Discussion:
There Is Currently No Substitute For Fossil Fuels
(too old to reply)
First Post
2009-12-25 16:31:48 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 08:07:59 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps
23 Dec 2009
QUOTE: Spain provides perhaps the best lesson. The government there has
spent $43 billion on solar energy projects, yet solar provides less than 1%
of the country's electric power. It was a bad investment.
But perhaps it is the only investment that will allow us to generate
electricity in a century from now.
Wrong.  Even if all fossil fuels did run out, there would still be
nuclear power.
Earlier this year, Congress approved a scheme to pour $80 billion - on top
of the tens of billions already spent - into renewables.
A government report released last week indicates the money will be wasted.
Preparing yourself is not a waste of money. The problem is that anyone
who writes "waste and scandal" around the topic "sustainable" does not
care to think ahead more than 30 years ahead in time. Try for once to
think a century ahead in time.
So if we spend a billion dollars on a windmill today, that delivers a
fraction of the power that the same money would buy with fossil fuels,
you are saying that windmill will still be going a hundred years from
now?  Guess again.
Renewable energy is the shiny gem that everyone wants but no one can have.
Not even a president. Campaigning last year in Lansing, Mich., President
Barack Obama said that it was his goal for the US to generate 10% of its
electric power from renewable sources by 2012 and 25% by 2025.
So, what is against the idea of living in a sustainable world?
Current renewable sources can't sustain our economy.  That's a fact..
Your
gripe could be that what Barrack Obama proposes is too little for the
current way we live. Now what if we learn to use energy far more
efficiently than today?
We might be able to make small gains in efficiency but no one wants to
significantly cut back on their lifestyle.
But he cannot, by the force of will or executive order, change the laws of
physics and economics.
Ah, this is great, rather than our unsustainable economies suddenly the
laws of physics are discussed. Nice dodge.
He made a valid point which you are unable to counter.  A politician
proclaiming that renewable energy will make up a certain percentage of
our energy does not simply make it so.  Of course he will be long out
of office, so he can make all the ridiculous proclamations he wants..
I think that's why politicians love this game.  They make promises for
shit that will supposedly happen decades in the future.  They will be
long retired when it becomes obvious that they were completely full of
shit.
America has long relied on fossil fuels to power its economy. Oil, natural
gas and coal provide about 84% of the nation's energy.
And for good reason. They are plentiful and typically easy to retrieve, and,
consequently, cheap.
Oil, natural gas and coal are all not sustainable as every school kid
knows. In a century from now people will laugh and cry at our graves..
Nuclear is.
At the other end of the spectrum are renewable sources such as solar, wind,
biomass and geothermal. They supply only about 4% of our energy, the
remainder coming from hydro and nuclear power.
Yep, so the 4% has to become like 50% within the next generation. So see
it as a major opportunity to change and create jobs instead.
The 4% will not become anywhere near 50%.  There are many reasons for
this, from cost to reliability to industrial capacity to NIMBY.  It
simply is not going to happen.  If greentards were serious about
getting off fossil fuels they would embrace nuclear.
An axis of environmentalists and Democrats want to change this ratio,
because, according to the usual complaint, we depend too heavily on the
fossil fuels that emit CO2.
Trouble is, the market for renewables is poor.
It will and can become better.
How?  Until you can figure out a way to control when the sun shines
and the wind blows, you have a fundemental problem.
Few want to use the inefficient, unreliable and expensive sources.. But that
hasn't slowed the renewable energy campaign, which has succeeded in
persuading the public that renewables are a sensible energy source and
convincing Congress to fund supporters' daydreams.
The government can continue to "invest" in renewables, and the dreamers will
keep using public money to find the magic formula. But little will change
over the next 25 years.
The federal Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook says
in 2035, demand for liquid fuels will increase by almost 10% over 2008
levels, natural gas by nearly 7% and coal by 12%.
While use of renewables will increase as well - by 81%, including
hydropower - they will still be unable to unseat our dominant energy source.
Fossil fuels' share of consumption will fall by only six percentage points,
from 84% to 78% by 2035. Renewables will provide about 8%.
It's clear that renewables, which have benefited from government subsidies
far in excess of what fossil fuels have received, can't compete in today's
market and won't be faring much better a quarter century from now, according
to the government's own reckoning.
It's just as clear that throwing taxpayers' dollars at renewables has
produced little progress.
Spain provides perhaps the best lesson. The government there has spent $43
billion on solar energy projects, yet solar provides less than 1% of the
country's electric power. It was a bad investment.
Chasing the wind is just as ineffective.
When Congress temporarily eliminated wind power credits in 1999, 2001 and
2003, the number of new turbine projects fell sharply. The Texas Public
Policy Foundation says that providing a modest level of wind power in that
state would cost taxpayers at least $60 billion through 2025.
Biomass is also a poor substitute.
It's both primitive - its sources are wood and trash - and an environmental
nightmare, devouring in some cases as much as 10 times the land mass than
needed to create a wind farm. And wind farms themselves are big land eaters.
Geothermal energy, considered "free" energy from the earth, is also a space
eater that requires heavy capital investment, which is often hard to recoup.
In California earlier this month, a geothermal project was abandoned,
despite a $6 million grant from the Energy Department and roughly $30
million in venture capital.
Geothermal has, as well, some environmental drawbacks. The day before the
California project was closed, Swiss government officials permanently shut
down a geothermal project in Basel because, the New York Times reports, "of
the damaging earthquakes it produced in 2006 and 2007."
Maybe some of these renewables will one day be cheap and reliable..
Technological advances will help. But today they are neither cheap nor
reliable, and, based on the government's report, won't be for another
generation.
Until they can compete, the country has to rely on proven sources: fossil
fuels and nuclear power. To force cutbacks on these so that renewables can
get a bigger market share, and to continue to fund projects with public
money, is foolish and irresponsible.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=516042
Warmest Regards
B0n oz
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
The remainder of this article is so full with demonstrated unwillingness
to change that I quit reading.
Q
Reality can be tough for people who live in dreamland. But its the
people who live in reality who make sure there is fuel available to
heat your house and food available to go on your table.
Nuclear energy is no sustainable energy, also here the supplies are
limited.
But good enough for several hundred years.  By then who knows where
technology will be.
Maybe windmills, solar panels, geothermal energy, hydropower and biofuels?
Yeah, windmills. <rolls eyes>.  The intermittancy problem needs to be
solved.  Maybe one day it will, but that day appears to be far off.
Until then, solar and wind are nearly worthless.
Furthermore there is a nuclear proliferation problem, otherwise
we wouldn't worry about Iran, Irak and North Korea going nuclear at the
same time.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with building nuclear power plants
in the US.
Is this what it is? If I solve my own problems then I'm safe without
having to worry about the rest of the world? Try to think in a more
modern way. You live in one big global economy and you are going to need
the rest of that world to keep your economy alive. Protectionism is a
1920's word, and guess what, it was partially the p-word that caused the
great depression and world war 2. Even Richard Nixon knew this, he went
to China and did something smart for once by opening the gates to asia..
What does protectionism have to do with building nuclear power
plants?  You don't make any sense, rabbit.
But to go back to the topic, if going nuclear was so easy then we would
not need to worry about North Korea, Iran and Irak who all want to
become nuclear as well when there is no more fossil fuel.
Non-proliferation agreements allow for nuclear to be used for power
generation, dumbass.
Are you concerned about Iran going nuclear?
I am not concerned about their use of nuclear power to generate
electricity.  Do you understand there is a huge technological
difference between civilian nuclear energy and nuclear weapons?  We
are are talking about nuclear energy, not weapons.  Peaceful use of
nuclear energy is the third pillar of the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty. Please educate yourself, silly rabbit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty
Ahmadinejad knows exactly what nuclear proliferation is and he is
willing to play this card when Iran runs out of income.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that nuclear is by far the
technologically viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until the
intermittentcy problem is solved, solar and wind are next to
*worthless*.
Indeed:

China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants

SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge
wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired
power plants need to be installed as well.

Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To
safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials
have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.

China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs
by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions
that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts
say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate
of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of
wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more
coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is
being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.

In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve
so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn't blow. This is
important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal,
which fuels two-thirds of China's electricity output. Wind energy
ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which
can be stockpiled at generators in advance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
Mr.B1ack
2009-12-25 23:53:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Post
China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants
SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge
wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired
power plants need to be installed as well.
Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To
safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials
have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.
China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs
by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions
that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts
say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate
of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of
wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more
coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is
being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.
In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve
so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn't blow. This is
important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal,
which fuels two-thirds of China's electricity output. Wind energy
ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which
can be stockpiled at generators in advance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
In theory, electricity CAN be stockpiled by using excess
capacity to pump up reserviors - which can then be discharged
into little hydroelectric plants when the wind don't blow.

Of course the geography, physical and urban, has to be able
to support such an infrastructure. Won't work everywhere.
Kevin Cunningham
2009-12-25 19:29:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Post
China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants
SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge
wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired
power plants need to be installed as well.
Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To
safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials
have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.
China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs
by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions
that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts
say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate
of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of
wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more
coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is
being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.
In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve
so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn't blow. This is
important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal,
which fuels two-thirds of China's electricity output. Wind energy
ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which
can be stockpiled at generators in advance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
   In theory, electricity CAN be stockpiled by using excess
   capacity to pump up reserviors - which can then be discharged
   into little hydroelectric plants when the wind don't blow.
   Of course the geography, physical and urban, has to be able
   to support such an infrastructure. Won't work everywhere.
There are batteries, capacitors and gyroscopes also. Depending on the
what and were you can store electricity with moderate efficiency.
mark
2009-12-26 00:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Post
China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants
SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge
wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired
power plants need to be installed as well.
Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To
safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials
have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.
China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs
by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions
that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts
say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate
of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of
wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more
coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is
being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.
In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve
so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn't blow. This is
important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal,
which fuels two-thirds of China's electricity output. Wind energy
ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which
can be stockpiled at generators in advance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
   In theory, electricity CAN be stockpiled by using excess
   capacity to pump up reserviors - which can then be discharged
   into little hydroelectric plants when the wind don't blow.
   Of course the geography, physical and urban, has to be able
   to support such an infrastructure. Won't work everywhere.
There are batteries, capacitors and gyroscopes also.  Depending on the
what and were you can store electricity with moderate efficiency.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
solar , wind energy, geothermal, nuclear, gas, anything but coal
l***@gmail.com
2009-12-26 02:34:20 UTC
Permalink
solar , wind energy, geothermal, nuclear, gas,  anything but coal
# Mark, the one trick pony, doesn't know that coal is as
coal is as clean as it gets.
Then how do you expect to make steel?
With Bar-b-Q briquettes?

— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Bret Cahill
2009-12-26 03:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@gmail.com
solar , wind energy, geothermal, nuclear, gas,  anything but coal
# Mark, the one trick pony, doesn't know that coal is as
    coal is as clean as it gets.
   Then how do you expect to make steel?
    With Bar-b-Q briquettes?
Coke Cola.


