A Broader Look At Climate Change

[martybegan]

One is cheaper despite everything you can throw at it because it will NEVER need fuel whereas your favored tech, despite everything nice you can say about it, will ALWAYS require fuel.

At least with fuel you can guarantee a given energy production as long as the fuel is there. Solar is fine in places like Texas, not so much in places like Maine.

and the cost of materials like batteries and the cells themselves far outweigh the costs of things like turbines and boilers, which also last far longer, and can be repaired/rehabilitated far easier.

 

[Crick]

At least with fuel you can guarantee a given energy production as long as the fuel is there. Solar is fine in places like Texas, not so much in places like Maine.

"...as long as the fuel is there" which includes: the fuel is produced, the fuel is transported to your location and you have the money to pay for it.

Solar is better in Texas than Maine. Hydroelectricity is best where there is descending water. Wind is best where there is consistent strong wind. Geothermal is best where there geothermal activity. Tidal is best on coasts with large tidal ranges. Wave energy is best where waves are large. All of you (deniers) give absolutely no value to the zero-emission facet of alternative power sources and thus your judgements re replacing fossil fuel with any of these alternatives is warped and, frankly, irrelevant.

and the cost of materials like batteries and the cells themselves far outweigh the costs of things like turbines and boilers, which also last far longer, and can be repaired/rehabilitated far easier.

I'm afraid that's complete bullshit. Turbines and generators are very pricey items which, having moving parts undergoing serious heating, will NOT last as long as batteries without repair. Large scale batteries are recyclable and technology like vanadium electrolyte cells is easily scalable and absurdly simple technology.

 

[martybegan]

"...as long as the fuel is there" which includes: the fuel is produced, the fuel is transported to your location and you have the money to pay for it.

Solar is better in Texas than Maine. Hydroelectricity is best where there is descending water. Wind is best where there is consistent strong wind. Geothermal is best where there geothermal activity. Tidal is best on coasts with large tidal ranges. Wave energy is best where waves are large. All of you (deniers) give absolutely no value to the zero-emission facet of alternative power sources and thus your judgements re replacing fossil fuel with any of these alternatives is warped and, frankly, irrelevant.



I'm afraid that's complete bullshit. Turbines and generators are very pricey items which, having moving parts undergoing serious heating, will NOT last as long as batteries without repair. Large scale batteries are recyclable and technology like vanadium electrolyte cells is easily scalable and absurdly simple technology.

All of that is made up for by the energy density provided by gas, oil and coal. Plus the transportability is an asset, not a liability. That and the actual structures used for fossil fuel generation are far more resilient than renewables, except maybe for hydro, because they use similar turbines and large dams.

The thing is you can't repair batteries, and as for recyclable, please show me where that is actually cost efficient for grid scale batteries.

You are talking to someone with a Masters in ChemE here, so please bring your environmental studies bachelor's degree knowledge somewhere else.

 

[Crick]

All of that is made up for by the energy density provided by gas, oil and coal.

$100/bbl vs ZERO is not made up by energy density.

Plus the transportability is an asset, not a liability.

Right up to the point where it isn't. And then you're just shit out of luck.

That and the actual structures used for fossil fuel generation are far more resilient than renewables, except maybe for hydro, because they use similar turbines and large dams.

PV panels can be made as "resilient" as you want to but you're never going to make a turbine or a generator that doesn't have bearings that require active lubrication and will fail almost instantly without it.

The thing is you can't repair batteries, and as for recyclable, please show me where that is actually cost efficient for grid scale batteries.

Batteries have no moving parts. Grid scale batteries are in operation at a number of locations.

You are talking to someone with a Masters in ChemE here, so please bring your environmental studies bachelor's degree knowledge somewhere else.

I have a bachelors in Ocean Engineering. I think that's sufficient for the depth of this conversation.

And, again, since you assign no value whatsoever to the zero-emission characteristics of alternative sources, your judgement here is irrelevant.

