Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[Hillhater]

So, what exactly do you believe demonstrates the reality of man made Co2, (or natural Co2), is causing climate changes ?..and can be scientificaly validated .

 

[jonescg]

Can't believe I'm wasting my time answering this, but anyway...

From first principles, molecules with a dipole moment such as water, carbon dioxide, methane and other hetroatomic gases will vibrate, bend, twist and stretch when irradiated with light in the 700-3000 nm range of the spectrum. They absorb this infrared energy and as a result, the average kinitic energy of the molecule increases.

The very definition of temperature is the average kinetic energy of the particles of a substance. So when molecules absorb radiation their temperature increases, and they will slowly re-release that radiation at longer wavelengths.

Water is a very powerful greenhouse gas, but unlike CO2 and methane, the saturated concentration of water in the atmosphere and in the liquid form has effectively remained constant, even during ice ages. Increasing the concentration of the medium which absorbs energy will increase the total amount of energy which can be stored, and therefore re-radiated. The result is a net increase in the temperature of the atmosphere and the surrounding solid and liquid interfaces (land and sea). Warmer air can dissolve more water before it precipitates, leading to more intense storms about the tropics during La Nina periods.

 

[Punx0r]

...Whilst completely ignoring the huge “carbon loading” initially needed to establish that infrastructure.?
Dont you just love “Committee’s” who have no responsibility to shoulder beyond collecting a fat pay check for producing reports.
PS.. who is going to tell them they dont have a clue what they are talking about ?

Huge carbon loading required? Economies and energy consumption are closely related, so the monetary cost of 1-2% of GDP will translate to approx 1-2% of current emissions.

Committees aren't perfect but they have access to data, knowledge and skilled scientists, technologists and economists. As such it's, while I'm sure you'd be first to tell them they don't have a clue I would take the committee's findings over your uneducated opinions any day.

You are right, you are still stuck at the lowest stages of denialism. You'll advocate burning coal anyway you can believing it will give you cheaper electricity for the remainder of your life because that's all you care about.

Denier myth after denier myth gets debunked and the moronic proponents just double down. While no denier has ever succeeded in disproving a single claim made by established climate science.

 

[TheBeastie]

The problem with believing the global warming is a serious problem via CO2 emissions argument, is that your solution completely undermines your own argument.
If CO2 is causing serious damage to the world why on earth are you guys pushing wind/solar as the solution?

On average I check Electricitymap for France/Germany/South Australia everyday and it almost always looks like this, occasionally it might be a windy day, but most of the time its just truly shocking how poorly wind-farms work.
Conversely, France based nuclear is amazing on very low co2 emissions.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&countryCode=DE&remote=true

Germany and South Australia are around 200% wind/solar capacity installed and they emit on average 10 times more co2 than France.
ElectricityMap even hides/fudges the true "installed capacity" on wind/solar just to make renewables look as good as illegally possible https://anero.id/energy/wind-energy

If we were comparing these states as like with vehicle emissions than the wind/solar "car" is a horrible co2 polluting joke compared to nuclear.
A car that emits 10 times more co2 than the other car is a complete JOKE, but you brainwashed fools keep endorsing it as a great thing.

Like I have said before, IQ tests are just sets of little puzzles, and this little puzzle is a level 80 IQ level.
It's incredibly dumb to believe this stuff.
If ALL of you were jumping up and down for nuclear, then it would be significantly easier to believe your argument, but most of you hate nuclear and refuse to even acknowledge the real-world data and facts from electricityMap.

The other complete joke is the fact Germany gets about 50% of its total MWh renewables generation via Biomass.
as discussed here https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&start=3825#p1465268
Biomass is burning wood to generate electricity, its data triple reinforces the fact that wind/solar is a joke not only on electricity generation, but on the environment as well.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig3-share-energy-sources-gross-german-power-production-2018.png?itok=lABkj99H
Germany generated: 45TWh from Biomass, 92TWh via wind-turbines.
For the number of wind-farms installed in Germany 60GW capacity, 47GW solar for a total of 107GWwind/solar, just to get half the TWh generated via biomass, this is just crazy. I understand how Germany could of been so silly to vote the nazi's into power, because we can just look at how crazy the situation is with wind/solar/biomass.
And the other if not MORE important fact, biomass gave Germany the electricity generation when they actually needed it, rather than having to dump wind energy when it wasn't expected.

