Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

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

  • For those interested, this is an online, interactive textbook on climate change and climate modelling. Looks interesting.
    https://brian-rose.github.io/Climate...Book/home.html

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

      Maybe. But the point I was making is that it's more than a little disingenuous to try to evaluate energy options only on the basis of efficiency. This is the climate change thread, after all.
      No, it's not. The argument is that "climate change" is driven by anthropogenic CO2, aka "Gorebal Warming." If that's the case, then reducing CO2 is the goal and the best means possible to do that in a reasonable and economical fashion should be the goal. That translates into more nuclear and natural gas replacing coal, not wind and solar. It also argues in favor of liquid hydrogen as a portable fuel and hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles not idiotic battery cars.
      Further, it doesn't require massive increases in public transit, or giving preference to a dense urban landscape as the 'true believers' argue for.

      The Western world could easily meet its carbon reduction using that combination, but none of that is politically correct with the Left who are the primary drivers behind Gorebal Warming. If they weren't, places like California and Germany wouldn't have eliminated their nuclear plants, but they did because the Left has an irrational and unfounded hysterical fear of all things nuclear.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        Take "pumped hydro" for example. Here you are using some of the energy produced to move water as stored potential energy to later be released as hydroelectric energy. You need a lower and upper basin to store the water used. You need make up water for evaporation. Pumping the water 'uphill' to storage requires as much or more energy as the hydroelectric energy later produced will amount to. That's basic physics. Therefore, you need installed twice the installed capacity (plus a bit for inefficiency) of the storage system's production to make the system work.

        All of that adds massive costs to the system, which isn't very efficient to begin with.
        Pumped storage has been around since the 19th Century. Its a very efficient way of taking energy when you don't need it - usually at night - and then using it for when you do - peak demand.

        There was a big-boom for pumped storage when the main sources of electricity, nuclear which ran at near full rate 24/7 because fuel costs nothing, and coal which still had to burn at night to be able to meet morning demand surge.

        So? If wind production is that variable, the problem becomes how do you install other sources that don't create duplication and inefficiency? That is, if you can sometimes count on wind, but other times need natural gas or whatever, now you need two plants-- one wind, one the other method-- and that duplication costs a lot of extra money to install and maintain. Better to build what reliably works than two systems one of which sometimes works great and at other times doesn't work at all.
        You forget most countries have already built their coal and gas power stations. By building solar and wind it means those coal and gas power stations can burn less of their fuel - fuel being their major expense, typically dwarfing their cost to build over their lifetimes.


        Over the course of a typical year Palo Verde produces about 35 times more power than Ivanpah yet only costs about 5 times what Ivanpah cost to build and less than 3 times what Ivanpah costs to operate. Nuclear power absolutely demolishes solar for efficiency.

        Palo Verde began building in the 1970s, the cost of building nuclear power stations since then has risen considerably.
        Ivanpah began building in 2010, the cost of solar power since then has fallen considerably.

        You are also leaving out the decommissioning costs of nuclear power stations. Estimates vary, the French have gone for a modest €300 million per gigawatt of generating capacity, the UK an eye-watering €2.7 billion per GW to decommission existing plants.

        Ivanpah will probably not be decommissioned, instead in 15 or 20 years time they will go around replacing the existing solar panels with new ones which will be more efficient and cheaper to make.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by marktwain View Post
          Energy storage is a boom area. https://renews.biz/56753/growth-soar...nergy-storage/

          "Over 10,500MW of battery storage planning applications have been made in the UK, compared with 6900MW a year ago, according to new research from RenewableUK (R-UK).
          The trade body's latest Project Intelligence report said that the number of companies involved in the sector is now more than 450, up from about 300 this time last year.
          R-UK said that average project size rose slightly in the last 12 months to 28MW from 27MW previously.

          “The pipeline of storage projects is expected to continue growing and an increasing number of grid-scale battery projects of over 50MWs are expected, after BEIS agreed earlier this year to change planning rules which have, up to now, deterred development at this scale,” it added.

          The report said that renewables developers are at the forefront of the market.
          It said the UK also has a pipeline of over 600MW of compressed air or liquid air storage projects in development.

          Gravitricity is developing gravity-based storage and OXTO Energy is pioneering the use of flywheels in energy storage, while RheEnergised is developing dense liquids as an alternative to pumped storage, R-UK said."


          Who said innovation in the West was dying?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Achtung Baby View Post
            Flywheel energy storage is one I’m interested in, can be used in many applications... it’s even used on the new Gerald Ford carrier to help launch aircraft.
            I'm concerned about the exploitation of non unionized flies
            Archimedes screw Hydro Plants are well suited to countries such as Ireland and England, with a lot of small rivers.
            In 1929, Ardacosta on the Shannon was the world's largest hydro plant. Briefly.
            The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

            Comment


            • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

              No, it's not. The argument is that "climate change" is driven by anthropogenic CO2, aka "Gorebal Warming." If that's the case, then reducing CO2 is the goal and the best means possible to do that in a reasonable and economical fashion should be the goal. That translates into more nuclear and natural gas replacing coal, not wind and solar. It also argues in favor of liquid hydrogen as a portable fuel and hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles not idiotic battery cars.
              Your first conditional statement is correct. Your conclusion is suspect.