 

[martybegan]

$100/bbl vs ZERO is not made up by energy density.


Right up to the point where it isn't. And then you're just shit out of luck.


PV panels can be made as "resilient" as you want to but you're never going to make a turbine or a generator that doesn't have bearings that require active lubrication and will fail almost instantly without it.



Batteries have no moving parts. Grid scale batteries are in operation at a number of locations.


I have a bachelors in Ocean Engineering. I think that's sufficient for the depth of this conversation.

And, again, since you assign no value whatsoever to the zero-emission characteristics of alternative sources, your judgement here is irrelevant.

We have enough experience dealing with all of that, so your negative points aren't really negatives.

"Ocean's Engineering", lol what's that?

I'll assign value when governments stop forcing people to use them before they are better than what they are replacing.

 

[Crick]

We have enough experience dealing with all of that, so your negative points aren't really negatives.

That petroleum costs money and that, over time, that cost will do nothing but rise? That IS a negative. That solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectricity, tidal, wave, OTEC all have ZERO fuel costs is most definitely a positive. That they have ZERO GHG emissions is not only a positive, it will eventually be a requisite.

"Ocean's Engineering", lol what's that?

Ocean engineering. When I graduated (1982) it supplied two primary employers: the Navy and offshore oil. I started out after school with SEDCO drilling on a rig in the North Sea. I left that and went to work with the Navy and then NATO. One of my brother-in-laws has a masters in chemical engineering and has been working with the pharmaceutical industry certifying their processes. What have you done with yours?

I'll assign value when governments stop forcing people to use them before they are better than what they are replacing.

That makes no sense. Zero-emissions has value because the world is being heated by increasing greenhouse effect working on those emissions. As a chemical engineer, are you going to try to deny the greenhouse effect and the human responsibility for CO2 going from 280 to 420 ppm?

 

[martybegan]

That petroleum costs money and that, over time, that cost will do nothing but rise? That IS a negative. That solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectricity, tidal, wave, OTEC all have ZERO fuel costs is most definitely a positive. That they have ZERO GHG emissions is not only a positive, it will eventually be a requisite.



Ocean engineering. When I graduated (1982) it supplied two primary employers: the Navy and offshore oil. I started out after school with SEDCO drilling on a rig in the North Sea. I left that and went to work with the Navy and then NATO. One of my brother-in-laws has a masters in chemical engineering and has been working with the pharmaceutical industry certifying their processes. What have you done with yours?



That makes no sense. Zero-emissions has value because the world is being heated by increasing greenhouse effect working on those emissions. As a chemical engineer, are you going to try to deny the greenhouse effect and the human responsibility for CO2 going from 280 to 420 ppm?

Again, the density of energy taken from fossil fuel sources outweighs the need for fuel, same as nuclear.


I work in water/wastewater treatment, so I deal with the environment far more than you, I just don't fall for the watermelon bullshit your side is pushing.

I deny we have to ruin our economy and lower our standards of living because of it.
Again, if these things are so awesome they will replace things like ICE vehicles all on their own.

 

[Crick]

Again, the density of energy taken from fossil fuel sources outweighs the need for fuel, same as nuclear.

It's interesting that the countries power utilities don't seem to agree with you.

I work in water/wastewater treatment, so I deal with the environment far more than you, I just don't fall for the watermelon bullshit your side is pushing.

But you don't deal with energy production. I'm retired and when I worked, it was with naval sensor systems. I've done nothing professionally with the environment (although I was my department's HazMat rep (woo-woo)).

I deny we have to ruin our economy and lower our standards of living because of it.

No one has asked you to ruin your economy or lower your standards of living, have they? They have asked to spend some of your tax dollars and some of the money you pay for electricity and transportation to reduce GHG emissions. Do you agree that reducing those emissions is a good idea?

Again, if these things are so awesome they will replace things like ICE vehicles all on their own.

