General / Off-Topic Well, we're basically stuffed then...

You seem to be about 15-20 years out of date on the efficiency of wind and solar. Nuclear power is not cost effective anymore, nor is it as low carbon as you seem to think.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



Unless we manage to go full Venus, you're right. It's possible btw, we've liberated a huge amount of carbon from the slow geological cycling.

But are you honestly saying that it's not a problem if we go extinct and decimate the biosphere along the way? Nihilism is a stupid pseudo philosophy, and intellectually lazy.

1.
Sorry. But I have to tell you here. No its not.
What he Said is (for this part at least) correct.

Neither Wind nor Solar Energy is Capable of Delivering the Base Consumption.
Three Reasons for this.

1.
The Base Consumption Varies during the Day.
But Unlike Coal and Nuclear PowerPlants. You cannot just increase or decrease the Power on a Wind or Solar Power Plant.
You have to Build Extra Plants which then can be Activated and Deactivated to Deal with this.
Which is one Reason why these Sources are very very Inefficient and currently completely unable to Shoulder a Countries Power Supply without Coal or Nuclear Power Plants.

2.
The Energy you get from Wind and Solar is Heavily Dependent on the Weather. And if you used the most Modern Battery Technology currently available. You would need over a Billion Batteries to keep Germany Power for 1 Hour during the Day when Wind and Solar Power have too low Production to Supply the Net due to for example and Low Wind and Rainy Clouds. (The reason for this is because Wind Power needs a certain Speed to run. This must be neither too low nor too high. And Solar Power needs a Minimum Generation to actually Supply it into the Net. Which is often not reached on Dark Days. For example for the last Week here in Germany Solar Power would have been around 30-50% at best) And during Night it can very fast be 0%
Which means that assuming we have only 30% Power Usage during the Night. This would still require around 3 Billion Batteries to ONLY last this One Night.
And these need to be Loaded as well. Which means for this to Work you would require to Double the Installations again.
Ultimately. If you Include Maintenance and Shortages. You would need roughly 6 Times the Power Usage in Installed Power Plants using Wind and Solar Power. In Addition to that you would Require around 40 Billion Batteries to keep the Power Supply Steady and Available at all times.
This is currently impossible for Practical Means. And that leads to 3.

3.
Wind and Solar Power both need extensive Space. And they need more Space than they can Supply 24/7. Which Unfortunately results in them being used for Supply 24/7 being Impossible.



Nuclear Power by the way is and stays the most Efficient. This is a Fact and not Contested.
The Reason its no the best way is Solely due to the Nuclear Waste and the Danger of Accidents.
But in terms of Efficiency it is and stays the most Efficient.
Nuclear Power up to this Day. Is the Cheapest Possible Energy Source.
The Reason why Greenpeace says its not. Is because they include the Tax Money used to store Waste and other Stuff.
The thing is. They include this State Support into the Price of Nuclear Power and say its not as Cheap as they Tell you because the State helps out.
But they dont include this State Support which Wind and Solar Energy as well as others Receive. Because just so you know. Alot of the stuff used especially for Solar Panels is very hard to store as Waste as well.
Same for the Electronics in Wind Power. And they also dont tell you the heavy Subventions and how much Nature is Destroyed to get the Space to Build them. All of which is also heavily Supported by the State. :)


Sorry Mate.
Currently. And this is something I tell you because its the Field I come from. And also because I am an Electrician which actually had to Learn how Wind Power as well as Solar Power Works and how to Repair it etc etc.
It is not Possible to Run a Country Solely on Wind and Solar Power. You always need Fossil Power Plants which can be Regulated and which Carry 100% of the Load once the Green Power is not available due to Weather or whatever.

Its a Different Story for Small Countries like Iceland or Norway. Iceland thanks to Geothermal Energy which is Reliable can Run on such stuff. Norway thanks to its Extensive Cliff Coast can use Tidal Power for it.
But the Majority of Countries which does not have such special Terrain. Is not Capable of doing that.
And unfortunately we neither have enough such Terrain to have this work for the Entire World. Or even just the EU :)




I agree that this is a Problem.
But as I said before.
If we want to Fix it. We need to start Improving our Technology and stop wasting money by trying to Force Inefficient Technology onto the Stage.

