Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
- Thread starter Hillhater
- Start date
Hillhater
100 TW
With all the public funds ( $700+m) that were invested into this facility, there should be a detailed , open, investigation into the exact reasons for its failure to perform.
IE, so far there has been little information released by the operators, beyond the leaking salt storage,...
... but it could be important to know if any of the issues were related to solar performance (energy catchment, focus, efficiency, etc), ..or if the molten salt energy transfer and storage were more problematic than has been admitted, or even if there were other significant issues.
Molten Salt handling and storage could well play a role in future power systems, so learnings from these early implimentations are important to know, rather than kept for possible future commercial advantage of the failed commercial operators.
IE, so far there has been little information released by the operators, beyond the leaking salt storage,...
... but it could be important to know if any of the issues were related to solar performance (energy catchment, focus, efficiency, etc), ..or if the molten salt energy transfer and storage were more problematic than has been admitted, or even if there were other significant issues.
Molten Salt handling and storage could well play a role in future power systems, so learnings from these early implimentations are important to know, rather than kept for possible future commercial advantage of the failed commercial operators.
TheBeastie
1 MW
Yep, imagine receiving $700million of taxpayer money from the DOE to build such a contraption then having the audacity to then sue them for baloney reasons as to why the project didn't work.Hillhater said:
Classic standard business practises stuff here, I bet the CEO/board members of this dodgy solar project paid themselves something like $1million a year to run this project as its a complex project that is "risking" a lot of taxpayer money.
I STILL see people on Facebook/Twitter share very impressive looking solar thermal project demo videos on their social media accounts saying "Why aren't we doing this? It looks fantastic! Lets save the planet with solar thermal!"
Talk about suckers.
I was sure South Australia would build theirs which was from the same company in the USA.
Despite the money the government was going to give to help the project it still wasn't enough, maybe the easily web searchable Wikipedia MWh stats helped sink it compared to flashy Facebook video demos.
There was a demon in me that hoped they did build the SA solar thermal project because then we could see how dumb it is locally.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-05/solar-thermal-plant-will-not-go-ahead-in-port-augusta/10973948
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/south-australia-to-get-the-worlds-biggest-solar-thermal-plant-what-the-experts-have-to-say/
I like how bad the "experts" information was about this project back in 2017
Australian Senator Sarah Hanson-Young wanted the Port Augusta Solar thermal power-station entirely public-funded and owned by the Australian taxpayer.
Solar thermal plant should be publicly-owned
https://www.sarahhansonyoung.com/solar_thermal_for_port_augusta
Sarah is like a mini version of Al Gore, she frequently sited as always carrying two of the latest smartphones in a real leather designer handbags and racks up $1million dollar travel expenses bill on the taxpayer going around the world to see Mardi Gras etc.
HIGH-profile Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has claimed almost $1 million on travel entitlements
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/sarah-hansonyoung-greens-senator-claimed-almost-1-million-in-travel-entitlements/news-story/fdd7fc151fb29a0ba2cd23f99b4e43f9
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3213698/Greens-senator-Sarah-Hanson-Young-racks-travel-expenses-bill-1-million.html
https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/greens-senator-sarah-hansonyoung-partied-at-mardi-gras-with-taxpayer-money/news-story/295a35dff5be6fdc01e6c4f3aaf68ffd
It's stuff like this that helps me like Hydrogen more, because if the government wants to subsidize stuff then Hydogren is harder to cheat the taxpayer and cause problems.
If the government guarantees to pay a supplier of Hydrogen $30 a kilo for clean hydrogen then if some dodgy wind/solar company claims they can create Hydrogen at $10kilo with their new amazing clean energy electrolysis hydrogen factory, then they shouldn't have trouble getting funding from private industry.
Unlike MWh which can be dumped on the grid when its not wanted or cause grid instability because the power is not synchronized or because it's hard to predict the weather.
None of these dodgy problems exists with Hydrogen, it's far more fungible.