They ARE replacing ICE vehicles. Most major car manufacturers have already announced dates at which they will cease ICE vehicle production. Business is AHEAD of government in this regard.

 

[martybegan]

It's interesting that the countries power utilities don't seem to agree with you.

But you don't deal with energy production. I'm retired and when I worked, it was with naval sensor systems. I've done nothing professionally with the environment (although I was my department's HazMat rep (woo-woo)).

No one has asked you to ruin your economy or lower your standards of living, have they? They have asked to spend some of your tax dollars and some of the money you pay for electricity and transportation to reduce GHG emissions. Do you agree that reducing those emissions is a good idea?


They ARE replacing ICE vehicles. Most major car manufacturers have already announced dates at which they will cease ICE vehicle production. Business is AHEAD of government in this regard.

They are run by woke idiots prodded by governments.

I learned enough about them, and have seen enough during my work life (co-generation, ever hear of it?) to know about it.

No, they are banning ICE vehicles, banning plastic bags, over-reaching the electrical grid, and other bullshit.

Business is being FORCED by government to do this, either due to CAFE standards or bans like in NY and California.

I guess only people who own houses will be able to own cars after 2035, how ******* elitist of you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh, look at YOU lie. You said: "The proportion of our electricity supply being provided by wind and solar is still growing by leaps and bounds. Ayup, it's going to get all the way up to 5% in no time."

Do you think solar is going to stop expanding when it is now cheaper per kWh than any of the fossil fuels?

No, I sure didn't say "The proportion of our electricity supply being provided by wind and solar is still growing by leaps and bounds"

Solar is 3% of the power generation of this nation - after an INTENSE decade of the Federal Government subsidizing 70% of the cost of solar. Worse yet, the solar systems installed in 2012 are already failing. Even the better quality panels lose about 2% power generation per year, so those panels installed in 2012 are only generating 80% of the power they did when new.

Now, when I bought my solar system, I looked at my electric bill and calculated that I payed $2,200 per year in electricity. Because California still heavily subsidizes solar, my cost was $22,000 - so I break even in 10 years. I got a 25 year warranty on the system, so when it breaks down in 12 or 13 years, the repairs won't break me financially. This also freezes my costs - I paid cash so no interest or any of that crap.

So from a financial stand point it's an okay deal.

BUT the power used to create the panels is equal to 2 years of electric use, along with a plethora of rare earth minerals. From an environmental standpoint, it's a ******* disaster - knowing that in a decade new panels will be needed.

Solar is "sold" by your cult as some sort of alternative to fossil fuels, but it isn't.

"Wind" is utterly negligible.

"Renewable" is really hydroelectric.

The claim that we have 20% renewable electricity means we have 17% hydroelectric power from damns and 3% from solar. With the massive 5000 acres of raptor choppers out at Cabazon generating almost enough power to keep the Morongo casino running,....

 

[Crick]

They are run by woke idiots prodded by governments.

Idiots, woke or not, don't last long in business. The critical criterion of making money guarantees it.

I learned enough about them, and have seen enough during my work life (co-generation, ever hear of it?) to know about it.

Apparently not.

No, they are banning ICE vehicles, banning plastic bags, over-reaching the electrical grid, and other bullshit.

Numerous car manufacturers announced they were abandoning ICE vehicles well before California banned their future sale. Californians can still own ICE vehicles, buy new ones (out of state) and drive them around the state without hindrance. Banning plastic bags has nothing do to with global warming but rather litter and overburdened landfills. If you'd like to discuss the electrical grid, you're going to have to better describe your issues.

Business is being FORCED by government to do this, either due to CAFE standards or bans like in NY and California.

I just posted the CAFE standards for 2024-2026 in another thread and they do NOT require EVs. And California's ban is several years in the future and will not restrict ICE vehicles entering the state or California residents buying them (out of state) or having them in their driveways and taking them to work every day. The ICE vehicle is going to disappear because manufacturers have CHOSEN to stop making them, not because the government has ordered it be so.