Another way to look at Germany's renewables, is that Germany has 14x times more "installed capacity" of wind/solar renewables than its so-called "biomass" renewables.
That means even on a metric of "not getting your power when you actually need it", biomass is 14x times better in raw performance for its claimed "installed capacity".

Ideally, I would like to see biomass banned as being called a renewable, and more and more scientific analysis announcements also claim that biomass shouldn't be counted as renewable energy because of all the emissions wood burning it causes. IPCC generally consider biomass at 230grams-co2e/KWh, but really it can vary massively.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/eu-dragged-to-court-for-backing-forest-biomass-as-renewable-energy/
^Biomass is actually in the courts of the EU, because it's clear what a load of hypocritical baloney it is to be burning trees to generate electricity and calling it low co2 emissions/renewables, what a joke.

You wind/solar guys are just about politics/money or something else OTHER than the environment or actual lowering of co2 emissions, because what you stand behind with wind/solar is well and truly proven to be a joke.

The only other possibility of not being about politics/money, because wind/solar is so terrible technology, is that some of you guys are just brainwashed by backwards broadcast media.
This is one of the reasons why I want to see all broadcast media replaced with internet-streaming only technologies, because merely looking at the real-world data on wind/solar obviously doesn't work, and it must be the brainwashing effects of old backwards broadcast media pounding your brains with garbage information/ideology.

 

[Hillhater]

From first principles, "............."

Hmm ? Lots of impressive THEORY. there, (Very much like a sound bite from an Al Gore movie ?)
But what about some actual evidence of the linkage between MAN MADE Co2 , and climate effects.
PS.. storms are no more severe or frequent than history records.

 

[Hillhater]

Committees aren't perfect but they have access to data, knowledge and skilled scientists, technologists and economists. As such it's, while I'm sure you'd be first to tell them they don't have a clue I would take the committee's findings over your uneducated opinions any day.

Well , no surprises there !
You are drunk on CO2, and totally besotted with IPCC propaganda, so why wouldnt you hang on every word any “Committee on/for Climate Change” ..trots out that reinforces your ingrained beliefs ?

 

[jonescg]

From first principles, "............."

Hmm ? Lots of impressive THEORY. there, (Very much like a sound bite from an Al Gore movie ?)
But what about some actual evidence of the linkage between MAN MADE Co2 , and climate effects.
PS.. storms are no more severe or frequent than history records.

I gather you've never picked up a chemistry textbook then? No mention of Gore et al. in there...

Now, since we don't have a second Earth to run as a control experiment, we'll have to do the next best thing and log data for as long as we can.

 

[Cephalotus]

Fun thread.

Alternatives are great but good luck getting a Boeing 777 off the ground with solar. You need some pretty big sails on a freighter.

You can use biomass an syntehtic fuels for those. Just don't waste the stuff for cars.

You can't tax carbon without shooting your economy in the foot. Even if you could it just makes it cheaper somewhere else.

Like Sweden, UK, Switzerland and other 16 countries that already have taxes on CO2

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/apr/29/climatechange.carbonemissions

 

[billvon]

If you believe the IPCC CO2 story/lie , then rapidly reducing CO2 emissions in the next 10 years are THE critical molecules.
So preloading the next 10-20 years worth of carbon NOW , ....is not the smartest of ideas ?

Ah, you are back to "OK the climate is warming and we're doing it - but it's too late to do anything!"

I look forward to your next flipflop. Perhaps deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas again?

Edit - I didn't have to wait long! "what about some actual evidence of the linkage between MAN MADE Co2 , and climate effects?"

You are like a climate change denier cartoon.

 

[billvon]

So, what exactly do you believe demonstrates the reality of man made Co2, (or natural Co2), is causing climate changes ?..and can be scientificaly validated .

Simple.