Great little 1minute overview of why fossil fuels are so used in context to fungibility.
https://youtu.be/v6uVnyjTb58?t=1402
I don't know if anyone looked at my Hydrogen-Fuelcell post https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=61153&p=1410624#p1410624
But it includes this great video from Engineering Explained has a great "Overall efficiency & emissions" of "Battery EVs vs Hydrogen Fuel-Cell vs Petroleum-cars vs Hybrids-cars", what's interesting is the Fuel-cell EVs are very close to BEVs in distance/emissions efficiency.
The only thing I don't like about his comparison is he doesn't include the $10,000 worth of energy/materials/emissions cost at minimum thats included with the giant lithium batteries for the BEVs which I think is cheating, because as discussed before is the equivalent for about 150,000km worth of combustion driving emissions that are "pre-emitted".
[youtube]2rywz73vwKw[/youtube]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheaper Catalyst Can Generate Hydrogen in a Commercial Device-Researchers have shown for the first time that a cheap catalyst can split water and generate #hydrogen gas for hours on end in the harsh environment of a commercial device
https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/cheaper-catalyst-can-generate-hydrogen-in-a-commercial-device/
jonescg
100 MW
Why do you take such issue with Sarah Hanson Young? It's a little creepy.
You could just ignore her, but no, you go out of your way to make memes about her.
Says more about you than her.
You could just ignore her, but no, you go out of your way to make memes about her.
Says more about you than her.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. I forget who said that.jonescg said:
I use this as a metric when I am trying to decide at what level to discuss something. Is the guy I am talking to doubting the idea that climate change will make all storms stronger? Great; there might be a good discussion to be had there. Is the guy saying "well, this storm was weak, so there's no such thing as climate change?" The discussion will be somewhat simpler. Does he lead with "Al Gore is a fat pompous hypocrite so climate change is fake!" Not much intellectual will happen there.
Hillhater
100 TW
Yes, its not rational to waste time on bit part polly idiots like SHY, when there are full blown, total practicing F*#kwits such as Dr DeNatali who is much more deserving of all the ridicule that can be mustered. ! 
Hillhater
100 TW
This will be a challenge for some of you that dare to watch it through.
..bill, ..... See if you can see it through , without “discussing the people”
https://youtu.be/oYhCQv5tNsQ
[youtube]oYhCQv5tNsQ[/youtube]
..bill, ..... See if you can see it through , without “discussing the people”
https://youtu.be/oYhCQv5tNsQ
[youtube]oYhCQv5tNsQ[/youtube]
jonescg
100 MW
Ah I remember this one. Being utter tripe, the ABC said they wouldn't screen it. Then the conservative press chided them.
So they folded, and in a classic case of 'giving airtime to the crazy minority in an effort to appear non-biassed' they screened it.
It's still rubbish.
So they folded, and in a classic case of 'giving airtime to the crazy minority in an effort to appear non-biassed' they screened it.
It's still rubbish.
Hillhater
100 TW
Thats a pretty sweeping statement .
Is it all “rubbish” ?
..you dont beliee the climate is changing ?
You dont agree with the lag of CO2 behind Temp in all the historic data ?
Be specific.
Which points are rubbish, and why ?
.. And the ABC are not a credible reference or scientific authority .
Is it all “rubbish” ?
..you dont beliee the climate is changing ?
You dont agree with the lag of CO2 behind Temp in all the historic data ?
Be specific.
Which points are rubbish, and why ?
.. And the ABC are not a credible reference or scientific authority .
jonescg
100 MW
That 'documentary' was full of glaring inconsistencies. In one part they're saying there's been a cooling trend, and then later are discussing why the sun is causing the warming trend. Despite the best radiation data showing no trend.
It focussed on perceived political motivations, and not the technical details they were trying to doubt. All they sought to do was sow doubt, and managed to find a handful of cranks who hold untenable positions.
It focussed on perceived political motivations, and not the technical details they were trying to doubt. All they sought to do was sow doubt, and managed to find a handful of cranks who hold untenable positions.
