Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8782 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-22-2017 1:23 AM
91 online now:
PaulK, Pressie (2 members, 89 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,689 Year: 21,295/21,208 Month: 1,728/2,326 Week: 183/881 Day: 8/97 Hour: 2/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
2021
...
24Next
Author Topic:   2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet?
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 356 (777869)
02-10-2016 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by ProtoTypical
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 ProtoTypical, posted 02-10-2016 7:52 PM ProtoTypical has responded

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

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1744
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(4)
Message 272 of 356 (777872)
02-11-2016 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Jon
02-10-2016 9:11 PM


Re: What is scalability
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.

We are better off because we have pipes to move our water around when compared to not having pipes. Making our water pipes out of lead is very cheap and easy to do and the pipes work very well. Why would we every want to spend more resources on making our water pipes out of copper?

We are better off because we have gasoline to move our vehicles around. Burning gasoline is cheap and easy. Why would we want to spend more resources to move our cars with electricity?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Jon, posted 02-10-2016 9:11 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Jon, posted 02-11-2016 11:53 AM ProtoTypical has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 356 (777880)
02-11-2016 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by ProtoTypical
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 ProtoTypical, posted 02-11-2016 7:14 AM ProtoTypical has responded

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

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 274 of 356 (777882)
02-11-2016 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Jon
02-10-2016 8:46 PM


Re: World's largest solar power plant
I haven't looked for those figures separately yet, but maybe I'll run the numbers later and post. Or someone else could...

Seriously, Jon. Your argument is to let someone else make your argument?

If we manage to reduce our carbon footprint by even 30%, that would be a significant outcome as far as climate change is concerned. Why do you continue to insist that we have to either replace all fossil fuels with renewables?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Jon, posted 02-10-2016 8:46 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Jon, posted 02-11-2016 1:58 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 275 of 356 (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 yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11666
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 276 of 356 (777900)
02-11-2016 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Jon
02-11-2016 11:53 AM


Re: What is scalability
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.

You guys keep harping on about the efficiency and scalability of the generators, but if you really want to be convinced then you should look more towards the storage. Battery technology is getting better.

I asked you about Tesla Powerwall earlier, in Message 165. I ran across a Vox article here that goes into detail and has a bunch of graphs n'stuff about how you need solar plus storage to make it work.

I still haven't seen you talk about that storage side much. Don't you think that's key to the capability you are looking for?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Jon, posted 02-11-2016 11:53 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Jon, posted 02-11-2016 8:12 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 356 (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 responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11666
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 278 of 356 (777903)
02-11-2016 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Jon
02-11-2016 7:06 PM


Re: Solar Power in Hawai'i
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(sic) make solar power impossible on the islands. Or is the storage of electricity at even that scale simply not workable with current technology?

I think you mean wouldn't. *ABE* wait, do you mean large as in capacity? Or large as in size?

I was thinking you meant capacity, in that a larger capacity would mean more possibility, but upon re-read I think you might mean that a larger size would mean more impossibility. I wrote the following up on the first impression, it's not about the physical size of the battery as it is the capacity that it has (both in charge rate as well as amount) *ABE*

Storage is important for off-setting the cost difference between peak and non-peak usage, as well as the between the generating and usage needs between peak and non-peak demand. In the case of soalr, peak is when the sun's shining bright, and non-peak would be when its dark or cloudy or whatever. The People can be trained to know when and when not to have a heavy load on the system.

While I'm at work and it's sunny, and I have most of power consumption turned off, I can be charging my system up. And then when I get home, and it's dark, I can pull from the storage instead of the generators and get all the power I need. 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).

The cost side of it helps the transition from the grid to not-on-gird in that you can "buy" the power that you're not getting and need to use to charge your system only during the times of the day or week when the usage and therefore prices from the grid are lower.

Those are some of the problems with solar that aren't going be solved with the generators, but instead with the batteries. You should consider them more, and realize that it could make solar to not be a bad option.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Jon, posted 02-11-2016 7:06 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Jon, posted 02-11-2016 8:30 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 281 by ProtoTypical, posted 02-12-2016 9:54 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 279 of 356 (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 yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 280 of 356 (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 responded

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

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1744
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 281 of 356 (777919)
02-12-2016 9:54 AM
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.

In Ontario there are now 3 different rates for power. Peak, mid and off peak. $0.175/kwh, .0.128/kwh and $.083/kwh respectively. In the last year or so we have personally managed to use 67% of our power during off peak hours 7pm to 7am.

edit; Another program available is to install a smart thermostat that is controllable by the utility company. They can raise the temperature setting of your AC during peak hours to reduce overall load. I wouldn't go for this as it seems a little too big brotherish.

Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.


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 not yet responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1744
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 282 of 356 (777921)
02-12-2016 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Jon
02-11-2016 11:53 AM


Re: What is scalability
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.

All the evidence needed lies in the fact that the sun dumps about a kw on every m2 of the earth every day. 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.

Again it is the contrived economics of the thing that are forcing the calculations. It wouldn't take much of a price on carbon to change the results.

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.

Why not? Everybody gets a replicator and a solar panel.

A grid with many more points of power generation will be better in every way. More robust and lower transmission costs. Outages could only be local and it would serve as a giant battery itself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Jon, posted 02-11-2016 11:53 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Jon, posted 02-12-2016 11:30 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 283 of 356 (777927)
02-12-2016 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by ProtoTypical
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 ProtoTypical, posted 02-12-2016 10:53 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11666
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 284 of 356 (777939)
02-12-2016 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Jon
02-11-2016 8:30 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.

Why not?

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.

I'm not making it scarce, it's still abundantly available from the grid. You just gotta pay the power company for that energy. The energy you get from solar is "free" (sans intallation costs), and The People will want to minimize how much they have to buy.

I'm also not making it dear, it's the unneeded uses that are the ones that would get turned off.

Like, you may decided to turn off the TV in the living room while you're making dinner so you're not wasting your "free" energy that you will then end up having to buy from the power company later.

The cost side of it helps the transition from the grid to not-on-gird ...

What transition?

The grid is the only way.

Not for everybody. There are people today who are off the grid.

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.

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.

I'm with you in that I just don't think the generators are there. But with the improvements to the storage technology that I am seeing, I beginning to see that solar is not an impossibility.

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.

You don't have to limit what you're talking about to just switching NYC into a fully solar operation. There other more interesting discussion to be had in the topic of solar energy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Jon, posted 02-11-2016 8:30 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by NoNukes, posted 02-13-2016 2:37 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 286 by Jon, posted 02-13-2016 12:37 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 356 (777959)
02-13-2016 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by New Cat's Eye
02-12-2016 1:57 PM


Re: Solar Power in Hawai'i
You don't have to limit what you're talking about to just switching NYC into a fully solar operation. There other more interesting discussion to be had in the topic of solar energy

Exactly.

Cat Sci writes:

The People can be trained to know when and when not to have a heavy load on the system.

CreationJon writes:

That is not an option.


Why not?

It certainly is an option. 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[1]. If you agree to that, you get a lowered power bill. Of course Jon will tell you that conserving power results in having a Kenyan type economy.

[1] If peak demand exceeds some amount

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


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 not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Jon, posted 02-13-2016 1:04 PM NoNukes has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
2021
...
24Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017