific Gas and Electric cut off power to homes across California to avoid starting forest fires.
- had to impose rolling blackouts because it had failed to maintain sufficient reliable power from natural gas and nuclear plants, or pay in advance for enough guaranteed electricity imports from other states
- didn’t want to spend the extra money to guarantee the additional electricity out of fears of raising California’s electricity prices
- California’s anti-nuclear policies also contributed to the blackouts.
Last edited:
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
That's from the IER, whose own website says:
So, might want to take that with a grain of salt. A really big oil-coated one. As said before, you can find anything you want by googling, doesn't make it true - but it sure can confirm a bias.
That's from Corbett. He's not a scientist, his background is in media. He's a conspiracy nutjob that makes money by being outrageous to get people clicking on his website.
This article is actually an argument that climate change is real and we need to get off our butts... here's the gist of it :
If you read through the article it pretty clearly says the cost is high because of the war the Russians started and not selling oil to the EU.
Here's a couple of snippet from the article:
No, it's not because they're evil greedy bastards... it's because the EU has laws requiring members to sell power to the highest bidder. If they didn't have high prices, Norwegian-generated power would end up being sold to other places in the EU leaving them without any power.
Are Norwegians suffering? Yes, but not as much as you might think as the government knew what to do with those huge profits:
Is it chicanery to get around EU policies? Sounds like it, but why should Norwegians suffer for being smart and breaking away from dependence on foreign oil?
This site bills itself as "Uncensored Investigative Journalism", that is like Corbett they make money by being outrageous. The article is more about government conspiracies and has zero facts regarding climate change.
Last edited:
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
I was wracking my brain trying to figure out why the calculation came up less than the EPAs, if anything using the maximum ICE efficiencies should have put the number over the EPA's. It just hit me... electric trains and subways. As they don't use gasoline or diesel they wouldn't have been included. There are probably other things too, but I feel a lot better about the calculation now. ; -)
Climax Change… Mother Nature wants to enjoy it
If you throw everything at it how much will it change vs what would normally happen?.
What is the effect and results over the long term for what is considered normal change?
So are you trying to stop it from our deviation effect or stop it completely-set in reverse?
What is the cost to fund it? Who is paying the shared cost For break downs?
If you throw everything at it how much will it change vs what would normally happen?.
What is the effect and results over the long term for what is considered normal change?
So are you trying to stop it from our deviation effect or stop it completely-set in reverse?
What is the cost to fund it? Who is paying the shared cost For break downs?
The problem with climax change it is was presented by the left as several things have been in the past
The Left presented as a form of CONTROL of course it is designed to grab money….. it is designed so if anyone questions it then they are a denier like an anti-vaxxer. The ppl use models of climate change until their ideology is altered or changed from what they are preaching then pitch the models out the door pretend like they are bad models…. aka covid effect and 9-11 effect. Back to the programming on a mass brought to us by none other then the elites that everyone on the right hate. Who on the Right likes Soros? So far many of the predictions presented by ppl on the left for grave bad things have not happened. Al Gore is certainly red faced.
back in the 1970s there use to be think tanks where groups of ppl gathered to figure out how to solve problems. 1 of the biggest things is controlling other ppl. Most ppl by whatever perverse of nature love gloom and doom…. It is all around us for a bad end here there everywhere. Why when ppl go to amusement parks ride scary rides like roller coasters. It makes women horny and want to breed. Like turning on lights in kitchen seeing a cock roach and it getting away - going to breed even more.. besides the vibration of the motorcycle women love the exciting almost near death effects of hopping on back of a motorcycle and hugging a man the man accelerates so she holds on tighter. All these things are human nature and most go un-noticed or even denied. Ppl like struggle and adrenaline rushes.
money schemes are often tied to the built up adrenaline rush aka amusement parks.
So climax change, covid, and whatever other disaster are championed by the Left… they seek to control and force other ppl in whatever way they can to gain ultimate OVER ALL control of everything. It is fairly clear. Why all the Elites aligned with it. The initial new green deal involved untold trillions of dollars being spent by USA with very little return for the USA. Is that fair considering we make up 5% of the World population? We moved most of our manufacturing off shores, we moved to service industries, we even moved services off shore for services, so ….. figure it out we are ~$31 trillion dollars in debt we are screwed. Spend more….. though
Soros has basically seized the World bank to head this…… in article above. Enjoy the game it is the same as always political about control and money.
edit added : Soros inventoried jewish belongings to profit the Nazi in WW2 Does that sound like someone you want to trust?