Fill a large chamber with air. Use a radiometer and a filter to measure transmission of wavelengths from 400nm to 13,000nm. Now double the concentration of CO2 and try again. Be sure to use IR transparent materials for your chamber walls.

You now have the spectrum for both cases. See which air mix traps more longwave IR, and thus increases the greenhouse effect.

 

[billvon]

No there isn't, not in a power plant. Especially a nuclear power plant.

So you believe that nuclear power plants are designed to be more fragile and less robust than cell sites.

I will leave you to your beliefs, then! Good luck with them.

 

[Cephalotus]

The other complete joke is the fact Germany gets about 50% of its total MWh renewables generation via Biomass.
as discussed here https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&start=3825#p1465268
Biomass is burning wood to generate electricity, its data triple reinforces the fact that wind/solar is a joke not only on electricity generation, but on the environment as well...

45TWh/a from 225TWh/a is not "about 50%", but exactly 20%

Most electricity from biomass in Germany is from biogas plants (ca 30-35TWh/a) and NOT from wood. Today most of this Biogas production runs contionously 24/7h. It is of much higher use if it is used to provide peak power in the future. This is around 6% of electricity Generation. A mix of 90% solar+wind +4% hydro power + 6% gas Peak Needs much, much less storgae capacity compared to a pure wind+solar system.

Germany actually grows more wood than it uses:

 

[Hillhater]

If you believe the IPCC CO2 story/lie , then rapidly reducing CO2 emissions in the next 10 years are THE critical molecules.
So preloading the next 10-20 years worth of carbon NOW , ....is not the smartest of ideas ?

Ah, you are back to "OK the climate is warming and we're doing it - but it's too late to do anything!"..

No.. your comprehension lets you down again.
..read it again ...its a question, not a statement.

I look forward to your next flipflop. Perhaps deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas again?...

No flipflop needed.....i have never fallen for the CO2/Greenhouse theory.

You are like a climate change denier cartoon.

Yet again , your attempts to classify my views , let you down...
I m NOT a climate change “denier” . !!
Now, go and have another guess at my position..?...seeing as you seem to want to concentrate on commenting on me personally, rather than addressing the actual issues.

 

[cricketo]

You are like a climate change denier cartoon.

So what motivates you to keep up at it ?

 

[Hillhater]

So, what exactly do you believe demonstrates the reality of man made Co2, (or natural Co2), is causing climate changes ?..and can be scientificaly validated .

Simple.

Fill a large chamber with air. Use a radiometer and ........etc

A little too simple bill..
A “large chamber”. Does NOT replicate , in so many ways, the atmospheric conditions of a planetary environment.
Any conclusions drawn from that experiment would only be relavent to that chamber.

 

[billvon]

So what motivates you to keep up at it ?

That's . . . a really good question. I am all for talking about climate change, but some people here don't post to discuss - they post to copy their political agenda from their favorite political news source.

On another forum I remember arguing with a climate change denier for weeks. He wasn't much different than the deniers here. I thought it was pointless. I later spoke to someone who was also on the forum. She never posted, but read a lot - and she thanked me for the material I posted, which led her to do her own research.

So one reason is for people like that. I don't really have any illusions that the deniers here will suddenly "see the light."

 

[billvon]

A little too simple bill..
A “large chamber”. Does NOT replicate , in so many ways, the atmospheric conditions of a planetary environment.

I didn't claim it replicated it in every way.

You asked "what demonstrates the reality of man made Co2, (or natural Co2), is causing climate changes ?" - that is the simplest possible experiment to prove that more CO2 increases the greenhouse effect. To test this in the real atmosphere is simple. If the lower atmosphere warms (more greenhouse effect) and the upper atmosphere cools (less longwave IR making it back out) then that would agree with the predictions made by the above hypothesis. A warming sun, for example, would warm both; a cooling sun would cool both.

And tests show that the lower atmosphere is warming and the upper atmosphere is cooling, confirming the premise that increasing CO2 is increasing the greenhouse effect.