Bret Cahill
The Ugly Republican Brand is Dead
2009-12-26 03:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@gmail.com
solar , wind energy, geothermal, nuclear, gas, anything but coal
# Mark, the one trick pony, doesn't know that coal is as
coal is as clean as it gets.
Then how do you expect to make steel?
With Bar-b-Q briquettes?
Coke Cola.


Bret Cahill


or this...

http://www.solardeathray.com/

;)
Rav1ng rabbit
2009-12-26 08:05:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@gmail.com
Post by mark
solar , wind energy, geothermal, nuclear, gas, anything but coal
# Mark, the one trick pony, doesn't know that coal is as
coal is as clean as it gets.
Then how do you expect to make steel?
With Bar-b-Q briquettes?
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Coal will be the first safe haven but it is not a sustainable energy
source.

Most likely our future gas supplies will come from coal being processed
by the Fischer Tropsch procedure invested in the 1920s.

The Fischer Tropsch procedure may hold the key to producing large
amounts of hydrogen which is clean fuel, the generated CO2 would then
need to be stored somewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process

Q
--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd
I M @ good guy
2009-12-26 11:51:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rav1ng rabbit
Post by l***@gmail.com
Post by mark
solar , wind energy, geothermal, nuclear, gas, anything but coal
# Mark, the one trick pony, doesn't know that coal is as
coal is as clean as it gets.
Then how do you expect to make steel?
With Bar-b-Q briquettes?
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Coal will be the first safe haven but it is not a sustainable energy
source.
Most likely our future gas supplies will come from coal being processed
by the Fischer Tropsch procedure invested in the 1920s.
The Fischer Tropsch procedure may hold the key to producing large
amounts of hydrogen which is clean fuel, the generated CO2 would then
need to be stored somewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
Q
Nothing can be cleaner than water and CO2,
CO2 is not going to be stored in quantity, that would
not be safe, it is a stupid idea.

CO2 is important enough to start planning how
to maintain at least 350 PPMV in the distant future,
the size of the population needs it for food.

I am not sure you can find a link that shows
how gasoline can be made from coal, you need
to learn a little more detail.
Rav1ng rabbit
2009-12-26 12:28:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by I M @ good guy
Post by Rav1ng rabbit
Post by l***@gmail.com
Post by mark
solar , wind energy, geothermal, nuclear, gas, anything but coal
# Mark, the one trick pony, doesn't know that coal is as
coal is as clean as it gets.
Then how do you expect to make steel?
With Bar-b-Q briquettes?
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Coal will be the first safe haven but it is not a sustainable energy
source.
Most likely our future gas supplies will come from coal being processed
by the Fischer Tropsch procedure invested in the 1920s.
The Fischer Tropsch procedure may hold the key to producing large
amounts of hydrogen which is clean fuel, the generated CO2 would then
need to be stored somewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
Q
Nothing can be cleaner than water and CO2,
CO2 is not going to be stored in quantity, that would
not be safe, it is a stupid idea.
This is what they call CCS, carbon capture storage.
Post by I M @ good guy
CO2 is important enough to start planning how
to maintain at least 350 PPMV in the distant future,
the size of the population needs it for food.
That may be right, but maybe there a pesky emission problem which is
going to cost us something.
Post by I M @ good guy
I am not sure you can find a link that shows
how gasoline can be made from coal, you need
to learn a little more detail.
Shell has a huge plant to convert gas to liquids which is based on the
Fischer Tropsch reactions:

http://www.shell.com/home/content/aboutshell/our_business/previous_business_structure/gas_and_power/gtl/projects/

Read also the synfuel discussion here:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Synthetic+fuel

The method was invented 80 years ago, and it will become relevant once
the oil price is high enough. We'll be doing exactly the same as Germany
did during world war II.

People who say we run out of fuel simply didn't understand the FT fuels.

Q
--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd
I M @ good guy
2009-12-26 20:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rav1ng rabbit
Post by I M @ good guy
Post by Rav1ng rabbit
Post by l***@gmail.com
Post by mark
solar , wind energy, geothermal, nuclear, gas, anything but coal
# Mark, the one trick pony, doesn't know that coal is as
coal is as clean as it gets.
Then how do you expect to make steel?
With Bar-b-Q briquettes?
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Coal will be the first safe haven but it is not a sustainable energy
source.
Most likely our future gas supplies will come from coal being processed
by the Fischer Tropsch procedure invested in the 1920s.
The Fischer Tropsch procedure may hold the key to producing large
amounts of hydrogen which is clean fuel, the generated CO2 would then
need to be stored somewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
Q
Nothing can be cleaner than water and CO2,
CO2 is not going to be stored in quantity, that would
not be safe, it is a stupid idea.
This is what they call CCS, carbon capture storage.
Post by I M @ good guy
CO2 is important enough to start planning how
to maintain at least 350 PPMV in the distant future,
the size of the population needs it for food.
That may be right, but maybe there a pesky emission problem which is
going to cost us something.
Post by I M @ good guy
I am not sure you can find a link that shows
how gasoline can be made from coal, you need
to learn a little more detail.
Shell has a huge plant to convert gas to liquids which is based on the
http://www.shell.com/home/content/aboutshell/our_business/previous_business_structure/gas_and_power/gtl/projects/
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Synthetic+fuel
The method was invented 80 years ago, and it will become relevant once
the oil price is high enough. We'll be doing exactly the same as Germany
did during world war II.
People who say we run out of fuel simply didn't understand the FT fuels.
Q
Nobody I know said we run out of fuel, it is
petroleum that will peak.

But you should read your own links, liquid
fuel is now $80 a barrel, so there should be big
FT plants running or under construction, but
your link said only one is in high quantity
production, in Africa.

The Air Force and several governments with
airline and aircraft companies have been flying
big aircraft on synthetic jet fuel for a couple
of years, most with regular fuel in all engines
but one, but production of the fuel is low.

I was an A & E mechanic instructor in 1946,
and have had a continuing interest in aircraft,
but never flown in an airliner, they won't give
me a parachute.
Last Post
2009-12-28 16:40:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rav1ng rabbit
Coal will be the first safe haven but it is not a sustainable energy
source.
Most likely our future gas supplies will come from coal being processed
by the Fischer Tropsch procedure invested in the 1920s.
The Fischer Tropsch procedure may hold the key to producing large
amounts of hydrogen which is clean fuel, the generated CO2 would then
need to be stored somewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
Q
         Nothing can be cleaner than water and CO2,
CO2 is not going to be stored in quantity, that would
not be safe, it is a stupid idea.
        CO2 is important enough to start planning how
to maintain at least 350 PPMV in the distant future,
the size of the population needs it for food.
        I am not sure you can find a link that shows
how gasoline can be made from coal, you need
to learn a little more detail.
• Making gasoline from coal makes no sense. The coal
is needed for steel making. Reprocessing natural gas
is just an additional expense — ultra stupid.

— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Bruce Richmond
2009-12-26 18:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rav1ng rabbit
Post by l***@gmail.com
solar , wind energy, geothermal, nuclear, gas,  anything but coal
# Mark, the one trick pony, doesn't know that coal is as
    coal is as clean as it gets.
   Then how do you expect to make steel?
    With Bar-b-Q briquettes?
    — —
 | In real science the burden of proof is always
 | on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
 | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
 | iota of valid data for global warming nor have
 | they provided data that climate change is being
 | effected by commerce and industry, and not by
 | natural phenomena
Coal will be the first safe haven but it is not a sustainable energy
source.
No, but a few hundred years will get me by ;-) By then we should have
fusion power on line, which has always been about 20 years in the
future. (Hell, 30 years of coal would be more than enough for me.)

While wind and solar may not be able to replace fossil fuels right
away they are worth implementing in a reasonable manner. When done
right they can be cost effective. When done wrong they are a money
pit. Hydro and geothermal need no excuses. They can be cheaper than
coal and just as reliable.
Post by Rav1ng rabbit
Most likely our future gas supplies will come from coal being processed
by the Fischer Tropsch procedure invested in the 1920s.
The Fischer Tropsch procedure may hold the key to producing large
amounts of hydrogen which is clean fuel, the generated CO2 would then
need to be stored somewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
Q
--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahanhttp://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Last Post
2009-12-28 16:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rav1ng rabbit
Post by l***@gmail.com
solar , wind energy, geothermal, nuclear, gas,  anything but coal
# Mark, the one trick pony, doesn't know that coal is as
    coal is as clean as it gets.
   Then how do you expect to make steel?
    With Bar-b-Q briquettes?
    — —
 | In real science the burden of proof is always
 | on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
 | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
 | iota of valid data for global warming nor have
 | they provided data that climate change is being
 | effected by commerce and industry, and not by
 | natural phenomena
Coal will be the first safe haven but it is not a sustainable energy
source.
No, but a few hundred years will get me by ;-)  By then we should have
fusion power on line, which has always been about 20 years in the
future.  (Hell, 30 years of coal would be more than enough for me.)
While wind and solar may not be able to replace fossil fuels right
away they are worth implementing in a reasonable manner.  When done
right they can be cost effective.  When done wrong they are a money
pit.  Hydro and geothermal need no excuses.  They can be cheaper than
coal and just as reliable.
Post by Rav1ng rabbit
Most likely our future gas supplies will come from coal being processed
by the Fischer Tropsch procedure invested in the 1920s.
The Fischer Tropsch procedure may hold the key to producing large
amounts of hydrogen which is clean fuel, the generated CO2 would then
need to be stored somewhere.
• Hydro, wind, solar, geothermal,hydrogen, etc
are subject to time and place constraints. Only
natural gas and crude oil have no such problems.

— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Mr.B1ack
2009-12-26 11:16:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by mark
Post by First Post
China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants
SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge
wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired
power plants need to be installed as well.
Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To
safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials
have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.
China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs
by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions
that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts
say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate
of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of
wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more
coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is
being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.
In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve
so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn't blow. This is
important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal,
which fuels two-thirds of China's electricity output. Wind energy
ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which
can be stockpiled at generators in advance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
   In theory, electricity CAN be stockpiled by using excess
   capacity to pump up reserviors - which can then be discharged
   into little hydroelectric plants when the wind don't blow.
   Of course the geography, physical and urban, has to be able
   to support such an infrastructure. Won't work everywhere.
There are batteries, capacitors and gyroscopes also.  Depending on the
what and were you can store electricity with moderate efficiency.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
solar , wind energy, geothermal, nuclear, gas, anything but coal
Agreed. Raw coal is the nastiest choice.

However the up-front costs of solar/wind/geo are ridiculous.
You'll almost never make 'em pay for themselves.