The Left presented as a form of CONTROL of course it is designed to grab money….. it is designed so if anyone questions it then they are a denier like an anti-vaxxer. The ppl use models of climate change until their ideology is altered or changed from what they are preaching then pitch the models out the door pretend like they are bad models…. aka covid effect and 9-11 effect. Back to the programming on a mass brought to us by none other then the elites that everyone on the right hate. Who on the Right likes Soros? So far many of the predictions presented by ppl on the left for grave bad things have not happened. Al Gore is certainly red faced.
back in the 1970s there use to be think tanks where groups of ppl gathered to figure out how to solve problems. 1 of the biggest things is controlling other ppl. Most ppl by whatever perverse of nature love gloom and doom…. It is all around us for a bad end here there everywhere. Why when ppl go to amusement parks ride scary rides like roller coasters. It makes women horny and want to breed. Like turning on lights in kitchen seeing a cock roach and it getting away - going to breed even more.. besides the vibration of the motorcycle women love the exciting almost near death effects of hopping on back of a motorcycle and hugging a man the man accelerates so she holds on tighter. All these things are human nature and most go un-noticed or even denied. Ppl like struggle and adrenaline rushes.
money schemes are often tied to the built up adrenaline rush aka amusement parks.
So climax change, covid, and whatever other disaster are championed by the Left… they seek to control and force other ppl in whatever way they can to gain ultimate OVER ALL control of everything. It is fairly clear. Why all the Elites aligned with it. The initial new green deal involved untold trillions of dollars being spent by USA with very little return for the USA. Is that fair considering we make up 5% of the World population? We moved most of our manufacturing off shores, we moved to service industries, we even moved services off shore for services, so ….. figure it out we are ~$31 trillion dollars in debt we are screwed. Spend more….. though
Soros has basically seized the World bank to head this…… in article above. Enjoy the game it is the same as always political about control and money.
edit added : Soros inventoried jewish belongings to profit the Nazi in WW2 Does that sound like someone you want to trust?
Last edited:
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Hopefully, I'm interpreting the questions in your post correctly... hold tight... here we go...
So, the issue is mankind is creating greenhouse gases (GHGs) and we might outstrip historical levels from the last 250 million years or so:
The changing x scale makes the graph very hard to comprehend, but 250 million years ago was the end of the Permian period when 90% of the planet's species dies and less than 5% of the animal species in the seas survived. Everything else died off. Probably not a good idea to let the CO2 levels get that high.
If you look at just the last million years the cyclic pattern has been fairly stable until very recently:
Don't read too much into the CO2 graph, that's the mistake Romney made. Prior to mankind, ocean temperature drove atmospheric CO2 levels. Currently, atmospheric levels are a combination of ocean temperature plus man-made CO2. Had that amount come solely from the oceans we'd all probably be dead.
The cycles are most likely attributable to be a combination of orbital configurations, and the jaggyness from natural phenomena such as volcanoes. It was from a graph very much like the one above that led scientists to think in the 1950s that we'd be entering a new Ice age.
The problem with CO2 is that unlike a lot of pollution, it doesn't go anywhere. As it builds up, there's more greenhouse effect from it.
So, what's the temperature actually been doing?
In the 90's the study on Global Warming wrapped up concluding the temperature increase was from man-made GHGs and the question changed into Climate Change, how fast was it occuring and what would the impacts be?
The 2015 Paris Agreement was to hold the line at +2°C, and preferably limit the increase to 1.5°C. Except for Libia and a handful of other small countries, every nation on Earth is working towards this.
But most folks don't live in those areas and for them a stationary battery is the only current tried and true tech option. With an LFP battery, the cost of solar and wind is just a tad more than nuclear if you don't factor in nuclear waste fuel management. But, the price point on CATL's sodium batteries due out this year brings the price under coal's LCOE and the DOE believes they will fall even further. See post #761 for more.