Hillhater
100 TW
So, are you saying there have been , and are, NO trends ?
At various periods there have have been cooling trends, ( 1940 - 1975) and other periods warming trends (1980-2000), ?
The whole AGW debate is based on a trend .!
Maybe you missed the facts stated by those eminent , qualified scientists, ...
Like the lack of predicted Heating in the Troposphere (verified by satelite and weather balloon data)
Or the total lack of causal correlation between Temperature and Co2 levels..?
But of course i realise some of you have permanent blocking filters to “inconvenient “ data.
At various periods there have have been cooling trends, ( 1940 - 1975) and other periods warming trends (1980-2000), ?
The whole AGW debate is based on a trend .!
Maybe you missed the facts stated by those eminent , qualified scientists, ...
Like the lack of predicted Heating in the Troposphere (verified by satelite and weather balloon data)
Or the total lack of causal correlation between Temperature and Co2 levels..?
But of course i realise some of you have permanent blocking filters to “inconvenient “ data.
TheBeastie
1 MW
That is a remarkable documentary, thanks Hill Hater!Hillhater said:
I don't think I have seen it before which is surprising really.
I like how many professional scientists they bring on the documentary to talk about climate science...
I also can't believe this was a channel4 production because I am led to believe they are about as leftist as the BBC or ABC..
This documentary originally aired in 2007 on UK's CH4, but I never saw it on broadcast, demonstrates that only way to get different opinions is via internet streaming, broadcast media is backwards garbage!
Main contributors to the video:
1. Professor Tim Ball - Dept. of Climatology - University of Winnepeg, Canada
2. Professor Nir Shaviv - Institute of Physics - University of Jerusalem, Israel
3. Professor Ian Clark - Dept. of Earth Sciences - University of Ottawa, Canada
4. Dr. Piers Corbyn, Solar Physicist, Climate Forecaster, Weather Action, UK
5. Professor John Christy - Dept. of Atmospheric Science - University of Alabama, Huntsville - Lead Author, IPCC (NASA Medal - Exceptional Scientific Achievement)
6. Professor Philip Stott - Dept of Biogeography - University of London, UK
7. Al Gore - Former Presidental Candidate
8. Margaret Thatcher - Global-Warming Promoter
9. Professor Paul Reiter - IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris, France
10. Professor Richard Lindzen - IPCC & M.I.T.
11. Patrick Moore - Co-Founder - Greenpeace
12. Dr. Roy Spencer - Weather Satellite Team Leader - NASA
13. Professor Patrick Michaels - Department of Environmental Sciences - University of Virginia, US
14. Nigel Calder - Former Editor - New Scientist
15. James Shikwati - Economist & Author
16. Lord Lawson of Blaby - Secretary of Energy - UK Parliament Investigator, UK
17. Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu - Director, International Arctic Research Centre
18. Professor Fredrick Singer - Former Director, US National Weather Service
19. Professor Carl Wunsch - Dept. of Oceanography - M.I.T., Harvard, University College, London, University of Cambridge, UK
20. Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen - Director, Danish National Space Centre
Whatever the truth might be, I think we all know for sure that Greta Thunberg has an awesome future in singing Eco Death Metal, that's for sure...
https://youtu.be/CLxpgRqxtEA
[youtube]CLxpgRqxtEA[/youtube]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know folks don't like me accusing people that it's just all about the money but here is another one. When I was blocked from riding through the CBD last week because of the ER protests I was really surprised by how well organized and choreographed the front-line protest dancers were, they looked like they had been practising the dance routines for at least weeks.