              What an honest approach to problem solving calls for is an open mind. This includes not eliminating options until it is absolutely necessary. Especially given the radical and rapidly changing costs associated with renewables.

              Natural gas green house gas emissions are 50-60% less than coals. Is that enough? I don't know. I suspect you don't either. And this is only true if the natural gas production supply chain is overhauled to prevent methane leaks, which could be worse than CO2 emissions. What is the cost of that going to be?

              The bottom line is your conclusions appear to be largely pulled out of thin air with little or no supporting data.

              Frankly, I'm tired of being pulled into this argument. I actually don't care what solution is used, so long as the problem is solved. I'm tired of having to listen to premature discarding of promising new technologies and improvements to older technologies based on some screwball conspiracy theory that electric cars a leftist plot to advance..... I don't know, electric cars?

              Consider yourself ignored.

              Comment


              • The title of the article is a little misleading as it was for one month only, but still an impressive achievement.

                Portugal reaches 100% renewables, ends fossil fuel subsidies

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

                  Your first conditional statement is correct. Your conclusion is suspect.

                  What an honest approach to problem solving calls for is an open mind. This includes not eliminating options until it is absolutely necessary. Especially given the radical and rapidly changing costs associated with renewables.

                  Natural gas green house gas emissions are 50-60% less than coals. Is that enough? I don't know. I suspect you don't either. And this is only true if the natural gas production supply chain is overhauled to prevent methane leaks, which could be worse than CO2 emissions. What is the cost of that going to be?

                  The bottom line is your conclusions appear to be largely pulled out of thin air with little or no supporting data.

                  Frankly, I'm tired of being pulled into this argument. I actually don't care what solution is used, so long as the problem is solved. I'm tired of having to listen to premature discarding of promising new technologies and improvements to older technologies based on some screwball conspiracy theory that electric cars a leftist plot to advance..... I don't know, electric cars?

                  Consider yourself ignored.
                  Well, ignored or not, there are other greenhouse gasses besides CO2. There are other causes both man-made and natural that create these gases and put them in the atmosphere. I have repeatedly mentioned one: Contrails. I've posted material from NASA, the NOAA, scientific sources, and others that all say the same thing. These are having an impact and it's measurable and not insignificant. That's one example that refutes the only anthropogenic CO2 argument. It doesn't eliminate anthropogenic CO2 as a cause, but it does reduce it to just one of many rather than a singular one that Gorebal Warming calls for.

                  Contrails have only been around since the late 1930's and have increased exponentially since. That fits better than CO2 that the cause is recent and significantly increasing.

                  I have pointed out the stupidity of battery cars compared to already available fuel cell cars like the Honda Clarity too.



                  You don't hear about these because they don't fit the narrative of the Progressive Left. Yet, they are already on the market.

                  There are hydrogen stations too.



                  I've repeatedly demonstrated the sound reasoning behind these. But, they aren't the narrative the Left and environmentalists want told.

                  Comment


                  • The question is why is the "left" or at least the Neo Conservatives in bed with the Corporatists, Globalists, and financial sector and seem to hate the Fossil Fuel Industry. It may be as simple as follow the money. In 2018 environmental groups contributed $105,330,913 to political groups most of it going to Democrats with only 3 percent going to republicans. It is also important to note that 93 percent of that money came from individuals. Oil and gas companies were the opposite and much lower in contributions with around $24,000,000 overall and most of it going to republicans.

                    You can certainly make the case that the Republicans are not environmentally friendly and want to rely on private markets to protect the environment but the disparity in contributions opens new questions. With such disproportionate political influence it's important to ask if the environmental groups are reasonable or are simply abusing their political clot. There are no simple answers to that question.

                    First you have to ask how urgent the environmental issues are. Additionally you have to ask what the priorities are. Unless you are a misanthrope your first priority must be food and water security. Those issues are related to population growth and here I think the Republican mind set wins out. Reducing poverty has been a double edge sword with improvements in living standards reducing infant mortality dramatically. It does appear however that when living standards reach a certain point that fertility drops below replacement rates. It looks as if markets do have a positive environmental impact over time with the least degradation of living conditions. Also reducing poverty comes with the advantage of reduced impact on land use. High population densities in impoverished areas tend to have a greater negative effect on the environment than in richer countries. Living off the land could in theory be environmentally friendly but in practice it will devastate local habitats. The concentration of people in large urban areas that have sufficient funds to reduce impacts is probably the most environmentally friendly living pattern. It is a pattern that can be seen in the U.S. where poverty and the associated need for cheap products meant clear cutting and exploitation of marginal farm land that has largely been returned to natural conditions by way of government programs.