Nuke is good - IF more modern designs are used. I'd strongly
recommend the 'pebble bed' ... intrinsically safe.
liberal
2009-12-26 19:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Post
China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants
SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge
wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired
power plants need to be installed as well.
Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To
safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials
have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.
China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs
by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions
that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts
say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate
of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of
wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more
coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is
being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.
In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve
so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn't blow. This is
important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal,
which fuels two-thirds of China's electricity output. Wind energy
ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which
can be stockpiled at generators in advance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
   In theory, electricity CAN be stockpiled by using excess
   capacity to pump up reserviors - which can then be discharged
   into little hydroelectric plants when the wind don't blow.
   Of course the geography, physical and urban, has to be able
   to support such an infrastructure. Won't work everywhere.
There are batteries, capacitors and gyroscopes also.  Depending on the
what and were you can store electricity with moderate efficiency.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
solar , wind energy, geothermal, nuclear, gas,  anything but coal
   Agreed. Raw coal is the nastiest choice.
   However the up-front costs of solar/wind/geo are ridiculous.
   You'll almost never make 'em pay for themselves.
   Nuke is good - IF more modern designs are used. I'd strongly
   recommend the 'pebble bed' ... intrinsically safe.
Is it certain the ceramic coating on the pebbles will survive the
neutron bombardment over the lifetime of a fuel load? I've read the
metal structure in a reactor often becomes brittle as the metal is
exposed to years of neutron impacts. So I wonder about ceramics.
Mr.B1ack
2009-12-27 11:48:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by liberal
Post by First Post
China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants
SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge
wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired
power plants need to be installed as well.
Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To
safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials
have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.
China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs
by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions
that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts
say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate
of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of
wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more
coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is
being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.
In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve
so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn't blow. This is
important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal,
which fuels two-thirds of China's electricity output. Wind energy
ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which
can be stockpiled at generators in advance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
   In theory, electricity CAN be stockpiled by using excess
   capacity to pump up reserviors - which can then be discharged
   into little hydroelectric plants when the wind don't blow.
   Of course the geography, physical and urban, has to be able
   to support such an infrastructure. Won't work everywhere.
There are batteries, capacitors and gyroscopes also.  Depending on the
what and were you can store electricity with moderate efficiency.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
solar , wind energy, geothermal, nuclear, gas,  anything but coal
   Agreed. Raw coal is the nastiest choice.
   However the up-front costs of solar/wind/geo are ridiculous.
   You'll almost never make 'em pay for themselves.
   Nuke is good - IF more modern designs are used. I'd strongly
   recommend the 'pebble bed' ... intrinsically safe.
Is it certain the ceramic coating on the pebbles will survive the
neutron bombardment over the lifetime of a fuel load?
That's the intent. Only 'pebbles' that can pass
that test are worthy.
Post by liberal
I've read the
metal structure in a reactor often becomes brittle as the metal is
exposed to years of neutron impacts. So I wonder about ceramics.
Ceramics suffer similar damage. Ergo the ceramic coatings
on a 'pebble' must be of a quality to survive. At last
report, proper 'pebbles' have been made.

The REAL problem ... vested interests. Older designs favor
certain corporate interests - which can sell themselves as
"proven". Lots of money involved. LOTS .....
Mr.B1ack
2009-12-26 11:14:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by First Post
China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants
SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge
wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired
power plants need to be installed as well.
Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To
safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials
have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.
China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs
by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions
that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts
say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate
of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of
wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more
coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is
being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.
In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve
so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn't blow. This is
important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal,
which fuels two-thirds of China's electricity output. Wind energy
ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which
can be stockpiled at generators in advance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
   In theory, electricity CAN be stockpiled by using excess
   capacity to pump up reserviors - which can then be discharged
   into little hydroelectric plants when the wind don't blow.
   Of course the geography, physical and urban, has to be able
   to support such an infrastructure. Won't work everywhere.
There are batteries, capacitors and gyroscopes also.
Batteries are no solution ... same for any kind of
capacitors even vaguely within the scope of current
technology.

Flywheels ain't the worst idea ... indeed I'd advocate
them - but only for home-scale applications.

The very easiest way to store power is as potential energy
in water. It's low tech and pretty efficient - and damned
cheap per kilowatt hour.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Depending on the
what and were you can store electricity with moderate efficiency.
Pumping water into a high reservoir offers above-moderate
efficiency.
Rav1ng rabbit
2009-12-26 09:33:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.B1ack
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Mr.B1ack
Post by First Post
China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants
SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge
wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired
power plants need to be installed as well.
Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To
safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials
have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.
China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs
by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions
that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts
say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate
of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of
wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more
coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is
being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.
In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve
so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn't blow. This is
important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal,
which fuels two-thirds of China's electricity output. Wind energy
ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which
can be stockpiled at generators in advance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
In theory, electricity CAN be stockpiled by using excess
capacity to pump up reserviors - which can then be discharged
into little hydroelectric plants when the wind don't blow.
Of course the geography, physical and urban, has to be able
to support such an infrastructure. Won't work everywhere.
There are batteries, capacitors and gyroscopes also.
Batteries are no solution ... same for any kind of
capacitors even vaguely within the scope of current
technology.
Flywheels ain't the worst idea ... indeed I'd advocate
them - but only for home-scale applications.
The very easiest way to store power is as potential energy
in water. It's low tech and pretty efficient - and damned
cheap per kilowatt hour.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Depending on the
what and were you can store electricity with moderate efficiency.
Pumping water into a high reservoir offers above-moderate
efficiency.
Please set your clock to your local time zone. All your postings end up
two hours in the future.

Q
--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd
Mr.B1ack
2009-12-27 11:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rav1ng rabbit
Post by Mr.B1ack
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Mr.B1ack
Post by First Post
China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants
SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge
wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired
power plants need to be installed as well.
Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To
safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials
have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.
China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs
by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions
that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts
say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate
of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of
wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more
coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is
being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.
In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve
so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn't blow. This is
important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal,
which fuels two-thirds of China's electricity output. Wind energy
ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which
can be stockpiled at generators in advance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
In theory, electricity CAN be stockpiled by using excess
capacity to pump up reserviors - which can then be discharged
into little hydroelectric plants when the wind don't blow.
Of course the geography, physical and urban, has to be able
to support such an infrastructure. Won't work everywhere.
There are batteries, capacitors and gyroscopes also.
Batteries are no solution ... same for any kind of
capacitors even vaguely within the scope of current
technology.
Flywheels ain't the worst idea ... indeed I'd advocate
them - but only for home-scale applications.
The very easiest way to store power is as potential energy
in water. It's low tech and pretty efficient - and damned
cheap per kilowatt hour.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Depending on the
what and were you can store electricity with moderate efficiency.
Pumping water into a high reservoir offers above-moderate
efficiency.
Please set your clock to your local time zone. All your postings end up
two hours in the future.
And what do you think that means ? :-)
Rav1ng rabbit
2009-12-27 09:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.B1ack
Post by Rav1ng rabbit
Post by Mr.B1ack
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by Mr.B1ack
Post by First Post
China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants
SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge
wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired
power plants need to be installed as well.
Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To
safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials
have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.
China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs
by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions
that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts
say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate
of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of
wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more
coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is
being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.
In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve
so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn't blow. This is
important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal,
which fuels two-thirds of China's electricity output. Wind energy
ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which
can be stockpiled at generators in advance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
In theory, electricity CAN be stockpiled by using excess
capacity to pump up reserviors - which can then be discharged
into little hydroelectric plants when the wind don't blow.
Of course the geography, physical and urban, has to be able
to support such an infrastructure. Won't work everywhere.
There are batteries, capacitors and gyroscopes also.
Batteries are no solution ... same for any kind of
capacitors even vaguely within the scope of current
technology.
Flywheels ain't the worst idea ... indeed I'd advocate
them - but only for home-scale applications.
The very easiest way to store power is as potential energy
in water. It's low tech and pretty efficient - and damned
cheap per kilowatt hour.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Depending on the
what and were you can store electricity with moderate efficiency.
Pumping water into a high reservoir offers above-moderate
efficiency.
Please set your clock to your local time zone. All your postings end up
two hours in the future.
And what do you think that means ? :-)
That is funny!!

Q
--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd
I M @ good guy
2009-12-26 12:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.B1ack
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by First Post
China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants
SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge
wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired
power plants need to be installed as well.
Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To
safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials
have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.
China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs
by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions
that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts
say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate
of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of
wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more
coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is
being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.
In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve
so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn't blow. This is
important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal,
which fuels two-thirds of China's electricity output. Wind energy
ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which
can be stockpiled at generators in advance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
   In theory, electricity CAN be stockpiled by using excess
   capacity to pump up reserviors - which can then be discharged
   into little hydroelectric plants when the wind don't blow.
   Of course the geography, physical and urban, has to be able
   to support such an infrastructure. Won't work everywhere.
There are batteries, capacitors and gyroscopes also.
Batteries are no solution ... same for any kind of
capacitors even vaguely within the scope of current
technology.
Do you understand Electric Vehicle technology,
batteries only need to store an hour or less, capacitors
only need to store 10 seconds but have to be charged
by regenerative braking.

It takes zero energy to move a car on level
ground other than rolling friction and wind drag,
which is less than 20 horsepower for most cars.
Post by Mr.B1ack
Flywheels ain't the worst idea ... indeed I'd advocate
them - but only for home-scale applications.
The very easiest way to store power is as potential energy
in water. It's low tech and pretty efficient - and damned
cheap per kilowatt hour.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Depending on the
what and were you can store electricity with moderate efficiency.
Pumping water into a high reservoir offers above-moderate
efficiency.
There are huge flow batteries now for power
companies, they can save the cost of adding a new
distribution line or upgrade.

But home energy is easier to manage than
transport, low grade geothermal is catching on,
it should be funded heavily by all governments.
Bruce Richmond
2009-12-26 18:35:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by First Post
China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants
SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge
wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired
power plants need to be installed as well.
Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To
safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials
have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.
China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs
by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions
that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts
say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate
of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of
wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more
coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is
being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.
In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve
so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn't blow. This is
important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal,
which fuels two-thirds of China's electricity output. Wind energy
ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which
can be stockpiled at generators in advance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
   In theory, electricity CAN be stockpiled by using excess
   capacity to pump up reserviors - which can then be discharged
   into little hydroelectric plants when the wind don't blow.
   Of course the geography, physical and urban, has to be able
   to support such an infrastructure. Won't work everywhere.
There are batteries, capacitors and gyroscopes also.
  Batteries are no solution ... same for any kind of
  capacitors even vaguely within the scope of current
  technology.
          Do you understand Electric Vehicle technology,
batteries only need to store an hour or less, capacitors
only need to store 10 seconds but have to be charged
by regenerative braking.
         It takes zero energy to move a car on level
ground other than rolling friction and wind drag,
which is less than 20 horsepower for most cars.
All true, but the discussion was about the storage of huge amounts of
energy from wind turbines or solar collectors so that it can be fed
back into the grid when needed. Without that ability wind and solar
can never be considered a primary source. Some other source would
need to be kept on standby for any shortfall.

