Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet?
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 260 of 357 (777801)
02-08-2016 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by RAZD
02-08-2016 2:50 PM


Re: because something *is* doesn't mean that it should be
This is why energy costs are less when concentrated: ...
NYC electricity prices are higher than the U.S. average.
With a more open system and energy disbursed across the area there is less need to clump people.
Yet if our goal is reducing our environmental footprint, we want to clump people.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2016 2:50 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 357 (777807)
02-08-2016 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Dogmafood
02-06-2016 8:51 AM


Re: What is scalability
NYC has 42% of the state population so they need 963km2. The area of NYC is 789km2.
It doesn't quite work that way. It won't be an even point for point distribution across the state because NYC, being a very dense city with high energy efficiency, doesn't use as much energy in proportion to its percentage of the state's population.
You need about 16000m2/Gw of solar production at 20% efficiency.
Instead of conjecturing, we can just use numbers already collected Hopefully I don't make a mess of this trying to convert it to metric.
Based on the analysis I did with Topaz, you can get about 33,500 Mwh/year of power per km2 of solar panels in New York. That's 33.5 Gwh/year/km2.
According to this wind power propaganda, NYC used 60,000 Gwh in 2009.
The math is easy: 60,000/33.5 = 1,791 km2.
That's almost twice your estimate.
Now these aren't 'impossible' numbers. But I think they are much larger than promoters of solar power want us to believe is actually required.
And again, just solving the space issue for the panels doesn't solve the space issue for the storage or the technical problems of the storage.
How do we overcome those hurdles?
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Dogmafood, posted 02-06-2016 8:51 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Dogmafood, posted 02-10-2016 8:41 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 357 (777847)
02-10-2016 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Dogmafood
02-10-2016 8:41 AM


Re: What is scalability
42% of the 143,401 Gwh that NY state used is 60,228 Gwh.
Fair enough. I think we are just using different numbers for different years and with different definitions of NYC.
Ok but according to the National Renewable Energy Labratory you only need about 4 acres of panels to collect a Gwh. Its on page 6 of this report.
I don't care about the propaganda of the NREL. I care about the actual numbers collected from actual usage.
The conclusion we should draw from comparing the in-use figures to the NREL estimates is that the NREL is wrong and has overstated the potentials of solar power - likely to keep the funding rolling in.
Essentially all that we have to do is change the energy from kinetic to potential. So batteries, capacitors, thermal mass, wind up a spring, pump water up a hill, compress a gas, liberate hydrogen from water. I am sure that the list goes on.
The essence of the solution has always been understood. It's the implementation where we fall short. I am not aware of any current technologies that would offer the kind of cheap and massive power storage required for our communities to run on renewable energy alone.
Are you?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Dogmafood, posted 02-10-2016 8:41 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Dogmafood, posted 02-10-2016 3:31 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 266 of 357 (777857)
02-10-2016 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Dogmafood
02-10-2016 3:31 PM


Re: What is scalability
The thing is that we have decided that any new technologies have to be profitable before we introduce them.
Profitable is just another way of saying 'salable'. And that's just another way of saying 'affordable'.
Energy has to be cheap to have the effects we want it to have - reduce poverty, improve lives, cure diseases, sanitize water, and so forth.
.. with regard to AGW we are not inputting the real cost of continuing to burn oil and coal.
Except that we are. As I pointed out to RAZD already, even though we do not itemize all the costs (and often even all the benefits) doesn't mean they aren't included in our final accounting. And the reality of it is that humans today are far better off burning huge amounts of fossil fuels than before we started burning them (the comparison holds even when looking at modern societies that do vs don't burn large amounts of fossil fuels).
The evidence suggests this pattern will continue for decades if not centuries. And that's because the enormous benefits of cheap and reliable energy far outweigh the costs of using fossil fuels to generate that energy.
The fact that we don't have any municipal sized energy storage systems in place has nothing to say about the difficulty of building them. Take a 1000 tonnes of concrete and use your off peak power production to lift it off the ground using hydraulics. Then let it drive a generator while it falls slowly back down when you need the power.
Everything's easier from an armchair.
How much concrete would you have to raise, how high, and how much energy could you get as it falls? Let's just say to take care of NYC.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Dogmafood, posted 02-10-2016 3:31 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Dogmafood, posted 02-10-2016 7:52 PM Jon has replied
 Message 268 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2016 8:16 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 269 of 357 (777867)
02-10-2016 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by NoNukes
02-10-2016 4:30 PM