I guess only people who own houses will be able to own cars after 2035, how ******* elitist of you.

Ever been camping? You don't need a house for a power tap.

 

[martybegan]

Idiots, woke or not, don't last long in business. The critical criterion of making money guarantees it.


Apparently not.


Numerous car manufacturers announced they were abandoning ICE vehicles well before California banned their future sale. Californians can still own ICE vehicles, buy new ones (out of state) and drive them around the state without hindrance. Banning plastic bags has nothing do to with global warming but rather litter and overburdened landfills. If you'd like to discuss the electrical grid, you're going to have to better describe your issues.



I just posted the CAFE standards for 2024-2026 in another thread and they do NOT require EVs. And California's ban is several years in the future and will not restrict ICE vehicles entering the state or California residents buying them (out of state) or having them in their driveways and taking them to work every day. The ICE vehicle is going to disappear because manufacturers have CHOSEN to stop making them, not because the government has ordered it be so.


Ever been camping? You don't need a house for a power tap.

No, they just raise economy standards so much that in order to keep their profitable SUV's they gotta ban things like sportscars. Stop pretending this is market forces at work because it isn't.

If they are going to disappear on their own, why is government banning them?

I need my car to commute, I live in an apartment building. Unless by 2035 you can charge an EV as fast as you can fill a gas tank, I guess I'm shit out of luck right?

 

[Uncensored2008]

That "cheaper" thing doesn't include the needed battery storage OR the need for "quick turn on" sources like natural gas plants to cover for when the sun isn't out.

It's far worse that it seems.

Most, 98%, solar systems have no sort of battery. I'm going to use my own home, in sunny southern California. My 22 panels feed into the Southern California Edison grid. They don't power my house at all. You might think that I sell the power to Edison, but you'd be wrong. California is a communist state and corrupt to the core.

No, the way Edison has designed our laws - by outright buying the crooked democrat rulers, is that I buy my electricity from Edison are regular rates. Now Edison has all kind of little tricks to rape you - such as Tiers, At tier 1 you only pay .14 cents a kWh, but tier 2 that jumps to .18 cents, then .21 cents for tier 3 and .29 cents for tier 4.

But what about my panels, you may ask? Well, Edison will "offset" usage based on the power you generate. They don't buy power - because they would have to credit your bill, and they don't want to do that - cheaper to buy the crooks in Sacramento. So they take what I produce and calculate and offset - all at tier one, and apply that to my bill.

So if I generate more power than I use - I always do - I might still owe Edison money, because they credit at tier 1 and debit at tier 4. What about winter months where I'm not running the air conditioner and the pool filter is down to once a week? I generate 10 times what I consume - does Edison pay me? Nope, they pocket difference - no carry over to offset the hot months.

The joys of living in a Communist dictatorship where the green scam is in full bloom.

 

[Crick]

No, I sure didn't say "The proportion of our electricity supply being provided by wind and solar is still growing by leaps and bounds"

That is a quote from your post #32. I have double-checked.

Solar is 3% of the power generation of this nation - after an INTENSE decade of the Federal Government subsidizing 70% of the cost of solar. Worse yet, the solar systems installed in 2012 are already failing. Even the better quality panels lose about 2% power generation per year, so those panels installed in 2012 are only generating 80% of the power they did when new.

Until you care to admit that a power source having zero-emissions has a value, your opinion on this topic is irrelevant.

Now, when I bought my solar system, I looked at my electric bill and calculated that I payed $2,200 per year in electricity. Because California still heavily subsidizes solar, my cost was $22,000 - so I break even in 10 years. I got a 25 year warranty on the system, so when it breaks down in 12 or 13 years, the repairs won't break me financially. This also freezes my costs - I paid cash so no interest or any of that crap.