Extinction Rebellion activists are being paid up to £400-a-week to lead protests
Activists have been paid more than £200,000 since the start of the scheme
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7566515/Extinction-Rebellion-files-reveal-climate-zealots-paid-400-week.html
Everyone remembers the days ~10 years ago when Firefox was the ultimate free browser, but no one understood how it could make money giving away its software, that was until we found out Google was willing to pay Firefox $100million's to be the "default search-engine" beating out the other search engines.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/11/mozilla-ends-google-relationship-firefox-will-now-default-to-yahoo/
In the age of the internet, there is a way to monetize anything! The same types of cottage industries have dribbled into everything, even animal welfare groups have been accused of deliberately paying people large sums of money like this $20,000 story below to deliberately turn-OFF water/airconditioning systems to then film suffering animals so that those animal welfare groups can then use the videos to ask for "more donations" for help to fight for the welfare of animals.
This is commonly referred to as "Cash For Cruelty" in Australia because the animal welfare groups are quietly making a monetary-killing pretending to care amount animals suffering. It might of all started out innocent but then the money takes over!
As far as I am concerned I pity the folks who don't see through the lies!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXZkfdLU8O8
[youtube]SXZkfdLU8O8[/youtube]
ATTEMPT TO STING LIVE EXPORT TRADE BACKFIRES BADLY
As much as live export companies are under scrutiny for their treatment of sheep and cattle, animal activist groups also need to be held accountable for their tactics, writes Sharri Markson.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/cash-incentives-for-whistleblower-backfires-badly-for-animal-activists/news-story/f8c375d323a2c183995a6c147c241fec
https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6084010859001
^Video report talking about emails exchanges between a livestock transport worker and animal-welfare group offering to turn off water/aircon/control systems to increase animal suffering for more money.
In the reports he alleged Mr Ullah, who he said was his friend and housemate, approached him in July 2016 and told him Australian animal activist groups would pay $20,000 for footage of animals suffering.
https://www.beefcentral.com/live-export/pakistan-ship-worker-tells-media-he-was-paid-for-animal-cruelty-pictures/
jonescg
100 MW
https://www.abc.net.au/science/features/globalwarmingswindle/
Well 12 years ago lots of energy was spent debunking that film. I shan't waste any more valuable time on it.
Well 12 years ago lots of energy was spent debunking that film. I shan't waste any more valuable time on it.
Hillhater
100 TW
Punx0r said:
billvon said:
Hillhater
100 TW
Not surprising , read the comments about access issues,TheBeastie said:
It seems a lot of people and organisations have tried to suppress it and make it difficult to access.
A title search on Youtube wont bring it up,
A direct link is the only sure way to locate it
jimw1960
10 kW
Hillhater said:
That's utter shyte. You've had all of the above explained you you multiple times right here on this thread and the other one on climate change. I've explained every one of those points to you multiple times myself, but you go on repeating the nonsense that has no basis in science or any support in the scientific literature. You could easily fact check it yourself, but you refuse to see anything beyond your own politically based world view. Honestly, I don't know why any of these people still try to reason with you because I am certainly done with you.
Hillhater
100 TW
What exactly are you whineing on about now jimmy ?
Trends are “shyte” ? Are they.
Or the time lag between temp and CO2 in the historical data ?
At least try to explain your point in adult terms rather than spoilt brat , non specific, insults .
Trends are “shyte” ? Are they.
Or the time lag between temp and CO2 in the historical data ?
At least try to explain your point in adult terms rather than spoilt brat , non specific, insults .
No. Your opinions, based on false claims, are shyte.Hillhater said:
Let's take one - lack of warming in the troposphere. That was disproven years ago. The upper troposphere IS warming due to greater energy transport in water vapor (wet adiabatic lapse rate vs dry adiabatic lapse rate.) This is from ten years ago, so you'd have to really work hard at being blind to not see it:
======================
CLIMATE RESEARCH UPDATE
Upper troposphere is warming after all, research shows
Physicsworld.com
28 May 2008
Research performed in the US has helped lay to rest one of the lasting controversies surrounding climate models: whether or not the upper troposphere is warming.