So, for most the costs should be the same as replacing a coal-fired power-plant when they hit their end-of-life, it's a gradual plan over the next 30 years. That is there'd be negligible new costs.
What's come up recently is a disturbing theory that we've dragged our feet to the point where we must actively remove carbon from the atmosphere as that does have additional costs and they become higher the longer we delay in achieving in net-zero. Those costs are discussed in #813.
Hope that helps!
TL;DR: During the age of Dinosaurs, when the temperature was perhaps ~+4 °C, there were crocodiles living above the Arctic Circle. Little changes have big impacts.
TL;DR: Without man-made GHGs we'd probably be entering the slow 100,000-year decline of an ice age.
So, the issue is mankind is creating greenhouse gases (GHGs) and we might outstrip historical levels from the last 250 million years or so:
| The RCP8.5, RDP6, RCP4.5, and RCP3PD are all hypothetical future projections based on how much fossil fuel we can eliminate. Ignore the right edge of the graph in the image above that goes out to the year 2500. What the site is trying to show is that depending on when you hit net zero, set's the CO2 concentration for a long long time afterwards because of CO2's long half-life. It's what the carbon capture folks point to. The image to the right is a much better picture showing the IPCC model predictions because data from the model is a range, not a single point; and it's less accurate the farther you go out in time. | 
|
If you look at just the last million years the cyclic pattern has been fairly stable until very recently:
Don't read too much into the CO2 graph, that's the mistake Romney made. Prior to mankind, ocean temperature drove atmospheric CO2 levels. Currently, atmospheric levels are a combination of ocean temperature plus man-made CO2. Had that amount come solely from the oceans we'd all probably be dead.
The cycles are most likely attributable to be a combination of orbital configurations, and the jaggyness from natural phenomena such as volcanoes. It was from a graph very much like the one above that led scientists to think in the 1950s that we'd be entering a new Ice age.
The problem with CO2 is that unlike a lot of pollution, it doesn't go anywhere. As it builds up, there's more greenhouse effect from it.
So, what's the temperature actually been doing?
The 2015 Paris Agreement was to hold the line at +2°C, and preferably limit the increase to 1.5°C. Except for Libia and a handful of other small countries, every nation on Earth is working towards this.
We need to stop adding to the problem as quickly as possible and then balance it so like goldilocks, we're not too hot or too cold. It's just planetary climate engineering, how hard can it be? ; -)
That's a good question, but we're all going to enjoy the savings (or costs ; -). Solar and wind have both been cheaper than fossil fuels for a decade. If we could switch over now it would cost us less. Unfortunately, they're intermittent so they need some form of Energy storage. If you live in an area where hydro or CAES technology can be used, then they're currently cheaper than fossil fuels.
But most folks don't live in those areas and for them a stationary battery is the only current tried and true tech option. With an LFP battery, the cost of solar and wind is just a tad more than nuclear if you don't factor in nuclear waste fuel management. But, the price point on CATL's sodium batteries due out this year brings the price under coal's LCOE and the DOE believes they will fall even further. See post #761 for more.
So, for most the costs should be the same as replacing a coal-fired power-plant when they hit their end-of-life, it's a gradual plan over the next 30 years. That is there'd be negligible new costs.
What's come up recently is a disturbing theory that we've dragged our feet to the point where we must actively remove carbon from the atmosphere as that does have additional costs and they become higher the longer we delay in achieving in net-zero. Those costs are discussed in #813.
Hope that helps!
Last edited:
This might as well been climax change… oh oh oh oh ohhhhhooooo fake orgasm…. If God calls you homeit should be a good thing… not send money or else. Climax oh oh ohhhoooo fake orgasm is the same bs under a different thing. If not Climax change for Mother Naturethen it would be trying stop an asteroid humored Hemorrhoids from hitting us…. Or the over due dreaded POLE SWAP Or Sun going super nova…. So the ppl on Left go through the box of disasters and pull out the one they can promote as fixing build and present it so if questioned everyone points at the person asking valid questions as if they farted and it reeks.
Ppl will now deny religion and say it is worthless because of the money grab…. and the deceitful.