Batteries have internal resistance and waste quite a bit of energy as
heat as they charge and discharge. They also have a limited number of
charge/discharge cycles before they need to be replaced at great
expense. Capacitors would be much more efficient and not need
replacement but controlling them is more difficult. Unlike batteries
that work at a near constant voltage capacitors store energy by
changing voltage. Current capacitors, even super capacitors would not
be practical for storing enough power to support the grid for any
length of time.
  Flywheels ain't the worst idea ... indeed I'd advocate
  them - but only for home-scale applications.
  The very easiest way to store power is as potential energy
  in water. It's low tech and pretty efficient - and damned
  cheap per kilowatt hour.
Yes, there is a hydro station not far from where I live that uses
power produced during off peak hours to pump water from the river up
to a man made lake. During peak hours the flow is reversed making the
pump a turbine and the power produced is added to that produced by the
turbines in the river. It is all very cost effective.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Depending on the
what and were you can store electricity with moderate efficiency.
  Pumping water into a high reservoir offers above-moderate
  efficiency.
            There are huge flow batteries now for power
companies, they can save the cost of adding a new
distribution line or upgrade.
            But home energy is easier to manage than
transport, low grade geothermal is catching on,
it should be funded heavily by all governments.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I M @ good guy
2009-12-27 00:38:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:35:14 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond
Post by Bruce Richmond
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by First Post
China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants
SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge
wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired
power plants need to be installed as well.
Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To
safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials
have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.
China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs
by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions
that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts
say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate
of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of
wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more
coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is
being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.
In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve
so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn't blow. This is
important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal,
which fuels two-thirds of China's electricity output. Wind energy
ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which
can be stockpiled at generators in advance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
   In theory, electricity CAN be stockpiled by using excess
   capacity to pump up reserviors - which can then be discharged
   into little hydroelectric plants when the wind don't blow.
   Of course the geography, physical and urban, has to be able
   to support such an infrastructure. Won't work everywhere.
There are batteries, capacitors and gyroscopes also.
  Batteries are no solution ... same for any kind of
  capacitors even vaguely within the scope of current
  technology.
          Do you understand Electric Vehicle technology,
batteries only need to store an hour or less, capacitors
only need to store 10 seconds but have to be charged
by regenerative braking.
         It takes zero energy to move a car on level
ground other than rolling friction and wind drag,
which is less than 20 horsepower for most cars.
All true, but the discussion was about the storage of huge amounts of
energy from wind turbines or solar collectors so that it can be fed
back into the grid when needed. Without that ability wind and solar
can never be considered a primary source. Some other source would
need to be kept on standby for any shortfall.
There are places where wind can be almost 24/7.

And solar is viable in much of the sunbelt,
but with any system a backup is a good idea,
in the last 16 months I was without grid power
more than 24 hours twice, some people were
without power two weeks.
Post by Bruce Richmond
Batteries have internal resistance and waste quite a bit of energy as
heat as they charge and discharge.
Not the "flow batteries" the power companies
use, they are not really batteries, they are more
like rechargeable fuel cells.
Post by Bruce Richmond
They also have a limited number of
charge/discharge cycles before they need to be replaced at great
expense.
Not so for the flow batteries, and all kinds
are being improved, Firefly Energy Oasis is lead
acid with an average 1,000 lifetime cycles or more.
Post by Bruce Richmond
Capacitors would be much more efficient and not need
replacement but controlling them is more difficult. Unlike batteries
that work at a near constant voltage capacitors store energy by
changing voltage. Current capacitors, even super capacitors would not
be practical for storing enough power to support the grid for any
length of time.
They aren't able to store more than 10 seconds
for an electric car, but that is enough to get up to
the speed limit.
Post by Bruce Richmond
  Flywheels ain't the worst idea ... indeed I'd advocate
  them - but only for home-scale applications.
  The very easiest way to store power is as potential energy
  in water. It's low tech and pretty efficient - and damned
  cheap per kilowatt hour.
Yes, there is a hydro station not far from where I live that uses
power produced during off peak hours to pump water from the river up
to a man made lake. During peak hours the flow is reversed making the
pump a turbine and the power produced is added to that produced by the
turbines in the river. It is all very cost effective.
That is better than building a fossil power
plant, my utility company is pleading for conservation
to avoid buying a turbine.

As I see it the government and big manufacturing
are not doing any of the things needed to begin to use
alternate energy, the hybrid car is at least double the
efficiency of a 20th century car on average, there has
been enough time to change to all hybrids.

And simple heat pumps are not available, they
are only available as an add-on to air conditioners,
but there are places that could use a heat pump
and never need A/C.

Simple water to air heat pump systems should
be in a low cost package to use shallow geothermal,
I think Fort Knox went to almost all geothermal,
some wells, some covered trenches, but whether
or not that was all custom designed, I don't know.


It is totally unreasonable for people in the
tropics to expect those in cold country to exist
with the same carbon footprint.
In fact, it is unreasonable for one country
to ask another to do anything until and unless
there is solid evidence that it is needed.
l***@gmail.com
2009-12-27 03:01:46 UTC
Permalink
         And solar is viable in much of the sunbelt,
but with any system a backup is a good idea,
in the last 16 months I was without grid power
more than 24 hours twice, some people were
without power two weeks.
• You will find yourself without power more and
more if your utility strings their lines on poles.
There is no reason why anyone need to be
subservient to the utilities wims.

• Everyone should replace their major appliances
with gas stoves, refrigerators, freezers and
furnaces. And for the lights & appliances with auto
start, a gas fired stand by generator in the garage.
If you don't have natural gas service to your door
get the biggest propane tank(s) you can afford.
This way you will never be in the dark and cold
I M @ good guy
2009-12-27 12:44:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@gmail.com
         And solar is viable in much of the sunbelt,
but with any system a backup is a good idea,
in the last 16 months I was without grid power
more than 24 hours twice, some people were
without power two weeks.
• You will find yourself without power more and
more if your utility strings their lines on poles.
There is no reason why anyone need to be
subservient to the utilities wims.
• Everyone should replace their major appliances
with gas stoves, refrigerators, freezers and
furnaces. And for the lights & appliances with auto
start, a gas fired stand by generator in the garage.
If you don't have natural gas service to your door
get the biggest propane tank(s) you can afford.
This way you will never be in the dark and cold
I bought the Williams Direct Vent 14,000
BTU per hour wall heater online at Home Depot
for certain reasons.

It is small enough it can't use more than
three ccf of gas per day, it does not need
electricity, it has a wall thermostat, and it
uses outside air for the flame.

In 1975 Somerset Pennsylvania had a
strange event, some how the main valve
for the whole town was closed, possibly
because a temporary drop in line pressure.

It took 3 days for crews from many
cities to turn off every meter, then go in
every building and make sure no stoves
were on (like the top burners on cook
stoves) before turning the meter on
and lighting the pilots.

Luckily the temperature was in the
middle 30s F. and not way below freezing.

But some good news;

http://www.co.westmoreland.pa.us/westmoreland/lib/westmoreland/idc/pdf/thegasboom.pdf

500 Trillion cubic feet?
Mr.B1ack
2009-12-27 11:43:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by I M @ good guy
Post by Mr.B1ack
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by First Post
China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants
SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge
wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired
power plants need to be installed as well.
Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To
safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials
have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.
China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs
by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions
that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts
say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate
of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of
wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more
coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is
being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.
In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve
so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn't blow. This is
important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal,
which fuels two-thirds of China's electricity output. Wind energy
ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which
can be stockpiled at generators in advance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
   In theory, electricity CAN be stockpiled by using excess
   capacity to pump up reserviors - which can then be discharged
   into little hydroelectric plants when the wind don't blow.
   Of course the geography, physical and urban, has to be able
   to support such an infrastructure. Won't work everywhere.
There are batteries, capacitors and gyroscopes also.
Batteries are no solution ... same for any kind of
capacitors even vaguely within the scope of current
technology.
Do you understand Electric Vehicle technology,
Absolutely. It's the technology that moves the
pollution to the coal-fired power plants at the
edge of town .........
Post by I M @ good guy
batteries only need to store an hour or less,
No ... they need to be able to cope with DAYS of
low winds or subdued sun.
Post by I M @ good guy
capacitors
only need to store 10 seconds but have to be charged
by regenerative braking.
You clearly misunderstand the problems with
the intermittent aspects of your favored
'alterantive' energy sources. Study up and
try again ...........
Post by I M @ good guy
It takes zero energy to move a car on level
ground other than rolling friction and wind drag,
which is less than 20 horsepower for most cars.
Rolling friction and wind drag are SERIOUS ...
Post by I M @ good guy
Post by Mr.B1ack
Flywheels ain't the worst idea ... indeed I'd advocate
them - but only for home-scale applications.
The very easiest way to store power is as potential energy
in water. It's low tech and pretty efficient - and damned
cheap per kilowatt hour.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Depending on the
what and were you can store electricity with moderate efficiency.
Pumping water into a high reservoir offers above-moderate
efficiency.
There are huge flow batteries now for power
companies, they can save the cost of adding a new
distribution line or upgrade.
Document please.

Oh yea ... you can't.

'Cause there are no such things.

Chemical batteries SUCK.
Post by I M @ good guy
But home energy is easier to manage than
transport, low grade geothermal is catching on,
it should be funded heavily by all governments.
Look up the phrase "thermodynamic efficiency".

Then look into geothermal ... and see how few places
can actually benifit.

Then look into the problems with geothermal ....

All of the 'alternatives' CAN contribute, but they
suffer from instability. Something has to fill in
the gaps. Alas, that's mostly gonna be coal.