If all the Subsidies Money Germany Wasted on Building Obsolete Wind and Solar Power Plants. Would have gone to Research of better Technology. I would assume that we would not require to even think about this Problem. Because long before 2040 when the Coal Mines in Germany start Closing. We would likely have the Required Technology on a Level where Companies would all by themselves Build and Use it. Because its more Cost Efficient than using Fossil Energy.
 
I do believe you'll find wind above nuclear there.

What's needed is a different backup.

What we need is a smart grid and grid-level storage.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I'm not even against nuclear power, and I support fusion research. We're going to need both. The stuff that makes the most immediate sense to build and develop though, is renewables.

Olkiluoto 3 will hopefully be finally turned on in a few years. Most of the reactors in Finland are in their late middle age. It took incredibly lomg to build though, and is something like 3x over budget.

Finland btw is the one place with a proper end storage facility for nuclear waste in the final stages of being completed. With our incredibly stable bedrock I think this country should make a business of storing Europe's nuclear waste. For a reasonable profit, of course.
 
Last edited:
What we need is a smart grid and grid-level storage.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I'm not even against nuclear power, and I support fusion research. We're going to need both. The stuff that makes the most immediate sense to build and develop though, is renewables.

Olkiluoto 3 will hopefully be finally turned on in a few years. Most of the reactors in Finland are in their late middle age. It took incredibly lomg to build though, and is something like 3x over budget.

Finland btw is the one place with a proper end storage facility for nuclear waste in the final stages of being completed. With our incredibly stable bedrock I think this country should make a business of storing Europe's nuclear waste. For a reasonable profit, of course.


I love it when those two are called.
Because this is among the Biggest Rubbish I know in this Sector.
Its the thing that some Companies in my Country are Advertising with about how Green they are while in Reality it is the Coal Power Plants which keep this working....


The Smart Grid.
The Smart Grid in its Essence simply means an Automatisation. But not an Full one as that would be too Dangerous and has (with current Technology) proven to be too Unreliable for actual Use.
Which means that Ultimately its the same as what we are doing right now to Manually. Just with more Automatics.

The Joke here is. Grid Management has been done for Decades. Because Energy Suppliers want to get as much Profit as Possible. So they are Manually Managing that Grid to the Brink attempting to be as Efficient as Possible so they dont have to Produce any more than forcibly needed.
For example. To maintain Stable Energy Levels. The Lignite Mine I work in. Is always working as an Power Equalizer for the Grid. Which means if the Power Usage is very High we slow down which brings Tons of Energy into the System. And if Energy is not Used by the Grid and thus would be wasted. We start Working Full Power so we dont Waste this Energy.
Alot of Installations work this way.
The So Called Smart Grid is exactly this. Just using Partial Automatic Systems.
So Sorry. But this stuff is an Scam. Its an different lable for something already being done just slightly changed to justify calling it different.
As for the End Consumer. This means the same. He would Manage Energy Efficient. But this is Expensive. And Unrealistic. The Smart Home needs alot of Money. Its nothing even the Middle Class can Afford. And its also just a different lable for Modernizing Houses to be more Energy Efficient.

I really love this. Cause its one of the very Typical things in Politics. You take something your already doing anyways. Slap a Green Environmental Label on it. And then Sell it more Expensively to the People as an Solution for Climate Change......



The Grid Storage.
This one in itself is not exactly an Bad Idea.
The Problem on this one. Is that the Environmental Damage and the Required amounts of Energy are outright Impossible to Archieve. (Pls not example on Germany. Some Smaller Countries with alot of Mountains or other available sources might actually get this done)
People are always up in Arms if a Coal Mine destroys a large Forest to Dig a Hole which is then Filled again and Reforested again.
Strangely nobody cares if People Destroy a large Forest to Dig a Hole which is then Filled with Water not having a new Forest. And then used for a Pump Plant.

Hydro Plants require an River. And not a small one. Moreover you need to Dam this River which requires an Natural Location which is almost Impossible to Build Artificially.
Pump Plants are the same. You need to have an high enough Hill which is Big enough for an Lake. And then you need another Lake at the Bottom. Both which can however be Artificially Created so you only need a high enough Hill. Which however also means that just like Coal if you want to use all these. You have to Destroy whatever lies there. Including Resettlement of Cities etc. :)
Both Types Destroy the Environment in their area to an extreme Extend. And the Pump Plants on top create Earthquakes due to the immense Shifting of Weight from one Place to the Other.
For Germany. Even if you used all available Places for such Plants. And even if you added other Plants like Thermal Storage Plants etc etc etc to it. You simply would not get the Required Supply to actually keep Germany Running at 100% Not even for 1 Minute.
You would thanks to the Limited Installed Power manage around 20-30% for about 2 Days. Before this would Start to Fall. And this is assuming you didnt not need them for Outbalancing earlier.
Unfortunately. Energy Consumption Changes can be up to 50% and more. Which means that even for just working as Regulation Devices this would not Suffice without again Pulling Coal and other Power Plants into it.