Re: World's largest solar power plant
Okay.
So there's a real-world example of at least something.
Let's do the math with it. I'll start:
Assuming the plant produces at capacity, it stores 2230 Mwh of electricity - 2.23 Gwh/day (about 815 Gwh/year). It covers an area about 14 km2. The plant operates at about 30% capacity (according to the Wikipedia article: Ouarzazate Power Station). So in sunny Morocco it produces 250 Gwh/year of stored electricity. That works out to 17 Gwh/year/km2.
Given the figures for NYC discussed earlier, and working from the premise that nighttime demand is half daytime demand (discussed here, though for California), NYC's needs at least 20,000 Gwh/year during times when the sun certainly doesn't shine.
That works out to 1175 km2. For generation and storage
Remember, though: that's just to handle the power for nighttime use.
If we want to also have the plant producing electricity for daytime use, we would have to triple the area used for the solar generation (though not the storage system).
I haven't looked for those figures separately yet, but maybe I'll run the numbers later and post. Or someone else could...
You up to it?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2016 4:30 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by NoNukes, posted 02-11-2016 12:27 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 270 of 357 (777868)
02-10-2016 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by NoNukes
02-10-2016 8:16 PM


Re: What is scalability
... but replacing those fuels with renewable sources to the extend possible does not move us backwards.
Of course not.
And I am very eager to see working renewable power generation.
But there are folks here making big claims; it's not unreasonable to ask for evidence for those claims and to examine them.
You continue to argue as if the only alternative to doing what we currently do now is to go cold turkey off of burning ancient carbon.
Not at all.
I am arguing that given the evidence presented so far regarding the potential of renewable energy it won't meet our energy needs and abandoning fossil fuels now - since those alternatives really don't exist - would leave us all in the dark.
The evidence suggests this pattern will continue for decades if not centuries.
You haven't come anywhere close to establishing that premise.
The last two hundred years seem to establish it well enough.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2016 8:16 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 357 (777869)
02-10-2016 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Dogmafood
02-10-2016 7:52 PM


Re: What is scalability
Only when you defer and redirect the real costs of a global economy fueled by oil. Pollution related health care costs, environmental degradation, air quality, armed conflict for control of resources, sea level rise and population displacement.
Nothing gets deferred because the metrics we ultimate use measure the whole instead of its parts. Things like life expectancy, food security, etc. Anything that affects such things - good or bad - gets accounted for when we take those measurements.
When we measure life expectancy today vs in the past, everything that affects life expectancy ends up in the resulting measurement. We aren't only taking coal smoke into account; we're also taking diseases, warfare, famine, and everything else into account.
When we measure food security today vs in the past, everything that affects food security ends up in the resulting measurement. We aren't only taking desertification into account; we're also taking acid rain, soil depletion, warming, and everything else into account.
So we don't have to worry about whether we can separate out the parts, because we're measuring the whole. And on the whole, we're better off now than we used to be. And where we're at now is almost entirely because we burn a lot of fossil fuels.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Dogmafood, posted 02-10-2016 7:52 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Dogmafood, posted 02-11-2016 7:14 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 357 (777880)
02-11-2016 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Dogmafood
02-11-2016 7:14 AM