But hey we want to be in the scared but me to club not on the outside where it is scary even more so. Safety in herd grouped numbers and if nothing else the predators will only get those on outside not the ones in the middle. That is why the elite run to the middle for command and control. This is an age old game called fleecing. After all we are so smart that if we were real smart would not have stopped the space program in the 1970’s. Not been back to moon in over 50 years or so. Now we have trouble figuring out shielding for space ships and astronauts… all those things were solved 1970’s and before. Right? We are so smart smartie smart smarties. We are…..
There is a reason why extended auto warranty phone calls still happen…. There are ppl still buying them. Climax changers Mother Nature might get pissed with your experiments. Careful that you don’t screw something up for the worse ie: would you like another covid vax booster numbered daily 365 a year? Hahahah P.T. Barnum and W.C. Fields were right.
With Climax change you are replacing religion zeal for another. Cheaper too pray to God about it then enrich the rich elite after the money.
Ppl will now deny religion and say it is worthless because of the money grab…. and the deceitful.
But hey we want to be in the scared but me to club not on the outside where it is scary even more so. Safety in herd grouped numbers and if nothing else the predators will only get those on outside not the ones in the middle. That is why the elite run to the middle for command and control. This is an age old game called fleecing. After all we are so smart that if we were real smart would not have stopped the space program in the 1970’s. Not been back to moon in over 50 years or so. Now we have trouble figuring out shielding for space ships and astronauts… all those things were solved 1970’s and before. Right? We are so smart smartie smart smarties. We are…..
There is a reason why extended auto warranty phone calls still happen…. There are ppl still buying them. Climax changers Mother Nature might get pissed with your experiments. Careful that you don’t screw something up for the worse ie: would you like another covid vax booster numbered daily 365 a year? Hahahah P.T. Barnum and W.C. Fields were right.
With Climax change you are replacing religion zeal for another. Cheaper too pray to God about it then enrich the rich elite after the money.
My system gave me 24 hours runtime on just running the refrigerator Cost ~$3500-$4000 to set it up… I have solar panel but not cut in… just batteries… the system sucked the batteries down to 45% or so. 24 hours just a refrigerator.Hopefully, I'm interpreting the questions in your post correctly... hold tight... here we go...
TL;DR: During the age of Dinosaurs, when the temperature was perhaps ~+4 °C, there were crocodiles living above the Arctic Circle. Little changes have big impacts.
TL;DR: Without man-made GHGs we'd probably be entering the slow 100,000-year decline of an ice age.
So, the issue is mankind is creating greenhouse gases (GHGs) and we might outstrip historical levels from the last 250 million years or so:
The changing x scale makes the graph it very hard to comprehend, but 250 million years ago was the end of the Permian period when 90% of the planet's species dies and less than 5% of the animal species in the seas survived. Everything else died off. Probably not a good idea to let the CO2 levels get that high.
The RCP8.5, RDP6, RCP4.5, and RCP3PD are all hypothetical future projections based on how much fossil
fuel we can eliminate.
Ignore the right edge of the graph in the image above that goes out to the year 2500. What the site is
trying to show is that depending on when you hit net zero, set's the CO2 concentration for a long long
time afterwards because of CO2's long half-life. It's what the carbon capture folks point to.
The image to the right is a much better picture showing the IPCC model predictions because data from
the model is a range, not a single point; and it's less accurate the farther you go out in time.
If you look at just the last million years the cyclic pattern has been fairly stable until very recently:
Don't read too much into the CO2 graph, that's the mistake Romney made. Prior to mankind, ocean temperature drove atmospheric CO2 levels. Currently, atmospheric levels are a combination of ocean temperature plus man-made CO2. Had that amount come solely from the oceans we'd all probably be dead.
The cycles are most likely attributable to be a combination of orbital configurations, and the jaggyness from natural phenomena such as volcanoes. It was from a graph very much like the one above that led scientists to think in the 1950s that we'd be entering a new Ice age.
The problem with CO2 is that unlike a lot of pollution, it doesn't go anywhere. As it builds up, there's more greenhouse effect from it.
So, what's the temperature actually been doing?
In the 90's the study on Global Warming wrapped up concluding the temperature increase was from man-made GHGs and the question changed into Climate Change, how fast was it occuring and what would the impacts be?