So the Question is.
Given the Immense Price this will Cost. Both Nature and Humanity.
Would you really want to Install a Grid Storage which ultimately will only be usable for Regulation and which will still not Change the Fact that you have to Keep a 100% Fossil Energy Supply Ready in the Backround ? :)
It would indeed Slow down Fossil Energy Consumption by roughly 50%
But it would also Require more than 10 Years to be Build and in this time would Eat away on Fossil Energy while Destroying alot of the Environment.
 
What we need is a smart grid and grid-level storage.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I'm not even against nuclear power, and I support fusion research. We're going to need both. The stuff that makes the most immediate sense to build and develop though, is renewables.

Olkiluoto 3 will hopefully be finally turned on in a few years. Most of the reactors in Finland are in their late middle age. It took incredibly lomg to build though, and is something like 3x over budget.

Finland btw is the one place with a proper end storage facility for nuclear waste in the final stages of being completed. With our incredibly stable bedrock I think this country should make a business of storing Europe's nuclear waste. For a reasonable profit, of course.

To make a smart grid with load following back up or batteries would cost more than investing in newer nuclear technology and that's the cost of reinventing an existing small countries electrical grid, if you're looking to upgrade the United states electrical grid as example so wind mills and solar panels don't destroy it in the long term, easily in the several trillions dollars. I mean sure, U.S. definetely needs more trillions of debt right now :D

Joking aside, i have no issue with renewables, but it we want to be serious about this, we should invest in new innovation, molten salt reactors, integral fast reactors... there are so many options to solve all the problems with existing nuclear that the cost would be worth it in the long run.

I suggest you look at the following link, which displays how you can decarbonize a state very easily, and bring it away from coal.

http://live.gridwatch.ca/
 
There's nothing to worry about.

As always California is way out front and has solved the Climate Change (I'm pretty sure Al Gore said I wasn't supposed to use Global Warming anymore now that the data - at least the data that hasn't been tampered with to reinforce the computer models that weren't getting it right - shows no temperature rise for the last 17 years) problem.

http://www.ibtimes.com/cow-farts-ha...co2-california-regulate-methane-fight-2420014


We should be OK now.
 
There's nothing to worry about.

As always California is way out front and has solved the Climate Change (I'm pretty sure Al Gore said I wasn't supposed to use Global Warming anymore now that the data - at least the data that hasn't been tampered with to reinforce the computer models that weren't getting it right - shows no temperature rise for the last 17 years) problem.

http://www.ibtimes.com/cow-farts-ha...co2-california-regulate-methane-fight-2420014


We should be OK now.

Your information is out of date, son.

Change points of global temperature
 
To make a smart grid with load following back up or batteries would cost more than investing in newer nuclear technology and that's the cost of reinventing an existing small countries electrical grid, if you're looking to upgrade the United states electrical grid as example so wind mills and solar panels don't destroy it in the long term, easily in the several trillions dollars. I mean sure, U.S. definetely needs more trillions of debt right now :D

Just a quick comment here. Nuclear power plants can't be used as adjustment power. They can only be run at a very narrow range of power generation. A nuclear power plan is basically only on or off ~90 - 100% output. There needs to be a way to balance the load from second to second, and to account for spikes in demand. Gas turbines are probably the cleanest stuff we can currently have, for the flex power that needs to be able to ramp up and down quickly, and to come online only when needed.

As for grid-level-storage, this doesn't have to mean batteries (but if we solve large scale liquid metal batteries, it may end up being just that). We can use the excess power from renewables to drive electrolysis and store the hydrogen. It can then be used to run turbines of fuel cells when demand exceeds production. There are other systems too, like using old mine shafts for hydro power. Pump the water up when you have excess from renewables - run it through a turbine when you need to tap into the reserve. Etc etc.