Now MY favorite 'alternative' ... low-head hydroelectric -
tapping the vast power of large rivers. Scalable. Affordable.
I M @ good guy
2009-12-27 14:22:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.B1ack
Post by I M @ good guy
Post by Mr.B1ack
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by First Post
China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants
SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge
wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired
power plants need to be installed as well.
Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To
safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials
have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.
China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs
by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions
that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts
say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate
of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of
wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more
coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is
being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.
In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve
so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn't blow. This is
important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal,
which fuels two-thirds of China's electricity output. Wind energy
ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which
can be stockpiled at generators in advance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
   In theory, electricity CAN be stockpiled by using excess
   capacity to pump up reserviors - which can then be discharged
   into little hydroelectric plants when the wind don't blow.
   Of course the geography, physical and urban, has to be able
   to support such an infrastructure. Won't work everywhere.
There are batteries, capacitors and gyroscopes also.
Batteries are no solution ... same for any kind of
capacitors even vaguely within the scope of current
technology.
Do you understand Electric Vehicle technology,
Absolutely. It's the technology that moves the
pollution to the coal-fired power plants at the
edge of town .........
Post by I M @ good guy
batteries only need to store an hour or less,
No ... they need to be able to cope with DAYS of
low winds or subdued sun.
Post by I M @ good guy
capacitors
only need to store 10 seconds but have to be charged
by regenerative braking.
You clearly misunderstand the problems with
the intermittent aspects of your favored
'alterantive' energy sources. Study up and
try again ...........
Post by I M @ good guy
It takes zero energy to move a car on level
ground other than rolling friction and wind drag,
which is less than 20 horsepower for most cars.
Rolling friction and wind drag are SERIOUS ...
Post by I M @ good guy
Post by Mr.B1ack
Flywheels ain't the worst idea ... indeed I'd advocate
them - but only for home-scale applications.
The very easiest way to store power is as potential energy
in water. It's low tech and pretty efficient - and damned
cheap per kilowatt hour.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Depending on the
what and were you can store electricity with moderate efficiency.
Pumping water into a high reservoir offers above-moderate
efficiency.
There are huge flow batteries now for power
companies, they can save the cost of adding a new
distribution line or upgrade.
Document please.
Oh yea ... you can't.
'Cause there are no such things.
http://www.metaefficient.com/renewable-power/storing-sunshine-using-flow-batteries.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=flow+battery+australia&aq=8&oq=flow+batt&aqi=g10
Post by Mr.B1ack
Chemical batteries SUCK.
Post by I M @ good guy
But home energy is easier to manage than
transport, low grade geothermal is catching on,
it should be funded heavily by all governments.
Look up the phrase "thermodynamic efficiency".
Then look into geothermal ... and see how few places
can actually benifit.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/10/06/energy-geothermal-biz-energy_cz_ch_1009geothermal_energy06.html
Post by Mr.B1ack
Then look into the problems with geothermal ....
All of the 'alternatives' CAN contribute, but they
suffer from instability. Something has to fill in
the gaps. Alas, that's mostly gonna be coal.
So, the US has at least 800 years worth,
plus that much more in natural gas and hard
to extract oil.
Post by Mr.B1ack
Now MY favorite 'alternative' ... low-head hydroelectric -
tapping the vast power of large rivers. Scalable. Affordable.
There isn't much there, when it gets good
after a rain there is lots of dead wood debris.

No one alternative source will do it, but
all together will extend the fossil use time,
maybe inertial containment fusion will save
the necessity of moving toward the equator.
lorad
2009-12-27 14:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by First Post
China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants
SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge
wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired
power plants need to be installed as well.
Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To
safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials
have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.
China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs
by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions
that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts
say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate
of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of
wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more
coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is
being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.
In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve
so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn't blow. This is
important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal,
which fuels two-thirds of China's electricity output. Wind energy
ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which
can be stockpiled at generators in advance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
   In theory, electricity CAN be stockpiled by using excess
   capacity to pump up reserviors - which can then be discharged
   into little hydroelectric plants when the wind don't blow.
   Of course the geography, physical and urban, has to be able
   to support such an infrastructure. Won't work everywhere.
There are batteries, capacitors and gyroscopes also.
  Batteries are no solution ... same for any kind of
  capacitors even vaguely within the scope of current
  technology.
         Do you understand Electric Vehicle technology,
  Absolutely. It's the technology that moves the
  pollution to the coal-fired power plants at the
  edge of town .........
batteries only need to store an hour or less,
  No ... they need to be able to cope with DAYS of
  low winds or subdued sun.
capacitors
only need to store 10 seconds but have to be charged
by regenerative braking.
  You clearly misunderstand the problems with
  the intermittent aspects of your favored
  'alterantive' energy sources. Study up and
  try again ...........
        It takes zero energy to move a car on level
ground other than rolling friction and wind drag,
which is less than 20 horsepower for most cars.
  Rolling friction and wind drag are SERIOUS ...
  Flywheels ain't the worst idea ... indeed I'd advocate
  them - but only for home-scale applications.
  The very easiest way to store power is as potential energy
  in water. It's low tech and pretty efficient - and damned
  cheap per kilowatt hour.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Depending on the
what and were you can store electricity with moderate efficiency.
  Pumping water into a high reservoir offers above-moderate
  efficiency.
           There are huge flow batteries now for power
companies, they can save the cost of adding a new
distribution line or upgrade.
  Document please.
  Oh yea ... you can't.
  'Cause there are no such things.
http://www.metaefficient.com/renewable-power/storing-sunshine-using-f...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=flow+battery+australia...
  Chemical batteries SUCK.
           But home energy is easier to manage than
transport, low grade geothermal is catching on,
it should be funded heavily by all governments.
  Look up the phrase "thermodynamic efficiency".
  Then look into geothermal ... and see how few places
  can actually benifit.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/10/06/energy-geothermal-biz-energy_cz_ch_1...
  Then look into the problems with geothermal ....
  All of the 'alternatives' CAN contribute, but they
  suffer from instability. Something has to fill in
  the gaps. Alas, that's mostly gonna be coal.
         So, the US has at least 800 years worth,
plus that much more in natural gas and hard
to extract oil.
  Now MY favorite 'alternative' ... low-head hydroelectric -
  tapping the vast power of large rivers. Scalable. Affordable.
        There isn't much there, when it gets good
after a rain there is lots of dead wood debris.
        No one alternative source will do it, but
all together will extend the fossil use time,
maybe inertial containment fusion will save
the necessity of moving toward the equator.
Natural gas is a good fail-safe source of energy for the US... which
must be why all the big crude oil companies are buying up natural gas
reserves like there ain't no tomorrow.

Trouble is.. that natural gas comes out of the earth - and then goes
into the atmosphere... which most people recognize to be a no-no.
I M @ good guy
2009-12-27 22:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by lorad
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by First Post
China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants
SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge
wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired
power plants need to be installed as well.
Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To
safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials
have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.
China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs
by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions
that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts
say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate
of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of
wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more
coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is
being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.
In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve
so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn't blow. This is
important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal,
which fuels two-thirds of China's electricity output. Wind energy
ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which
can be stockpiled at generators in advance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
   In theory, electricity CAN be stockpiled by using excess
   capacity to pump up reserviors - which can then be discharged
   into little hydroelectric plants when the wind don't blow.
   Of course the geography, physical and urban, has to be able
   to support such an infrastructure. Won't work everywhere.
There are batteries, capacitors and gyroscopes also.
  Batteries are no solution ... same for any kind of
  capacitors even vaguely within the scope of current
  technology.
         Do you understand Electric Vehicle technology,
  Absolutely. It's the technology that moves the
  pollution to the coal-fired power plants at the
  edge of town .........
batteries only need to store an hour or less,
  No ... they need to be able to cope with DAYS of
  low winds or subdued sun.
capacitors
only need to store 10 seconds but have to be charged
by regenerative braking.
  You clearly misunderstand the problems with
  the intermittent aspects of your favored
  'alterantive' energy sources. Study up and
  try again ...........
        It takes zero energy to move a car on level
ground other than rolling friction and wind drag,
which is less than 20 horsepower for most cars.
  Rolling friction and wind drag are SERIOUS ...
  Flywheels ain't the worst idea ... indeed I'd advocate
  them - but only for home-scale applications.
  The very easiest way to store power is as potential energy
  in water. It's low tech and pretty efficient - and damned
  cheap per kilowatt hour.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Depending on the
what and were you can store electricity with moderate efficiency.
  Pumping water into a high reservoir offers above-moderate
  efficiency.
           There are huge flow batteries now for power
companies, they can save the cost of adding a new
distribution line or upgrade.
  Document please.
  Oh yea ... you can't.
  'Cause there are no such things.
http://www.metaefficient.com/renewable-power/storing-sunshine-using-f...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=flow+battery+australia...
  Chemical batteries SUCK.
           But home energy is easier to manage than
transport, low grade geothermal is catching on,
it should be funded heavily by all governments.
  Look up the phrase "thermodynamic efficiency".
  Then look into geothermal ... and see how few places
  can actually benifit.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/10/06/energy-geothermal-biz-energy_cz_ch_1...
  Then look into the problems with geothermal ....
  All of the 'alternatives' CAN contribute, but they
  suffer from instability. Something has to fill in
  the gaps. Alas, that's mostly gonna be coal.
         So, the US has at least 800 years worth,
plus that much more in natural gas and hard
to extract oil.
  Now MY favorite 'alternative' ... low-head hydroelectric -
  tapping the vast power of large rivers. Scalable. Affordable.
        There isn't much there, when it gets good
after a rain there is lots of dead wood debris.
        No one alternative source will do it, but
all together will extend the fossil use time,
maybe inertial containment fusion will save
the necessity of moving toward the equator.
Natural gas is a good fail-safe source of energy for the US... which
must be why all the big crude oil companies are buying up natural gas
reserves like there ain't no tomorrow.
Trouble is.. that natural gas comes out of the earth - and then goes
into the atmosphere... which most people recognize to be a no-no.
But it is less of a carbon problem, it is cleaner,
many people heat part of the house with top
burners on kitchen stoves, that must suggest
it is a lot cleaner than any other fuel besides
hydrogen.

I am still trying to relate the possible
500 Trillion cubic feet PA field to the present
energy situation, that may initiate a new
program of gasoline production in Pennsylvania,
with both coal and natural gas available locally
to feed GTL and CTL plants that can produce
any fuel or fertilizer or plastics, and many
chemicals.

I knew relatives that had gas wells drilled
on their farms in the 1960s and 1970s but
they were capped, but the new field may
be deeper.
VFW
2009-12-27 23:43:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by I M @ good guy
batteries only need to store an hour or less,
  No ... they need to be able to cope with DAYS of
  low winds or subdued sun.
the new collectors are now in a flexible substrate that can conform to
the shape of a car roof. and charging stations at work could be a good
idea.
It's amazing what you can if you put your mind to it.
at least if you maintain positivity .
OK?
--
Hint; Enjoy the moment !
I M @ good guy
2009-12-28 03:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by VFW
Post by I M @ good guy
batteries only need to store an hour or less,
  No ... they need to be able to cope with DAYS of
  low winds or subdued sun.
the new collectors are now in a flexible substrate that can conform to
the shape of a car roof. and charging stations at work could be a good
idea.
It's amazing what you can if you put your mind to it.
at least if you maintain positivity .
OK?
The response to my sentence about car batteries
above seemed to be more about solar or wind systems,
but I didn't want to get into that.

The first job I had in a garage was working on
electric bakery trucks during WWII, and I don't
understand the claim now of how difficult it is
to build electric vehicles now.

With solid state electronics it should be
a lot easier, I did not see the motor controller
on the trucks, I don't think it was a rheostat,
as it would have been massive, it may have
been a switch that only used part of the
batteries for low speed.

It costs a lot for the motor and controller
now, I consider the battery problem minor
if the batteries are easy to get at, easy to
check for dead cells, and easy to replace.
But auto engineers like to hide them
where they aren't even noticed as long
as the car runs ok.

The US has the factories, the man power,
but lacks the leadership to initiate the
program needed to get new battery
technology in mass production and a
big outright grant to low income and
retired people to buy electric cars or
better yet, conversions.