The 2015 Paris Agreement was to hold the line at +2°C, and preferably limit the increase to 1.5°C. Except for Libia and a handful of other small countries, every nation on Earth is working towards this.
We need to stop adding to the problem as quickly as possible and then balance it so like goldilocks, we're not too hot or too cold. It's just planetary climate engineering, how hard can it be? ; -)
That's a good question, but we're all going to enjoy the savings (or costs ; -). Solar and wind have both been cheaper than fossil fuels for a decade. If we could switch over now it would cost us less. Unfortunately, they're intermittent so they need some form of Energy storage. If you live in an area where hydro or CAES technology can be used, then they're currently cheaper than fossil fuels.
But most folks don't live in those areas and for them a stationary battery is the only current tried and true tech. With an LFP battery, the cost of solar and wind is just a tad more than nuclear if you don't factor in nuclear waste fuel management. But, the price point on CATL's sodium batteries due out this year brings the price under coal's LCOE and the DOE believes they will fall even further. See post #761 for more.
So, for most the costs should be the same as replacing a coal-fired power-plant when they hit their end-of-life, it's a gradual plan over the next 30 years. That is there'd be negligible new costs.
What's come up recently is a disturbing theory that we've dragged our feet to the point where we must actively remove carbon from the atmosphere as that does have additional costs and they become higher the longer we delay in achieving in net-zero. Those costs are discussed in #813.
Hope that helps!
If you want real change then a different plan will have to be made. This was discussed withLeo’s unrealistic goal of 200 batteries. Not feasible but typical of the Left. They preach science and real change hahahaha hahaha okay sure. When preaching science and reality you have to look at what we have now….. not wait on vaporware. So solar panels and batteries are not my idea of best way when we have small micro nuclear power generators….. just waiting to be used. We have an abundance of nuclear bomb materials that can and have been converted for use in nuclear plants. It came from places around the World when nuke bombs were disassembled. I know this because family members were directly involved in nuclear power production.
so how much did the model change for covid and 9-11 events if we are looking at your quoted:
I and many others don’t like the way the Left go about things… so what happens when the “POLES SHIFT?”
anyway to prevent that disaster…. What scheme can we come up with for it? The elite still gather in their “think tanks”
they gathered during the covid epidemic at worse out break times and wee shown wearing no mask…. The Elite were not afraid of Covid. They were after all focused on Climax Change.
How climate change and the coronavirus are linked
COVID-19 has disrupted communities worldwide but could this period teach us anything about another existential threat we are facing: the climate crisis?
www.weforum.org
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
That's why I quoted prices at what could be done today as well as tomorrow.
What micro nuclear power generators? Are you talking about radioisotope thermoelectric generators?
Also, most studies show nuclear, as it is today, isn't feasible as a full replacement-we need tomorrow's tech to make it work.
See post #520 for more on that.
That's a natural phenomenon, so isn't it okay? ; -)
Yeah okay, it hasn't happened while modern man has been on the planet, but your very distant ancestors were around then and had figured out flint tools, but graffiti on the cave bathroom walls would have to wait another 200,000 years or so.
So, what happens? The field never goes away completely, comic rays pretty much go right through the Earth. So we'll lose a smidge of our atmosphere and skin cancer rates will probably increase for people that ignore government warnings. Maybe the real disaster is replotting the compass points on all the naval maps? The air isn't ferrous and magnetism doesn't affect the greenhouse gas effect. Here's a NASA article on it, but I don't recall running any numbers regarding it.
I can't comment on the rest as I've no clue what you're talking about, or it's about the right or left or covid, or other conspiracies and they just sound crazy. Extremists all have agendas, the trick is to boil it down to the truth and I like to look at the numbers for that.
Make sure you are not categorizing me in the conspiracy for what the World Economic Forum for the elite to which are conspiring to do to us. Thay is on them just showing you what they are saying….. and planning. You are obvious on board with them I got a pin for all your balloons. Might want to read up on Pole Shifts. Some ppl say it is not as you claim who can verify it…. No one. If the WEF could figure out how to profit from your pocket to theirs you are done. Someday you might actually figure what and who the scary ppl telling these bed time stories are for publishment and establishment. It is not me hint hint… I just posted it above in an older post WEF
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
That definitely wasn't my first thought. But now that you bring it up, if you were, wouldn't that be what you'd say?