                    The fastest an the course that has the least negative impact on the poor has proven to be the course the U.S. has taken. The U.S. enjoys the cheapest energy cost of any developed nation and has reduced CO2 emissions more than any other country through the use of natural gas. The advantage of cheap energy is now flowing to other countries as cheap gas will also reduce emissions in the countries buying that gas. It may not address the long term issues but it is the most practical course if reduced human suffering and rapid reductions are the goal. That would include operating vehicles on natural gas not electric cars the poor cannot afford. It does not however turn over control to the bureaucrats and the environmental groups which are the major contributors to Democrats.

                    We hunt the hunters

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                      The question is why is the "left" or at least the Neo Conservatives in bed with the Corporatists, Globalists, and financial sector and seem to hate the Fossil Fuel Industry. It may be as simple as follow the money. In 2018 environmental groups contributed $105,330,913 to political groups most of it going to Democrats with only 3 percent going to republicans. It is also important to note that 93 percent of that money came from individuals. Oil and gas companies were the opposite and much lower in contributions with around $24,000,000 overall and most of it going to republicans.

                      You can certainly make the case that the Republicans are not environmentally friendly and want to rely on private markets to protect the environment but the disparity in contributions opens new questions. With such disproportionate political influence it's important to ask if the environmental groups are reasonable or are simply abusing their political clot. There are no simple answers to that question.

                      First you have to ask how urgent the environmental issues are. Additionally you have to ask what the priorities are. Unless you are a misanthrope your first priority must be food and water security. Those issues are related to population growth and here I think the Republican mind set wins out. Reducing poverty has been a double edge sword with improvements in living standards reducing infant mortality dramatically. It does appear however that when living standards reach a certain point that fertility drops below replacement rates. It looks as if markets do have a positive environmental impact over time with the least degradation of living conditions. Also reducing poverty comes with the advantage of reduced impact on land use. High population densities in impoverished areas tend to have a greater negative effect on the environment than in richer countries. Living off the land could in theory be environmentally friendly but in practice it will devastate local habitats. The concentration of people in large urban areas that have sufficient funds to reduce impacts is probably the most environmentally friendly living pattern. It is a pattern that can be seen in the U.S. where poverty and the associated need for cheap products meant clear cutting and exploitation of marginal farm land that has largely been returned to natural conditions by way of government programs.

                      The fastest an the course that has the least negative impact on the poor has proven to be the course the U.S. has taken. The U.S. enjoys the cheapest energy cost of any developed nation and has reduced CO2 emissions more than any other country through the use of natural gas. The advantage of cheap energy is now flowing to other countries as cheap gas will also reduce emissions in the countries buying that gas. It may not address the long term issues but it is the most practical course if reduced human suffering and rapid reductions are the goal. That would include operating vehicles on natural gas not electric cars the poor cannot afford. It does not however turn over control to the bureaucrats and the environmental groups which are the major contributors to Democrats.

                      So Democrats pump billions into sustaining illegals in the vain hope that their fertility rate will drop?

                      Cheap gas means more people driving longer distances, increasing emissions. Only Democrats could conceive of the opposite, or actually believe that nonsense...the very same idiot Democrats who believe that somehow, the electrical energy needed to run electric vehicles is free, while all other electricity is not.

                      This is the new emblem of the Democratic party: they're all squirrels.

                      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                        So Democrats pump billions into sustaining illegals in the vain hope that their fertility rate will drop?

                        Cheap gas means more people driving longer distances, increasing emissions. Only Democrats could conceive of the opposite, or actually believe that nonsense...the very same idiot Democrats who believe that somehow, the electrical energy needed to run electric vehicles is free, while all other electricity is not.

                        This is the new emblem of the Democratic party: they're all squirrels.

                        Where immigration is measured and meritocratic integration is encouraged and birthrates do fall.

                        We hunt the hunters

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

                          Where immigration is measured and meritocratic integration is encouraged and birthrates do fall.
                          So...not in America then. And obviously, we can infer from that that advanced social borders are detrimental to long term survival of that same society. Which begs the obvious question: what are the Dumbocrats playing at? Russian roulette with seven bullets and only six chambers...
                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                            So...not in America then. And obviously, we can infer from that that advanced social borders are detrimental to long term survival of that same society. Which begs the obvious question: what are the Dumbocrats playing at? Russian roulette with seven bullets and only six chambers...
                            I hate it when I have to provide references. The internet is easy to use.

                            Since 2000, the number of births per 1,000 Hispanic immigrant women of childbearing age fell 25% – from 109.7 births to 82.3 in 2017 (the most recent year for which data is available). The birth rate of Hispanic immigrant women, which used to be far higher than the rates of all other non-Hispanic immigrant groups, is now lower than that of white immigrant women
                            https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...hs-in-the-u-s/

                            There are other examples that show why integration is important. In England birthrates among Pakistani immigrants for example feel until the Pakistani communities grew segregated and populous enough for cultural patterns to revert to near pre-immigration levels.
                            We hunt the hunters

                            Comment


                            • Climate Change: Robust Evidence of Causes and Impacts

                              Comment


                              • Climate Change: Robust Evidence of Causes and Impacts very interesting, this could be the truth however in this day and age it is so hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. sometimes studies are funded by actors with a dog in the race. hard to tell .

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X