Why did you buy a solar system?

So from a financial stand point it's an okay deal.

Breaking even is not a good deal.

BUT the power used to create the panels is equal to 2 years of electric use, along with a plethora of rare earth minerals. From an environmental standpoint, it's a ******* disaster - knowing that in a decade new panels will be needed.

Pray tell, what does "2 years of electric use" mean?

Solar is "sold" by your cult as some sort of alternative to fossil fuels, but it isn't.

Of course its an alternative to fossil fuels.

"Wind" is utterly negligible.

Given that wind is now several times as large a part of the US grid as is the solar that you chose to buy for your own use, you're obviously spouting bullshit.

"Renewable" is really hydroelectric.

I'm terribly sorry but you don't get to unilaterally redefine terms

The claim that we have 20% renewable electricity means we have 17% hydroelectric power from damns and 3% from solar. With the massive 5000 acres of raptor choppers out at Cabazon generating almost enough power to keep the Morongo casino running,....

"...from damns"?

Non-fossil fuel sources 21 percent of U.S. energy consumption in 2020

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the amount of “non-fossil fuel” sources of energy accounted for 21 percent of U.S. energy consumption in 2020. While anti-fossil fuel activists will likely try to spin this as a win for wind and solar, nuclear power provided a...

www.americanexperiment.org

 

[Uncensored2008]

One is cheaper despite everything you can throw at it because it will NEVER need fuel whereas your favored tech, despite everything nice you can say about it, will ALWAYS require fuel. And, of course, you are ignoring the value of zero emissions because, like all AGW deniers, you're not very bright.

WHAT is cheaper?

Are you going to lie to us again?

 

[Crick]

No, they just raise economy standards so much that in order to keep their profitable SUV's they gotta ban things like sportscars. Stop pretending this is market forces at work because it isn't.

No one has banned sportscars and CAFE standards are fleet wide. Stop pretending the government is forcing car makers away from ICE vehicles against their will.

If they are going to disappear on their own, why is government banning them?

Because of idiots like you.

I need my car to commute, I live in an apartment building. Unless by 2035 you can charge an EV as fast as you can fill a gas tank, I guess I'm shit out of luck right?

Yep.

 

[martybegan]

No one has banned sportscars and CAFE standards are fleet wide. Stop pretending the government is forcing car makers away from ICE vehicles against their will.



Because of idiots like you.



Yep.

CAFE standards are a back door way of forcing manufacturers to only make certain vehicles in certain numbers or face fines. Stop pretending otherwise.

Again, if EV's will take over on their own why are they being banned? Answer the question.

Why should I be forced to give up ANY new vehicle if charging isn't down to 5 minutes because I don't own a home? How elitist is that shit?

 

[Uncensored2008]

That is a quote from your post #32. I have double-checked.

That was YOUR quote, moron - which I then refuted.

Until you care to admit that a power source having zero-emissions has a value, your opinion on this topic is irrelevant.

Nothing you post is relevant.

You're a propagandist with zero integrity pushing your moronic religion.

Why did you buy a solar system?

I explained that.

Reread what I posted,

Breaking even is not a good deal.

It freezes the costs.

I expect Edison to continue to gouge.

Solar is not a good deal - remember that what I paid is less than half what the system costs. I makes financial sense for me - but it isn't a "good" deal as it costs the economy more that it produces.

Pray tell, what does "2 years of electric use" mean?

It means that you're stupid.

The power used to create a solar panel is roughly equivalent to the power that panel will produce over 2 years in a suitable climate.

Of course its an alternative to fossil fuels.

Not viable.

Not even close.

Given that wind is now several times as large a part of the US grid as is the solar that you chose to buy for your own use, you're obviously spouting bullshit.

More lies from Crick - what a shock.