Re: What is scalability
Yes. We should look for energy sources that have fewer costs. Not doing so would be ridiculous and immoral.
But what if those energy sources don't exist? Or what if they can't provide the same volumes of power that generate all the benefits of modern civilization?
I am very much in favor of going the route of lower costs - if we can.
Hence the challenge I've laid out repeatedly, here and elsewhere: Demonstrate the existence of those alternatives and show they are capable of providing the power we need.
Renewable and cleaner energies obviously exist, so the first half of that challenge is easily met. The second half seems to be where the difficulty lies. No one has even come up with a plan whereby a single city can rely on renewable energy to meet its electricity demand.
And so my melancholy doubts persist. Because it seems to me that to continue to reap the benefits of copious and reliable power we are going to have to continue to pay the costs of generating that power with dirty fossil fuels.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Dogmafood, posted 02-11-2016 7:14 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2016 6:36 PM Jon has replied
 Message 282 by Dogmafood, posted 02-12-2016 10:53 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 275 of 357 (777894)
02-11-2016 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by NoNukes
02-11-2016 12:27 PM


Re: World's largest solar power plant
Seriously, Jon. Your argument is to let someone else make your argument?
The evidence regarding the capabilities of solar is really for those promoting solar as a wonder fuel to present.
Those folks should be grateful I've presented any myself. I've been doing all their work for them so far. It's not unreasonable to expect them to do at least something.
If the point isn't important enough to them to back it with evidence, then they can leave it sit.
Why do you continue to insist that we have to either replace all fossil fuels with renewables?
I'm not. But my objections and challenges issued in this thread have been directed at those who think we can, folks like LNA and RAZD.
I've repeatedly said renewable energy is the right choice where it makes sense. Even though it does nothing to reduce overall GHG emissions.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by NoNukes, posted 02-11-2016 12:27 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 357 (777901)
02-11-2016 7:06 PM


Solar Power in Hawai'i
Earlier the issue of solar power in Hawai'i was discussed (Message 78).
I was trying to figure out why Hawai'i hadn't made the shift to renewable energy, especially solar.
When I run the numbers, it seems to make sense. The islands use about 10,000,000 Mwh/year of electricity. A plant like Topaz generates about 1,100,000 Mwh/year while covering an area of 9.5 mi2 (see Message 219 for sources). Just assuming that Hawai'i is equally as sunny as the location of Topaz (it isn't, at least not everywhere) tells us it should only take 86 mi2 of Topaz-style solar panels to generate the electricity used by the whole state. And that works out to about one hundredth of a percent of the island chain's total land area.
So why doesn't Hawai'i use more solar power?
I know that my calculations don't account for the storage system, but certainly a storage system can't be that large that it would make solar power impossible on the islands. Or is the storage of electricity at even that scale simply not workable with current technology?
I honestly don't know. But there must be something stopping Hawai'i. I'd like to figure out what it is.

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2016 7:50 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 279 of 357 (777905)
02-11-2016 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by New Cat's Eye
02-11-2016 6:36 PM


Re: What is scalability
I asked you about Tesla Powerwall earlier, in Message 165.
I missed that post.
But as I look at this technology, I can say it is not the answer to the storage problem.
Cost will have to come down and storage capacity go up.
Ultimately renewable energy will have to be workable on a grid-scale.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2016 6:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 280 of 357 (777906)
02-11-2016 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by New Cat's Eye
02-11-2016 7:50 PM


Re: Solar Power in Hawai'i
The People can be trained to know when and when not to have a heavy load on the system.
That is not an option.
Having an "amount" of storage in your systems can help The People realize when they need to start considering lowering their consumption because they have unneeded uses and they're getting low on power (and will have to start buying it).
Again. Not an option. You can't make power scarce and dear.
Two hundred years of recent history have shown us that the societies with the cheapest and most abundant power are the ones that have the happiest, healthiest, and wealthiest people.
The cost side of it helps the transition from the grid to not-on-gird ...
What transition?
The grid is the only way.
The future doesn't involve me making my own clothes; building my own cars; growing my own food; spinning my own dishes; forging my own silverware; chiseling my own pencils.
And it doesn't involve me generating my own electricity.
You should consider them more, and realize that it could make solar to not be a bad option.
Part of the reason I've neglected the storage is that it doesn't really exist on anything near the scale required for calculating the kind of feasibility we've been talking about, like supplying large cities with power generated entirely from the sun's energy. It's hard to get numbers.
Did you see my response to NoNukes, though? Message 269