Except I didn't make "claims". Just gave you some random thoughts on it and pointed to a NASA doc. I'm sure as hell not an expert on magnetic shifts of the poles, but I do have very broad knowledge of mostly useless information and I'm not afraid to apply it. Can't speak for others, but if you have any scientific references showing alternative proofs I'd look at them.
Maybe. But go back and look at the conspiracies you listed. What's the longest any has lasted?
Compare that timeframe to the half-century global warming has been around. The government is too large and mismanaged with too much in-fighting to keep any secrets for long, especially ones of this magnitude. The real truth always percolates out.
What are you calling conspiracy for my post in your thread..why use that word. We both know why? Hahaha
If you take what I posted from the WEF website as my conspiracy then we can end discussion now. Hahahaha bahaha It is what they were planning in 2020… if you seriously look around will see it inch by inch being implemented. Hahaha bahaha they conspired against you and I and you are mad upset looking at me. Hahaha bahaha haha ha It is funny. It really is and that is exactly why nothing ever happens to them. Exactly Why they get to rule.
?????
when took calc II in college remember sitting there killing tree after tree working out a problem… it occured to me how many students worked out that same problem, here I am working out that same problem, and thought how many future ppl would work on that same problem. The ultimate realization was fact it was just an exercise. Really had no value for solving a real problem just something to fiddle with as some before me, now me, and some in the future over and over repetition. Most ppl will never look at anything except trying to solve that problem as a class requirement. Fiddle fiddle fiddle… Rome is burning all around you and I slowly. Work on this problem… truth is we won’t really solve anything or make a difference. The goals and directions were set by a group of ppl in a closed room. I fiddle not. Good luck
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Bob B
Emperor Of Solar
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2019
- Messages
- 8,604
This one really is hysterical .... Murphy posted a horse shit story where he single handedly destroyed his neighbors' pond .... and an irrelevant story about his experience in the automotive industry .... liked a few things svetz posted .... and suddenly he has helped debunk a lot of misinformation ...
Oh .... and I almost forgot .... a conspiracy theory about how airplane chem trails are preventing global warming.
Last edited:
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
The previously cited NREL paper I thought might explain the assumptions around the storage needed to replace fossil fuels was a bust. It wasn't the main focus (it was more of a roll out plan feasibility). It only made use of that data rather than presenting how that data was derived, but it does have references so I’m going through them.
Quick Math
The round trip efficiency loss is 15% greater than LFP, so you'd need 15% more panels. LFP is currently at $131/kWh, but given the life-cycle that's really $262. Iron-flow would be $25 kWh for the battery + 15% more panels. SEIA quoted utility costs at $0.77/W installed and with an average insolation of 3 that would be 0.15 X 0.77 / 3 = 3.85￠. So, that seems like it is noise in comparison.
I'll have to see if I can find some LCOE costs or the economics of the units in production. Obviously pumping the flow isn't free and must take a bite out of the available power. Looks to good to be true frankly.
| Iron-Flow Batteries One of the things I ran across is that iron flow batteries are being deployed. I never really considered them as contenders because of the low round-trip efficiencies of 70 to 75%. The positives are that the electrolyte is water-based and won’t catch fire and the extremely long life cycles (~2x LFP) and calendar life (20y). They’re also inexpensive at $25/KWh. It’s also not future tech, SB Energy started deploying them in 2021. Possibly someone has more details about them? | 
|
Quick Math
The round trip efficiency loss is 15% greater than LFP, so you'd need 15% more panels. LFP is currently at $131/kWh, but given the life-cycle that's really $262. Iron-flow would be $25 kWh for the battery + 15% more panels. SEIA quoted utility costs at $0.77/W installed and with an average insolation of 3 that would be 0.15 X 0.77 / 3 = 3.85￠. So, that seems like it is noise in comparison.
I'll have to see if I can find some LCOE costs or the economics of the units in production. Obviously pumping the flow isn't free and must take a bite out of the available power. Looks to good to be true frankly.
Last edited:
Similar threads