Climate models have long predicted that the upper troposphere — a region of the Earth’s atmosphere that lies beneath the stratosphere at an altitude of 10–12 km — should be warming at least as fast as the surface. However, since the 1970s temperature measurements carried out by weather balloons have found the lower-troposphere temperature to be fairly constant. This conclusion was backed up in 1990, when researchers used data taken from satellites to measure temperature changes in the troposphere.
For a while climate scientists have known that weather-balloon instruments are affected by the warming effect of the Sun’s light. They have also struggled to interpret the extent to which the satellite data of the troposphere could be influenced by the stratosphere. But the awareness of these uncertainties has not made it any clearer as to what temperature changes, if any, are taking place in the upper troposphere.
Now, Robert Allen and Steven Sherwood of Yale University have used wind data taken from weather balloons as a proxy for direct temperature measurements to give the first conclusive evidence that the upper troposphere has been warming after all. Although they are an indirect measure of temperature, these wind records can be backed up by satellite and ground instruments, making them more reliable than existing direct temperature measurements (Nature Geoscience doi: 10.1038/ngeo208).
‘Put the controversy to rest’
Allen and Sherwood took wind data from 341 weather-balloon stations — 303 in the northern hemisphere and 38 in the southern hemisphere — covering a period from 1970 to 2005. To covert the data to temperature measurements, they employed a relationship known as the thermal-wind equation, which describes how vertical gradients in wind speed change with horizontally varying temperature. They found that the maximum warming has occurred in the upper troposphere above the tropics at 0.65 ± 0.47 °C per decade, a rate consistent with climate models.
“This research really does show the tropical troposphere has been warming over the past three decades,” says Benjamin Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “And it will, I hope, put this controversy of weather balloon and satellite data to rest.” Santer, who was one of the lead authors of the 1995 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, thinks the next step is to confirm Allen and Sherwood’s findings with direct temperature records. These, he explains, must be taken with advanced weather-balloon instruments that can be calibrated against older models to remove biases.
==================
And if you would like something more recent:
=================
Tropospheric Warming Over The Past Two Decades
May 2017
Nature.com
Benjamin David Santer
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Susan Solomon
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Abstract
Satellite temperature measurements do not support the recent claim of a “leveling off of warming” over the past two decades. Tropospheric warming trends over recent 20-year periods are always significantly larger (at the 10% level or better) than model estimates of 20-year trends arising from natural internal variability. Over the full 38-year period of the satellite record, the separation between observed warming and internal variability estimates is even clearer. In two out of three recent satellite datasets, the tropospheric warming from 1979 to 2016 is unprecedented relative to internally generated temperature trends on the 38-year timescale.
====================
jimw1960
10 kW
Save your effort, Bill. Nothing will convince this guy to move away from the denier blog-o-sphere and to consider actual peer-reviewed scientific data and studies.
Dauntless
100 TW
https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/science-technology/faq-ccs/?utm_source=endless-sphere
jonescg
100 MW
Ahh good old carbon capture and storage. The holy grail of innovation to help keep the oil and gas industry doing what they're already doing, for longer.
We had a massive natural gas hub in the north-west of Australia only get approval to proceed on the condition they set up a CCS plant and have it operational by 2018. Well, as it turned out, they never even bothered submitting the paperwork because they flat out ignored the directive.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-21/gorgon-gas-plant-wiping-out-a-year-of-solar-emission-savings/9890386
We had a massive natural gas hub in the north-west of Australia only get approval to proceed on the condition they set up a CCS plant and have it operational by 2018. Well, as it turned out, they never even bothered submitting the paperwork because they flat out ignored the directive.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-21/gorgon-gas-plant-wiping-out-a-year-of-solar-emission-savings/9890386
sn0wchyld
100 kW
TheBeastie said:
400kwh is likely with little to no effort being put toward improving system efficiency. For example - if we assume for the moment that your average pie at ~200g (bigger than a '420' commercial pie) and is eintirely water (its not) heated form 0 to 100C (more than required) then a 100% efficient bakery could do over 20 000 pies per day using 400kWh a day... Now I am in no way suggesting that 100% efficiency is realistic, but im also doubting that what they have now is even close to as efficient as it could easily be. I'd be surprised if they were serving up 2000 pies a day (or equivilant weight of food) so they're likely using 10x or more what they need. Realistically even with reverse cycle they likely cant realistically drop their energy requirements by an order of magnitude, but I wouldn't be even faintly surprised if they could be cut in half, if not far more. For example I'd bet big money that their ovens cool overnight/when closed, as there's insufficient insulation to retain most their heat when not in use. Look at deep fryers for a separate example, they're usually open, in large, highly conductive metal vessels, with all that heat just radiating/convecting away. A well insulated oven, like a well insulted fryer, only needs more heat when food is added, and requires near enough to nothing to be maintained.