There are kits available for the S-10,
and a few others, that should be a good
starting point, but everybody seems
brainwashed into thinking every car
should be able to travel freeways
cross country.
Mr.B1ack
2009-12-28 14:04:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by lorad
Natural gas is a good fail-safe source of energy for the US... which
must be why all the big crude oil companies are buying up natural gas
reserves like there ain't no tomorrow.
Trouble is.. that natural gas comes out of the earth - and then goes
into the atmosphere... which most people recognize to be a no-no.
It's also 'fossil' carbon.

And yes, there IS a 'leakage' issue too.
'Natural gas' is mostly methane - which is
something like 40 times as strong a greenhouse
gas than CO2.

And goog "gas leak" + "explosion" too while
your at it and see how many hits you get.
Not exactly the safest fuel. I'd never live
in a house with gas appliances. Literally a
bomb waiting to go off ... especially after
your Chinese drywall corrodes the pipes :-)

Now for generating electricity at some plant
outside of town ... it's OK. It can also be
supplimented in that role with hydrogen
generated by solar/tide/wave/wind units
(think "H-10" gas ... 10% added hydrogen)
which is the best use for that element
rather than trying to put it into rolling
vehicles.
Raving Rabb1t
2009-12-28 14:21:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.B1ack
Post by lorad
Natural gas is a good fail-safe source of energy for the US... which
must be why all the big crude oil companies are buying up natural gas
reserves like there ain't no tomorrow.
Trouble is.. that natural gas comes out of the earth - and then goes
into the atmosphere... which most people recognize to be a no-no.
It's also 'fossil' carbon.
And yes, there IS a 'leakage' issue too.
'Natural gas' is mostly methane - which is
something like 40 times as strong a greenhouse
gas than CO2.
And goog "gas leak" + "explosion" too while
your at it and see how many hits you get.
Not exactly the safest fuel. I'd never live
in a house with gas appliances. Literally a
bomb waiting to go off ... especially after
your Chinese drywall corrodes the pipes :-)
Come on, just as there are smoke detectors you also have carbonmonoxide
and methanedetectors. I have them next to each other in the basement.
Furthermore the gas company permanently checks for leaks in their
network. As a result you only see a few gas explosions per year in this
country.

Q
Post by Mr.B1ack
Now for generating electricity at some plant
outside of town ... it's OK. It can also be
supplimented in that role with hydrogen
generated by solar/tide/wave/wind units
(think "H-10" gas ... 10% added hydrogen)
which is the best use for that element
rather than trying to put it into rolling
vehicles.
--
The raving rabbit follows AGW deniers
Mr.B1ack
2009-12-28 15:59:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raving Rabb1t
Post by Mr.B1ack
Post by lorad
Natural gas is a good fail-safe source of energy for the US... which
must be why all the big crude oil companies are buying up natural gas
reserves like there ain't no tomorrow.
Trouble is.. that natural gas comes out of the earth - and then goes
into the atmosphere... which most people recognize to be a no-no.
It's also 'fossil' carbon.
And yes, there IS a 'leakage' issue too.
'Natural gas' is mostly methane - which is
something like 40 times as strong a greenhouse
gas than CO2.
And goog "gas leak" + "explosion" too while
you're at it and see how many hits you get.
Not exactly the safest fuel. I'd never live
in a house with gas appliances. Literally a
bomb waiting to go off ... especially after
your Chinese drywall corrodes the pipes :-)
Come on, just as there are smoke detectors you also have carbonmonoxide
and methanedetectors. I have them next to each other in the basement.
Furthermore the gas company permanently checks for leaks in their
network. As a result you only see a few gas explosions per year in this
country.
Fallen for their propaganda I see ...

The leak will never be where you put the
leak detector - or the detector will be
defective. Murphys Law.

Really though, just wait until the Chinese
drywall does its work. KaBoom ! :-)

Let the power company burn the gas and send
you electricity for heating/cooling instead.
The further your house is from highly flammable
gasses the better.
Last Post
2009-12-28 17:10:11 UTC
Permalink
   The leak will never be where you put the
   leak detector - or the detector will be
   defective. Murphys Law.
   Really though, just wait until the Chinese
   drywall does its work. KaBoom !  :-)
   Let the power company burn the gas and send
   you electricity for heating/cooling instead.
   The further your house is from highly flammable
   gasses the better.    
• Nonsense
Mr.B1ack
2009-12-28 19:20:37 UTC
Permalink
   The leak will never be where you put the
   leak detector - or the detector will be
   defective. Murphys Law.
   Really though, just wait until the Chinese
   drywall does its work. KaBoom !  :-)
   Let the power company burn the gas and send
   you electricity for heating/cooling instead.
   The further your house is from highly flammable
   gasses the better.    
• Nonsense
Add me to your life insurance policy, OK ?

And keep listening for that quiet "ssssssss..."
in-between the walls .... :-)
Rav1ng rabbit
2009-12-28 20:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.B1ack
Post by Raving Rabb1t
Post by Mr.B1ack
Post by lorad
Natural gas is a good fail-safe source of energy for the US... which
must be why all the big crude oil companies are buying up natural gas
reserves like there ain't no tomorrow.
Trouble is.. that natural gas comes out of the earth - and then goes
into the atmosphere... which most people recognize to be a no-no.
It's also 'fossil' carbon.
And yes, there IS a 'leakage' issue too.
'Natural gas' is mostly methane - which is
something like 40 times as strong a greenhouse
gas than CO2.
And goog "gas leak" + "explosion" too while
you're at it and see how many hits you get.
Not exactly the safest fuel. I'd never live
in a house with gas appliances. Literally a
bomb waiting to go off ... especially after
your Chinese drywall corrodes the pipes :-)
Come on, just as there are smoke detectors you also have carbonmonoxide
and methanedetectors. I have them next to each other in the basement.
Furthermore the gas company permanently checks for leaks in their
network. As a result you only see a few gas explosions per year in this
country.
Fallen for their propaganda I see ...
The leak will never be where you put the
leak detector - or the detector will be
defective. Murphys Law.
Really though, just wait until the Chinese
drywall does its work. KaBoom ! :-)
Let the power company burn the gas and send
you electricity for heating/cooling instead.
The further your house is from highly flammable
gasses the better.
It is pretty expensive to heat your house with electricity here, so
nobody does it like that.

Moreover, why do you want to waste all that energy first by burning the
fuels in a power plant, then to transport it through a grid and then to
convert it back to heat (or cold) again in your home?

Why not burn it directly at home? That saves a couple of heat losses
here and there.

There is another trick they have in this city, heat pipes with running
water. The source are industries who would otherwise dump their
calories. Unfortunately it does not reach my city block.

Q
--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd
Mr.B1ack
2009-12-28 13:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by I M @ good guy
Post by Mr.B1ack
Post by I M @ good guy
Post by Mr.B1ack
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by First Post
China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants
SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge
wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired
power plants need to be installed as well.
Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To
safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials
have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.
China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs
by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions
that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts
say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate
of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of
wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more
coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is
being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.
In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve
so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn't blow. This is
important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal,
which fuels two-thirds of China's electricity output. Wind energy
ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which
can be stockpiled at generators in advance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
   In theory, electricity CAN be stockpiled by using excess
   capacity to pump up reserviors - which can then be discharged
   into little hydroelectric plants when the wind don't blow.
   Of course the geography, physical and urban, has to be able
   to support such an infrastructure. Won't work everywhere.
There are batteries, capacitors and gyroscopes also.
Batteries are no solution ... same for any kind of
capacitors even vaguely within the scope of current
technology.
Do you understand Electric Vehicle technology,
Absolutely. It's the technology that moves the
pollution to the coal-fired power plants at the
edge of town .........
Post by I M @ good guy
batteries only need to store an hour or less,
No ... they need to be able to cope with DAYS of
low winds or subdued sun.
Post by I M @ good guy
capacitors
only need to store 10 seconds but have to be charged
by regenerative braking.
You clearly misunderstand the problems with
the intermittent aspects of your favored
'alterantive' energy sources. Study up and
try again ...........
Post by I M @ good guy
It takes zero energy to move a car on level
ground other than rolling friction and wind drag,
which is less than 20 horsepower for most cars.
Rolling friction and wind drag are SERIOUS ...
Post by I M @ good guy
Post by Mr.B1ack
Flywheels ain't the worst idea ... indeed I'd advocate
them - but only for home-scale applications.
The very easiest way to store power is as potential energy
in water. It's low tech and pretty efficient - and damned
cheap per kilowatt hour.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Depending on the
what and were you can store electricity with moderate efficiency.
Pumping water into a high reservoir offers above-moderate
efficiency.
There are huge flow batteries now for power
companies, they can save the cost of adding a new
distribution line or upgrade.
Document please.
Oh yea ... you can't.
'Cause there are no such things.
http://www.metaefficient.com/renewable-power/storing-sunshine-using-flow-batteries.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=flow+battery+australia&aq=8&oq=flow+batt&aqi=g10
Post by Mr.B1ack
Chemical batteries SUCK.
Post by I M @ good guy
But home energy is easier to manage than
transport, low grade geothermal is catching on,
it should be funded heavily by all governments.
Look up the phrase "thermodynamic efficiency".
Then look into geothermal ... and see how few places
can actually benifit.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/10/06/energy-geothermal-biz-energy_cz_ch_1009geothermal_energy06.html
Post by Mr.B1ack
Then look into the problems with geothermal ....
All of the 'alternatives' CAN contribute, but they
suffer from instability. Something has to fill in
the gaps. Alas, that's mostly gonna be coal.
So, the US has at least 800 years worth,
plus that much more in natural gas and hard
to extract oil.
Yep, the USA is practically made of coal.

MINOR issues though ...

1) 'fossil' carbon = excess CO2
2) heavy metals
3) sulfur / sulfates / H2SO4
4) microparticulates
Post by I M @ good guy
Post by Mr.B1ack
Now MY favorite 'alternative' ... low-head hydroelectric -
tapping the vast power of large rivers. Scalable. Affordable.
There isn't much there, when it gets good
after a rain there is lots of dead wood debris.
Gotta pick yer spots.

And some 'paddlewheel' designs can survive
a moderate amount of 'trash'.

Regardless, the energy potential is *vast* and
the modular add-as-needed approach using river-
tapping barges spreads out infrastructure costs.

A "real", traditional, hydro setup with a dam
and reservoir has extreme up-front costs (and
the potential for extreme downstream damage if
the dam ever fails).

The trade-off is thermodynamic efficiency. Low-
speed high-volume systems don't convert as much
kenetic energy into electrical energy. BUT - the
hardware is quite cheap ...
Post by I M @ good guy
No one alternative source will do it, but
all together will extend the fossil use time,
All 'alternatives' combined can indeed cut the need
for fossil carbon fuels considerably. Of course not
all alternatives are suited for every locale and
situation. Not all will EVER pay for themselves
either.