It's very likely that we're going to have to time our peak use with peak production better though. It makes sense to drive energy intensive industries when production is high, and not in the dead of night for instance.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

The same thing happened in the UK after the Brexit vote. Racists, xenophobes, homophobes, and generally thuggish and violent bigots feel they now have free reign.

Just like I said :(


And regarding the climate, you guys may want to read up on his stated plans here: https://www.greatagain.gov/policy/energy-independence.html
 
And regarding the climate, you guys may want to read up on his stated plans here: https://www.greatagain.gov/policy/energy-independence.html

Actually, that plan isn't actually as crazy as it might first appear.

In reality what we're talking about is economic and emissions displacement. Despite the efforts on decarbonising industry in the West, this has been more than countered by CO2 emissions growth in the developing nations - noticeably as they pick our industrial work. The current strategy of CO2 abatement has arguably made things worse, not better.

Ready availability of fuel stocks would encourage generation and industry in an environment with much better technology and safety standards than, say, Malaysia - as well as lowering energy pricing for both industry and consumers (and thus attacking energy poverty and rising industry costs).

Big potential downside: Coal. No matter which way you look at it - Coal is a nasty fuel source, both in terms of mining it and then burning it. At the moment we seem happy for coal to be used on our behalf on the other side of the world (40% of global energy production). I suspect a bunch of open-cast mines in the US are not going to be palatable to many.
 
Your information is out of date, son.

Change points of global temperature

Well, I'm sure you're not old enough to be my father and I know that my mother was intelligent, so obviously your attempts to be inflammatory have no more merit than your data.

I'm not talking about data that requires complicated formulas to tip the scale to the argument. I look at objective unaltered data before the politically paid grant dependent "scientists" produce the results they've been paid for.

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/

Surely, we don't need to dredge up all the scandals and internal emails that have never been denied.

The reality is that Climate research is government funded, therefore tainted from the start once that community realizes that if they contradict the requested PC myths the funding dries up.

Like always, anyone who disagrees gets labelled a racist, bigot, Xenophobe, quack that can't be credible.

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/
 
Thank goodness the enlightened are here to return us to sanity.

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-anti-trump-rioters-brawl/

Gee, if we really want to have fun, someone should be posting a poll taking odds on how long it will take Obama to issue a blanket pardon to Bill and Hillary for them and all their staff for any and all crimes committed since they were born.

You gotta know it's coming.

Oh, and I actually hope he does. That will be far more convincing of their guilt than anything Trey Gowdy would present. After all, we know how irrelevant, facts, evidence, and the rule of law are with a large segment of the public.

This is going to be so much fun.

But seriously, I'd rather see her pardoned by either Obama OR Trump. It's time to put away the sideshow and move on.

I have no interest in seeing old people being disgraced and put in prison. There's no point. The precedent was set with Nixon. It's better to just close this chapter in history.

And I don't think anyone can empathize enough with the pain HRC must be feeling. I wish her well in her retirement as long as she remains civil and disengaged politically.
 
Last edited:
Everyone needs to calm down. All these projections of doom and chaos is childish.

Canada's immigration website crashing.

Americans planning on leaving the USA.

Katy Perry calling for a revolution (lol).


Seriously, grow up. I'd really be interested though in knowing how Katy Perry is going to lead this revolution. Will she just be singing songs about it, or is she going to grab a gun and storm the White House? Stupid air-head.

All this crap is ****ing me off now.

As I said before, does anyone seriously think things would be any better under a person like Hillary? She's hardly an upstanding, honourable person.

And whats is wrong with Mexico? bunch of racist haha
 
I'm not talking about data that requires complicated formulas to tip the scale to the argument. I look at objective unaltered data before the politically paid grant dependent "scientists" produce the results they've been paid for.

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/

Surely, we don't need to dredge up all the scandals and internal emails that have never been denied.

The reality is that Climate research is government funded, therefore tainted from the start once that community realizes that if they contradict the requested PC myths the funding dries up.

Like always, anyone who disagrees gets labelled a racist, bigot, Xenophobe, quack that can't be credible.

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/

Sorry, but this is absolutely wrong. The satellite data is HEAVILY altered, HIGHLY MODEL DEPENDENT, and the MOST INDIRECT method to measure temperature. And this is nothing new. Please watch this video:

[video=youtube;UVMsYXzmUYk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVMsYXzmUYk&ab_channel=YaleClimateConnections[/video]
 
Back
Top Bottom