TLDR - 400kw only when little to no attention is being paid to easily realizable efficiency gains. The potential exists (depending on # of pies made) to reduce by well over 50% - and save about $20k a year in the process. The baker/chip shop owner etc however probably isn't aware of what can be done, much less the potential savings to be realized.
sendler2112
100 kW
A focused effort by modern societies can accomplish amazing things. Witness the sudden build up and transformation for World War II by the USA. Which cost 4.1 Trillion over four years in adjusted dollars and was financed with a 94% top income tax bracket creating a de facto maximum income of $2 million adjusted/ year. Which generally remained in place until the mid 1950's. And from personal accumulated wealth by selling government issued war bonds that promised a return after the war. Price controls and rationing coupons for food and resources were instituted. Each car was allowed 3 gallons of gas per week unless it had an official use. Media and movies were redirected to develop content to promote the cause. Resource heavy entertainment with the modern day equivalents such as NASCAR and Disney Land would be generally curtailed. Full employment with overtime hours and good pay provided recovery to a middle class which was still lagging from the great depression fifteen years earlier.
.
87% of the worlds primary energy consumption is still from fossil carbon and the share actually increased last year due to cheap fracked gas. And the total energy consumption is increasing exponentially due to continued exponential growth of the World economy as they are still correlated at nearly 1:1. As is the consumption of nonrenewable resources such as Phosphorous for fertilizer and Copper for motor windings. To totally rebuild and replace all infrastructure, industrial processes, and machinery, that is not electric, and replace all primary energy generation with wind, solar and storage, and build out all of the transmission to carry the 5 fold increase in electricity, will require a similar War On Climate and War On Resource Depletion effort. Times 10. At least. 40 years of austerity and focus and $40 trillion just for the USA, to pull it off. Maybe twice that in time and money. And it must be a world wide commitment with $200 trillion to invest. And a world wide commitment to prevent the rich from just relocating their assets to the cheapest tax rate country spurring a race to the bottom. As we are already seeing.
.
But we must commit soon while we still have the cheap liquid fuel to build the massive projects that we will need and quit squandering our seed corn. "Do not eat the seed corn."
.
87% of the worlds primary energy consumption is still from fossil carbon and the share actually increased last year due to cheap fracked gas. And the total energy consumption is increasing exponentially due to continued exponential growth of the World economy as they are still correlated at nearly 1:1. As is the consumption of nonrenewable resources such as Phosphorous for fertilizer and Copper for motor windings. To totally rebuild and replace all infrastructure, industrial processes, and machinery, that is not electric, and replace all primary energy generation with wind, solar and storage, and build out all of the transmission to carry the 5 fold increase in electricity, will require a similar War On Climate and War On Resource Depletion effort. Times 10. At least. 40 years of austerity and focus and $40 trillion just for the USA, to pull it off. Maybe twice that in time and money. And it must be a world wide commitment with $200 trillion to invest. And a world wide commitment to prevent the rich from just relocating their assets to the cheapest tax rate country spurring a race to the bottom. As we are already seeing.
.
But we must commit soon while we still have the cheap liquid fuel to build the massive projects that we will need and quit squandering our seed corn. "Do not eat the seed corn."
Similar threads