This all seems irrelevant until you consider that
the actual policy and dealings involve lots of
fanatics, ideologues and profiteers. This guarentees
piss-poor development and implementation of the
alternatives. The anti-nuke nuts will block nuke
plants, even where they're most appropriate. The
windmill nuts will want to put windmills where the
wind don't blow (and/or where hated 'rich people'
will be annoyed by them). Solar nuts want to
put solar farms in Seattle where the sun don't
shine - and everybody wants THEIR favorite
alternative to take precedence over all others.

So, in the real world, the problem is often less
the technology than it is the *politics* involved
in such big-dollar projects.
Post by I M @ good guy
maybe inertial containment fusion will save
the necessity of moving toward the equator.
They've been working on fusion for a LONG time
now ... best minds, big bucks .... nada. They
can barely break even energywise - and only in
second-long spurts.

Fusion, at least the practical kind, also generates
a horiffic neutron flux that damages the apparatus
and generates radioactive isotopes. The "better"
kind of fusion requies helium-3 ... which is all
but non-existent on earth. Some have proposed
mining lunar soil for it. Apparently they think
money is free ....

Now me ... I'd like to see work on a genetically-
altered bacteria that turns bio-goop into isopropanol
rather than ethanol. Why ? Because purifying ethanol
is energy intensive - you're lucky to break even
energywise. How do you get the water out of isopropanol ?
You just run it through common salt ... which sticks
to the water but not the alcohol. Then you can sun
dry the salt and use it again.
Bruce Richmond
2009-12-30 03:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by First Post
China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants
SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge
wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired
power plants need to be installed as well.
Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To
safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials
have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.
China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs
by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions
that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts
say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate
of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of
wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more
coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is
being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.
In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve
so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn't blow. This is
important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal,
which fuels two-thirds of China's electricity output. Wind energy
ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which
can be stockpiled at generators in advance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
   In theory, electricity CAN be stockpiled by using excess
   capacity to pump up reserviors - which can then be discharged
   into little hydroelectric plants when the wind don't blow.
   Of course the geography, physical and urban, has to be able
   to support such an infrastructure. Won't work everywhere.
There are batteries, capacitors and gyroscopes also.
  Batteries are no solution ... same for any kind of
  capacitors even vaguely within the scope of current
  technology.
         Do you understand Electric Vehicle technology,
  Absolutely. It's the technology that moves the
  pollution to the coal-fired power plants at the
  edge of town .........
batteries only need to store an hour or less,
  No ... they need to be able to cope with DAYS of
  low winds or subdued sun.
capacitors
only need to store 10 seconds but have to be charged
by regenerative braking.
  You clearly misunderstand the problems with
  the intermittent aspects of your favored
  'alterantive' energy sources. Study up and
  try again ...........
        It takes zero energy to move a car on level
ground other than rolling friction and wind drag,
which is less than 20 horsepower for most cars.
  Rolling friction and wind drag are SERIOUS ...
  Flywheels ain't the worst idea ... indeed I'd advocate
  them - but only for home-scale applications.
  The very easiest way to store power is as potential energy
  in water. It's low tech and pretty efficient - and damned
  cheap per kilowatt hour.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Depending on the
what and were you can store electricity with moderate efficiency.
  Pumping water into a high reservoir offers above-moderate
  efficiency.
           There are huge flow batteries now for power
companies, they can save the cost of adding a new
distribution line or upgrade.
  Document please.
  Oh yea ... you can't.
  'Cause there are no such things.
http://www.metaefficient.com/renewable-power/storing-sunshine-using-f...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=flow+battery+australia...
  Chemical batteries SUCK.
           But home energy is easier to manage than
transport, low grade geothermal is catching on,
it should be funded heavily by all governments.
  Look up the phrase "thermodynamic efficiency".
  Then look into geothermal ... and see how few places
  can actually benifit.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/10/06/energy-geothermal-biz-energy_cz_ch_1...
  Then look into the problems with geothermal ....
  All of the 'alternatives' CAN contribute, but they
  suffer from instability. Something has to fill in
  the gaps. Alas, that's mostly gonna be coal.
        So, the US has at least 800 years worth,
plus that much more in natural gas and hard
to extract oil.
   Yep, the USA is practically made of coal.
   MINOR issues though ...
   1) 'fossil' carbon = excess CO2
   2) heavy metals
   3) sulfur / sulfates / H2SO4
   4) microparticulates
  Now MY favorite 'alternative' ... low-head hydroelectric -
  tapping the vast power of large rivers. Scalable. Affordable.
       There isn't much there, when it gets good
after a rain there is lots of dead wood debris.
   Gotta pick yer spots.
   And some 'paddlewheel' designs can survive
   a moderate amount of 'trash'.
   Regardless, the energy potential is *vast* and
   the modular add-as-needed approach using river-
   tapping barges spreads out infrastructure costs.
   A "real", traditional, hydro setup with a dam
   and reservoir has extreme up-front costs (and
   the potential for extreme downstream damage if
   the dam ever fails).
   The trade-off is thermodynamic efficiency. Low-
   speed high-volume systems don't convert as much
   kenetic energy into electrical energy. BUT - the
   hardware is quite cheap ...
It is also more friendly to the enviorment. There are hydro dams 30
miles north of my house and 10 miles south. For years they kept their
flow rates fairly constant throughout the day because there aren't any
lakes behind the dams to store water. When they hold the water back
it causes rapid changes in the water level of the river, which causes
bank erosion among other things. But every now and then they try
holding water back during off peak hours so they have more for peak
hours. With the low head hydro you are talking about that shouldn't
happen.
       No one alternative source will do it, but
all together will extend the fossil use time,
   All 'alternatives' combined can indeed cut the need
   for fossil carbon fuels considerably. Of course not
   all alternatives are suited for every locale and
   situation. Not all will EVER pay for themselves
   either.
   This all seems irrelevant until you consider that
   the actual policy and dealings involve lots of
   fanatics, ideologues and profiteers. This guarentees
   piss-poor development and implementation of the
   alternatives. The anti-nuke nuts will block nuke
   plants, even where they're most appropriate. The
   windmill nuts will want to put windmills where the
   wind don't blow (and/or where hated 'rich people'
   will be annoyed by them). Solar nuts want to
   put solar farms in Seattle where the sun don't
   shine - and everybody wants THEIR favorite
   alternative to take precedence over all others.
   So, in the real world, the problem is often less
   the technology than it is the *politics* involved
   in such big-dollar projects.
maybe inertial containment fusion will save
the necessity of moving toward the equator.
   They've been working on fusion for a LONG time
   now ... best minds, big bucks .... nada. They
   can barely break even energywise - and only in
   second-long spurts.
   Fusion, at least the practical kind, also generates
   a horiffic neutron flux that damages the apparatus
   and generates radioactive isotopes. The "better"
   kind of fusion requies helium-3 ... which is all
   but non-existent on earth. Some have proposed
   mining lunar soil for it. Apparently they think
   money is free ....
   Now me ... I'd like to see work on a genetically-
   altered bacteria that turns bio-goop into isopropanol
   rather than ethanol. Why ? Because purifying ethanol
   is energy intensive - you're lucky to break even
   energywise. How do you get the water out of isopropanol ?
   You just run it through common salt ... which sticks
   to the water but not the alcohol. Then you can sun
   dry the salt and use it again.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Bruce Richmond
2009-12-30 03:15:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Post by First Post
China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants
SHANGHAI—China's ambition to create "green cities" powered by huge
wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired
power plants need to be installed as well.
Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To
safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials
have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.
China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs
by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions
that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts
say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate
of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of
wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more
coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is
being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.
In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve
so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn't blow. This is
important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal,
which fuels two-thirds of China's electricity output. Wind energy
ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which
can be stockpiled at generators in advance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
   In theory, electricity CAN be stockpiled by using excess
   capacity to pump up reserviors - which can then be discharged
   into little hydroelectric plants when the wind don't blow.
   Of course the geography, physical and urban, has to be able
   to support such an infrastructure. Won't work everywhere.
There are batteries, capacitors and gyroscopes also.
  Batteries are no solution ... same for any kind of
  capacitors even vaguely within the scope of current
  technology.
         Do you understand Electric Vehicle technology,
  Absolutely. It's the technology that moves the
  pollution to the coal-fired power plants at the
  edge of town .........
batteries only need to store an hour or less,
  No ... they need to be able to cope with DAYS of
  low winds or subdued sun.
capacitors
only need to store 10 seconds but have to be charged
by regenerative braking.
  You clearly misunderstand the problems with
  the intermittent aspects of your favored
  'alterantive' energy sources. Study up and
  try again ...........
        It takes zero energy to move a car on level
ground other than rolling friction and wind drag,
which is less than 20 horsepower for most cars.
  Rolling friction and wind drag are SERIOUS ...
  Flywheels ain't the worst idea ... indeed I'd advocate
  them - but only for home-scale applications.
  The very easiest way to store power is as potential energy
  in water. It's low tech and pretty efficient - and damned
  cheap per kilowatt hour.
Post by Kevin Cunningham
Depending on the
what and were you can store electricity with moderate efficiency.
  Pumping water into a high reservoir offers above-moderate
  efficiency.
           There are huge flow batteries now for power
companies, they can save the cost of adding a new
distribution line or upgrade.
  Document please.
  Oh yea ... you can't.
  'Cause there are no such things.
http://www.metaefficient.com/renewable-power/storing-sunshine-using-f...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=flow+battery+australia...
  Chemical batteries SUCK.
           But home energy is easier to manage than
transport, low grade geothermal is catching on,
it should be funded heavily by all governments.
  Look up the phrase "thermodynamic efficiency".
  Then look into geothermal ... and see how few places
  can actually benifit.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/10/06/energy-geothermal-biz-energy_cz_ch_1...
One of my favorite examples of geothermal power is here

http://www.yourownpower.com/Power/

It is a system built primarily of equipment from air conditioners
which is less expensive than traditional power plant equipment.
Another attractive feature is that the geothermal heat doesn't have to
be as hot as most systems. Being able to use such low temp sources
opens up a lot of areas for development. In this case the input is
only 165 F degrees, and as with most geothermal plants it runs 24/7.
  Then look into the problems with geothermal ....
  All of the 'alternatives' CAN contribute, but they
  suffer from instability. Something has to fill in
  the gaps. Alas, that's mostly gonna be coal.
         So, the US has at least 800 years worth,
plus that much more in natural gas and hard
to extract oil.
  Now MY favorite 'alternative' ... low-head hydroelectric -
  tapping the vast power of large rivers. Scalable. Affordable.
        There isn't much there, when it gets good
after a rain there is lots of dead wood debris.
        No one alternative source will do it, but
all together will extend the fossil use time,
maybe inertial containment fusion will save
the necessity of moving toward the equator.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Last Post
2010-01-05 17:47:36 UTC
Permalink
        There isn't much there, when it gets good
after a rain there is lots of dead wood debris.
        No one alternative source will do it, but
all together will extend the fossil use time,
maybe inertial containment fusion will save
the necessity of moving toward the equator.
• All of the 'alternative sources' will never
amount to 10% of all capacity and only those
in areas remote from power grids will survive
20 years.

