Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Environmentalism

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • panther3485
    replied
    I still hope it will recover.

    Leave a comment:


  • DingBat
    replied
    Megawatt-scale fuel cell systems capable of powering ocean-going vessels to be built in France

    Leave a comment:


  • DingBat
    replied
    This is likely the last generation to see the Great Barrier Reef as humans have known it

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    Thanks for the answers, guys. Food for thought there.
    Tag is definitely right about the shredded rubber tires. while there are some viable uses for some recycled rubber products. ( Moo Pads for dairy cows, landing pads for pole vaulters, etc,) they can't handle the massive tire deluge. shredding and burning also gets rid of a mosquito breeding haven- the water filled tire.

    Massive tire dumps are rather bizarre. An arsonists dream boat...

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Thanks for the answers, guys. Food for thought there.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    If that chart is any guide, my country could do better but we could also be doing substantially worse, so it seems. It sets me to thinking, what would the better solutions be; especially given the (mostly) relatively sparse distribution of our population?
    The best solution is moving to natural gas for smaller low population countries. NG generation stations can be done with diesel and gas turbine prime movers for the generators. These can be brought on-line or off-line quickly to meet demand as it fluctuates. They take up a small footprint and are maintenance low.
    This is in comparison to solar where you have to have a large array, lots of storage capacity or an alternative source, and are subject to weather.

    That is the low CO2 and most economic choice. Solar up mildly, sucks.

    For more advanced nations, the best solution is natural gas + nuclear and moving to hydrogen as a portable fuel. Nuclear provides cheap, reliable, massive amounts of power as base load while natural gas provides a clean peaking load capacity. Hydrogen as a portable fuel using fuel cells is green, clean, and can be worked into existing infrastructure.

    What doesn't work is solar, wind, and batteries.

    Alternatives for low population and low end countries for reasonably clean power are biomass and co-generation plants (ones that use the refuse from another source as their power source). For example, a small plant running on shredded rubber tires with some pollution control on exhaust gets rid of the tires (a major source of pollution in dumps and helps eliminate tire dump fires) while generating electricity as well as some scrap steel (from the steel belts in the tires).

    Leave a comment:


  • DingBat
    replied
    Green Hydrogen Pipeline Surges on a Wave of Announced Mega-Projects

    Leave a comment:


  • DingBat
    replied
    The projected timing of abrupt ecological disruption from climate change

    Leave a comment:


  • DingBat
    replied
    Assessing the U.S. Climate in March 2020

    Leave a comment:


  • DingBat
    replied
    Not strictly climate change related, but it does describe the general anti-science, disinformation campaign used against any troublesome science:

    Decades of Science Denial Related to Climate Change Has Led to Denial of the Coronavirus Pandemic

    Leave a comment:


  • DingBat
    replied
    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    If that chart is any guide, my country could do better but we could also be doing substantially worse, so it seems. It sets me to thinking, what would the better solutions be; especially given the (mostly) relatively sparse distribution of our population?
    Well, as near as I can tell from a Google reverse image search, this is the source of that graphic. I leave it to you to decide if its a reliable source of information or not. There may be another source for the graphic, my Google-fu may have let me down.

    WILL ALEXANDRIA “HONEST ABE” CORTEZ ADMIT LIKE OBAMA THAT HER GREEN ENERGY AGENDA WOULD “SKYROCKET” ENERGY COSTS?

    If you're going to base your energy decisions on cost alone, it's going to be hard not to choose fossil fuels atm, given their price/bbl. But then there's that troublesome issue with CO2 and methane.

    But for a true picture of energy costs, if someone isn't pointing you to a levelized cost of energy comparison (LCOE), then they're not being honest. Countries can, and do, add all sorts of charges and taxes to their cost of energy which makes comparing the end cost useless.

    Here's the last LCOE report from the US Energy Information Administration: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf...generation.pdf

    The collapse in oil prices will have likely rendered some of this obsolete, but it still shows a better comparison of renewables to fossil fuel sources.

    "Efficiency" is an interesting way of comparing energy sources, but it might be less important if you're not actually paying for a fuel. A country might have many priorities for its energy policy:

    1. Cost
    2. Efficiency
    3. Green house gas emissions
    4. Availability of fuels

    Whatever.

    Obviously, if someone doesn't believe climate change science, then #3 isn't going to be a priority.

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    If that chart is any guide, my country could do better but we could also be doing substantially worse, so it seems. It sets me to thinking, what would the better solutions be; especially given the (mostly) relatively sparse distribution of our population?

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    The downside to Germany's effort is they have just about the highest per kwh cost for electricity in the world. That's not a good thing, it's a stupid thing.



    Solar is the absolute least efficient and most costly way to make electricity there is of the major systems in use. Wind is a bit better, but still inefficient. Nuclear is the best way to go non-carbon if that's your choice, but the irrational, insane, scientifically illiterate Left has turned it into a pariah based on their apparent inability to grasp things scientific and technical.

    Worse, by 2030 if Germany reaches their stated goal, electricity there will cost about 0.53 cents (US) a kwh. Given that even now nearly half-a-million German households have suffered losing their electric power due to inability to pay the cost / bill, what kind of insanity is it to continue to double down on a loser strategy?

    Leave a comment:


  • DingBat
    replied
    Nearly half of global coal plants will be unprofitable this year: Carbon Tracker

    Leave a comment:


  • Reimnitz
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    Yea, like that worked so well for Germany that they started constructing 25 new "clean" coal plants to replace the nuclear ones shut down

    https://cna.ca/news/germany-replaces...hgs-skyrocket/

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...-nuclear-power

    In fact, Germany's whole "green" energy program has been little more than a massively expensive disaster.

    The general, hysterical, knee-jerk reaction to Fukushima was little short of insanely stupid.
    I applaud the effort. Germany will pay utility companies billions of euros to speed up the shutdown of their coal-fired power plants.

    The government set a target of generating 65% of Germany's electricity from renewable sources by 2030.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X