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2016 7:50 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-12-2016 1:57 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 283 of 357 (777927)
02-12-2016 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Dogmafood
02-12-2016 10:53 AM


Re: What is scalability
The fact that we are only beginning to collect it at low efficiencies doesn't support the idea that we shouldn't be doing it.
I never said we shouldn't. I simply said we currently can't do stuff like power Maryland or NYC with solar panels. And that's a true statement.
It wouldn't take much of a price on carbon to change the results.
You can't. And not I, the country, or the world as a whole will ever accept a plan that makes power scarce and dear. Nor should we. Cheap, abundant power is not just essential to modern life. It is modern life.
And it is simply immoral to make any proposal that involves denying people access to this essential component of wellbeing.
A grid with many more points of power generation will be better in every way.
I agree. But then who maintains this shit?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Dogmafood, posted 02-12-2016 10:53 AM Dogmafood has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 357 (777970)
02-13-2016 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by New Cat's Eye
02-12-2016 1:57 PM


Re: Solar Power in Hawai'i
I'm not making it scarce, it's still abundantly available from the grid.
Sure you are. When you . Whether that scarcity is real or manufactured through manipulative pricing scarce is still scarce.
... it's the unneeded uses that are the ones that would get turned off.
Who decides what's needed and what's not?
There are people today who are off the grid.
Sure. But you can't run an entire society that way. I sure as hell don't have time to maintain a solar power system on my house.
I don't even have a house...
Well, I do grow some of my own food in my garden, and I am intriged by the idea that I could rely less on the grid, especially if it is to the point that I hardly need it.
At what expense?
Growing one's own food in modern society is a luxury hobby. The cost of it per unit is higher than getting food from the grocery store. The resources used, etc. It's an inefficient system; and you could never support an entire society like ours with everyone having to grow their own food.
It doesn't matter how cheap solar becomes, it will always be cheaper to run a grid system of mass-production and distribution than to run on a subsistence model of electricity generation.
There other more interesting discussion to be had in the topic of solar energy.
Well let's have them then.
I think RAZD and LNA have given up trying to support their outrageous claims.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-12-2016 1:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-14-2016 12:35 PM Jon has replied
 Message 309 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2016 5:38 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 287 of 357 (777973)
02-13-2016 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by NoNukes
02-13-2016 2:37 AM


Re: Solar Power in Hawai'i
In fact, in many locations, the power company will install devices that manage some of your large energy users for you so that they get cut off during peak demand
What is the plan? Turn off the furnace and hot water while people are at home making dinner or taking a shower?
Peak demand exists for a reason: it's the time when everyone needs power; typically during the twilight feeding hours (morning and evening) where power is used to light homes and cook breakfasts and dinners.
Access to that power is a huge part of the high standard of living we enjoy in the first world.
In impoverished underdeveloped nations, they use highly-toxic and inefficient fuels such as charcoal and dung for this and the barely-scraping-by poverty that results is hardly a surprise.
Of course Jon will tell you that conserving power results in having a Kenyan type economy.
If you want to conserve your power, conserve it. But the point is that it has to be up to you.
If it is not up to the end user to conserve, then you do indeed end up with a Kenyan economy where economic prosperity and the well-being it generates are constrained by the availability of reliable energy.
If folks want to live this way, that is their individual choice. But any energy policy that tries to compel such behavior - the "People can be trained to know ... when not to have a heavy load on the system" - is simply immoral and completely counter to everything we know about how societies become wealthy and raise happy, healthy citizens.
To get even further down to the basics: cheap energy is essential to the alleviation of poverty. The regressive energy taxes you and New Cat's Eye are throwing about are wicked to their core.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by NoNukes, posted 02-13-2016 2:37 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by NoNukes, posted 02-13-2016 1:15 PM Jon has replied
 Message 310 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2016 6:00 PM Jon has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024