• A major thermal project in California, was
scrapped because it was found to be close to
a fault and an earthquake would be a disaster.

• Solar works well in the desert AKA Arizona
but it is playing havoc on the flora and fauna.

• I have sun days for western areas from the
Interior department. [Google will provide]
There are precious few that have as many as
60 sun days in a year. Now the solar salesmen
are like the old snake oil bunch. They say that
sun sends radiative heat through the clouds.
That is a crock. Tyndall, in 1850 proved that
water does 'not' absorb radiative heat. However
Infared does. A poster in Portland (60 days)
it doesn't matter. He works all day so when the
sun shines his meter winds backward and
makes a significant bite out of his electric bill.
I wonder what he does with the snow.

• However, coal, petroleum and natural gas, burn
clean, emit no pollutants, and are sustainable.
Cheaper too! In part, the cost of the fuel is offset
in part by the by-products— lubricants,
pharmaceuticals, plastics, steel, rubber, etc

• Before you ask it — NO! CO2 is not a 'pollutant'
neither does it have any influence on climate.
It is a fertilizer without which nothing on this
planet will live

— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena

l***@gmail.com
2009-12-26 02:27:23 UTC
Permalink
   In theory, electricity CAN be stockpiled by using excess
   capacity to pump up reserviors - which can then be discharged
   into little hydroelectric plants when the wind don't blow.
   Of course the geography, physical and urban, has to be able
   to support such an infrastructure. Won't work everywhere.
# No!!!
Wind power is only viable when it is
remote from any grid.

— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Möbius Pretzel
2009-12-26 02:11:02 UTC
Permalink
Ever try setting a wall street banker on fire?
lorad
2009-12-26 04:35:47 UTC
Permalink
There Is Currently No Substitute For Fossil Fuels
Of coyurse there is... agriculturally manufactured ethanol and
biodiesel.
Last Post
2009-12-26 05:21:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by lorad
There Is Currently No Substitute For Fossil Fuels
Of coyurse there is... agriculturally manufactured ethanol and
biodiesel.
• Only with heavy subsidization which
will come out of the user's pockets.

— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
lorad
2009-12-26 23:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Last Post
Post by lorad
There Is Currently No Substitute For Fossil Fuels
Of coyurse there is... agriculturally manufactured ethanol and
biodiesel.
• Only with heavy subsidization which
     will come out of the user's pockets.
That's incorrect.
As of two years ago the profit point on ethanol was at $1.38.
l***@gmail.com
2009-12-27 02:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by lorad
Post by Last Post
• Only with heavy subsidization which
     will come out of the user's pockets.
That's incorrect.
As of two years ago the profit point on ethanol was at $1.38.
• You are forgetting the huge federal subsidies
Bruce Richmond
2009-12-26 17:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by lorad
There Is Currently No Substitute For Fossil Fuels
Of coyurse there is... agriculturally manufactured ethanol and
biodiesel.
BZZZZT!!! Wrong answer.

Not enough to come close to covering our current useage. Corn ethanol
has shown itself to be a quick way of converting oil into ethanol
while reducing the food supply. When they work out a way to use grass
or some other non-food stock that doesn't need to be fertilized/
cultivated and find a way to process it without using other fuels then
you will have something that might be a partial solution.
lorad
2009-12-26 23:46:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by lorad
There Is Currently No Substitute For Fossil Fuels
Of coyurse there is... agriculturally manufactured ethanol and
biodiesel.
BZZZZT!!!  Wrong answer.
Not enough to come close to covering our current useage.  Corn ethanol
has shown itself to be a quick way of converting oil into ethanol
while reducing the food supply.  When they work out a way to use grass
or some other non-food stock that doesn't need to be fertilized/
cultivated and find a way to process it without using other fuels then
you will have something that might be a partial solution.
BONG BONG BONG! RIGHT ANSWER!

To:' There Is Currently No Substitute For Fossil Fuels '... except for
ETHANOL.

9 Billion gallons of ethanol were produced in 2008.. that's 180
million barrels.. which comes to 90 days of the US' total usage..
Multiply that by 4 and you get rid of any needed importation of
terrorist-funding oil.

PS: Not only did US ethanol production increase... but US grain
exports increased at the same time.
Monkey Clumps
2009-12-27 00:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by lorad
There Is Currently No Substitute For Fossil Fuels
Of coyurse there is... agriculturally manufactured ethanol and
biodiesel.
BZZZZT!!!  Wrong answer.
Not enough to come close to covering our current useage.  Corn ethanol
has shown itself to be a quick way of converting oil into ethanol
while reducing the food supply.  When they work out a way to use grass
or some other non-food stock that doesn't need to be fertilized/
cultivated and find a way to process it without using other fuels then
you will have something that might be a partial solution.
BONG BONG BONG!   RIGHT ANSWER!
To:' There Is Currently No Substitute For Fossil Fuels '... except for
ETHANOL.
9 Billion gallons of ethanol were produced in 2008.. that's 180
million barrels.. which comes to 90 days of the US' total usage..
Multiply that by 4 and you get rid of any needed importation of
terrorist-funding oil.
PS: Not only did US ethanol production increase... but US grain
exports increased at the same time.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer721/

Sorry, wrong answer. The energy ratio of corn ethanol is a pathetic
1.24, so we are using putting in almost as much energy as we are
getting out. No matter how you cut it, we are spending a huge amount
of money and getting nearly nothing for it. The third world get
killed by higher grain prices. Ethanol wrecks engines and produces
worse gas mileage. The corn growers may like it but everyone else is
getting fucked. Another green pipe dream bitch slapped by reality.
lorad
2009-12-27 03:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by lorad
There Is Currently No Substitute For Fossil Fuels
Of coyurse there is... agriculturally manufactured ethanol and
biodiesel.
BZZZZT!!!  Wrong answer.
Not enough to come close to covering our current useage.  Corn ethanol
has shown itself to be a quick way of converting oil into ethanol
while reducing the food supply.  When they work out a way to use grass
or some other non-food stock that doesn't need to be fertilized/
cultivated and find a way to process it without using other fuels then
you will have something that might be a partial solution.
BONG BONG BONG!   RIGHT ANSWER!
To:' There Is Currently No Substitute For Fossil Fuels '... except for
ETHANOL.
9 Billion gallons of ethanol were produced in 2008.. that's 180
million barrels.. which comes to 90 days of the US' total usage..
Multiply that by 4 and you get rid of any needed importation of
terrorist-funding oil.
PS: Not only did US ethanol production increase... but US grain
exports increased at the same time.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer721/
Sorry, wrong answer.  The energy ratio of corn ethanol is a pathetic
1.24, so we are using putting in almost as much energy as we are
getting out.
Ratio of what to what?
Your statement makes no sense.
Post by Monkey Clumps
 No matter how you cut it, we are spending a huge amount
of money and getting nearly nothing for it.
Stop lying.
Post by Monkey Clumps
 The third world get
killed by higher grain prices.  
Obviously not.. Brazil sold 475 million gallons of ethanol to the US
in 2008.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Ethanol wrecks engines and produces
worse gas mileage.  
That's a lie too.
Post by Monkey Clumps
The corn growers may like it but everyone else is
getting fucked.  
Especially the oil broker price manipulators and foreign terrorist
sponsoring countries.. I like it.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Another green pipe dream bitch slapped by reality
Screw your oil.
Tell your oily bosses to squirt it up their noses.
Monkey Clumps
2009-12-28 14:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by lorad
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by lorad
There Is Currently No Substitute For Fossil Fuels
Of coyurse there is... agriculturally manufactured ethanol and
biodiesel.
BZZZZT!!!  Wrong answer.
Not enough to come close to covering our current useage.  Corn ethanol
has shown itself to be a quick way of converting oil into ethanol
while reducing the food supply.  When they work out a way to use grass
or some other non-food stock that doesn't need to be fertilized/
cultivated and find a way to process it without using other fuels then
you will have something that might be a partial solution.
BONG BONG BONG!   RIGHT ANSWER!
To:' There Is Currently No Substitute For Fossil Fuels '... except for
ETHANOL.
9 Billion gallons of ethanol were produced in 2008.. that's 180
million barrels.. which comes to 90 days of the US' total usage..
Multiply that by 4 and you get rid of any needed importation of
terrorist-funding oil.
PS: Not only did US ethanol production increase... but US grain
exports increased at the same time.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer721/
Sorry, wrong answer.  The energy ratio of corn ethanol is a pathetic
1.24, so we are using putting in almost as much energy as we are
getting out.
Ratio of what to what?
Your statement makes no sense.
Energy out to energy in, numbnuts. As in 1000 BTU of energy are
consumed to produce ethanol with a value 1240 BTUs.
Post by lorad
Post by Monkey Clumps
 No matter how you cut it, we are spending a huge amount
of money and getting nearly nothing for it.
Stop lying.
You crow about millions of gallons of ethanol produced, but how much
other fuel was needed to produce the ethanol? As the numbers I posted
above indicate, a huge amount.
Post by lorad
Post by Monkey Clumps
 The third world get
killed by higher grain prices.  
Obviously not.. Brazil sold 475 million gallons of ethanol to the US
in 2008.
Brazil produces sugarcane ethanol (which has an energy ratio of around
8.0 by the way). What on earth does your statement have to do with
higher grain prices in third world countries?
Post by lorad
Post by Monkey Clumps
Ethanol wrecks engines and produces
worse gas mileage.  
That's a lie too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/business/26ethanol.html

"Many consumers complain that ethanol, which constitutes as much as 10
percent of the fuel they buy in most states, hurts gas mileage and
chokes the engines of their boats and motorcycles."

Ethanol has a lower BTU value per gallon than gasoline, so lower gas
mileage is a given.
Post by lorad
Post by Monkey Clumps
The corn growers may like it but everyone else is
getting fucked.  
Especially the oil broker price manipulators and foreign terrorist
sponsoring countries.. I like it.
Yeah, you really have them quaking in their boots, I'm sure.
Post by lorad
Post by Monkey Clumps
Another green pipe dream bitch slapped by reality
Screw your oil.
Tell your oily bosses to squirt it up their noses.
I have no connection to the oil industry. I just feel compelled to
post against rampant stupidity. There are few better example of
rampant stupidity than corn ethanol mandates. If its really good
stuff, why does the government have to mandate it? Lets see it win in
the market on its own merits.
unknown
2009-12-30 13:20:22 UTC
Permalink
At one time, there was no substitute for the use of horses and oxen.
Bruce Richmond
2010-01-04 04:09:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
At one time, there was no substitute for the use of horses and oxen.
The shit for brains with no name has spoken.
unknown
2010-01-05 13:57:04 UTC
Permalink
The shit for brains ...
That's why you can't foresee that alternatives
to fossil fuel will be found.

At one time, there was no substitute for the use
of horses and oxen.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...