The United States installed more wind turbine capacity in 2020 than in any other year - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

I'm terribly sorry but you don't get to unilaterally redefine terms



"...from damns"?
View attachment 705392

Non-fossil fuel sources 21 percent of U.S. energy consumption in 2020

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the amount of “non-fossil fuel” sources of energy accounted for 21 percent of U.S. energy consumption in 2020. While anti-fossil fuel activists will likely try to spin this as a win for wind and solar, nuclear power provided a...

www.americanexperiment.org

ROFL

Well now THERE is some desperate bullshit.

"Wood" "biofuels"



You're such a clown.

 

[Crick]

That was YOUR quote, moron - which I then refuted.

I see now that it was. Mea culpa. In the future, you might try these: " " for quotations rather than these { } .

Nothing you post is relevant.

You're a propagandist with zero integrity pushing your moronic religion.

It is not a religion it is mainstream science. Given that I am one of the few people on this board that will admit to mistakes (as I just did) I don't think you have grounds to impinge my integrity.

I explained that. [Why he bought a solar system]

Reread what I posted,

You did not. You provided numbers that indicated you'd break even. I'm not the only reader here who would find that inadequate motivation.

It freezes the costs.

I expect Edison to continue to gouge.

Solar is not a good deal - remember that what I paid is less than half what the system costs. I makes financial sense for me - but it isn't a "good" deal as it costs the economy more that it produces.

But what good did it do for you? According to your own statements, it's worthless without a battery. The cells and the batteries will need to be replaced on a regular basis. And, good god man, think of the energy density.

It means that you're stupid.

The power used to create a solar panel is roughly equivalent to the power that panel will produce over 2 years in a suitable climate.

That is a point to which you should have provided a link to a decent reference source. I, for one, will not be taking your word for that.

Not viable. [Solar and wind as an alternative to fossil fuels]

Not even close.

Your local electrical utility would beg to differ.

More lies from Crick - what a shock.

The United States installed more wind turbine capacity in 2020 than in any other year - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

I don't know what you THOUGHT your link was saying, but it didn't apply. I said that wind was a larger portion of US energy than the solar which you chose to buy for your own personal use. Here

We see that wind has 24/9ths (267%) of the share that solar has.

ROFL

Well now THERE is some desperate bullshit.

"Wood" "biofuels"

Wood is a biofuel and always has been. It is not a redefinition of terms. "Renewables" is many more things besides hydroelectric.

You're such a clown.

You've yet to provide a single reason I should doubt AGW, that AGW is a threat to our well being and that of our descendants or why we shouldn't act to mitigate GHG emissions as quickly as we can.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I see now that it was. Mea culpa. In the future, you might try these: " " for quotations rather than these { } .



It is not a religion it is mainstream science. Given that I am one of the few people on this board that will admit to mistakes (as I just did) I don't think you have grounds to impinge my integrity.



You did not. You provided numbers that indicated you'd break even. I'm not the only reader here who would find that inadequate motivation.



But what good did it do for you? According to your own statements, it's worthless without a battery. The cells and the batteries will need to be replaced on a regular basis. And, good god man, think of the energy density.



That is a point to which you should have provided a link to a decent reference source. I, for one, will not be taking your word for that.



Your local electrical utility would beg to differ.



I don't know what you THOUGHT your link was saying, but it didn't apply. I said that wind was a larger portion of US energy than the solar which you chose to buy for your own personal use. Here
View attachment 705449

We see that wind has 24/9ths (267%) of the share that solar has.


Wood is a biofuel and always has been. It is not a redefinition of terms. "Renewables" is many more things besides hydroelectric.



You've yet to provide a single reason I should doubt AGW, that AGW is a threat to our well being and that of our descendants or why we shouldn't act to mitigate GHG emissions as quickly as we can.

It's amusing that with how hard you pimp solar, you know literally zero about how the systems work. I take it you live in an apartment in a deep blue city.

Very few solar systems have batteries. That is not part of a normal system.

Sunnova Closure and Support Resources

www.sunnova.com