If you want to do more complex tests (like measuring the actual IR escaping from the Earth) you can do that, via satellite observations. In 1996 the Japanese launched the IMG satellite to do just that. And it confirmed that, in the bands that CO2 and methane block, IR emissions are dropping. They found, in the words of the study, "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect."

https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553

There is now no question that CO2 (and methane) are blocking more IR radiation from leaving the Earth. That will warm the planet. There may be all sorts of secondary effects as a result of that warming. You might get more daytime clouds, which would tend to reduce the warming. You might get more nighttime clouds, which would tend to increase the warming. But it is simply not credible to claim that anthropogenic emissions are having no effect - no matter how many oil stocks you own, or how much right wing media you consume.

 

[furcifer]

Fun thread.

Alternatives are great but good luck getting a Boeing 777 off the ground with solar. You need some pretty big sails on a freighter.

You can use biomass an syntehtic fuels for those. Just don't waste the stuff for cars.

You can't tax carbon without shooting your economy in the foot. Even if you could it just makes it cheaper somewhere else.

Like Sweden, UK, Switzerland and other 16 countries that already have taxes on CO2

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/apr/29/climatechange.carbonemissions

We have parks in Canada bigger than Sweeden, UK and Switzerland put together. And lakes.

So hows that fair? How do you tax the carbon emissions on the mining, ore and smleting to process the steel they use to make watches Switzerland?

Is the UK paying a carbon tax on all the planes that land in the UK and generate their economy?

Should Canada pay a carbon tax on the trees they cut down for lumber in the UK? Or do we get the credit for growing them? Arent the associated emssions completely dependent in the end user? How do you pay the fair amount of tax if you need to track how the tree was grown, how long it lived, hownit was processed, transported, delivered and even used.

It's just another ineffective tax that kills economies and doesnt do anything besides create bureaucracy.

Biomass is a total waste of time unless it's actual waste. Or we ramp up nuclear and start generating huge amounts of cheap electricity. You're basically making fossil fuels and instead of 100 million years of sunshine and gravity youre hopefully using clean electricity.
It's also carbon neutral, which doesnt put the last 150 years back in the bottle. Personally I don't think it's an issue, whats done is done. You may get some pushback from some people though.

 

[furcifer]

No there isn't, not in a power plant. Especially a nuclear power plant.

So you believe that nuclear power plants are designed to be more fragile and less robust than cell sites.

I will leave you to your beliefs, then! Good luck with them.

Wah? How would a higher IP rating be more fragile?

You can't house the switch gear for a power plant in a temporary structure, which is what youre talking about. It's not allowed.
Even on my compressor plant, the switch gear for my backup genset was enclosed in waterproof rated panels. Plus in order to meet the regulations, although it was outdoors, it had to be covered to meet specs.
A drip loop? Thats like the last course of action. If you're supposed to be hermetically sealed you don't need a drip loop.
I'm really not sure what point youre trying to make? From what I can tell youre assuming the regulations for some outback genny plant are the same for a nuclear power plant. I havent worked in a nuke plant but I got my hours in a cogeneration plant. I have many friends that work at Darlington and i know their safety measures across the board are leagues beyond even what I experienced in a cogen plant. Just to wash the floors I had to sign in to the Control room, notify the chief, sign the log book, suit up, make out my tags, get my locks, lock out, record my time in and out, remive my locks, return the tags, have the Chief sign the work order, sign out of the llog book, record my activity in my own logbook...probably 10 other steps I forget now.

That's not because things are more fragile, it's because the consequences of screwing something up are more dire. Im not sure why you would think otherwise.

 

[Punx0r]

I m NOT a climate change “denier” . !!
Now, go and have another guess at my position..?

Contrarian

No flipflop needed.....i have never fallen for the CO2/Greenhouse theory.

Let's imagine you didn't "fall" for the theory of gravity either and floated off into space...

 

[billvon]

You can't house the switch gear for a power plant in a temporary structure, which is what youre talking about. It's not allowed.
Even on my compressor plant, the switch gear for my backup genset was enclosed in waterproof rated panels. Plus in order to meet the regulations, although it was outdoors, it had to be covered to meet specs.
A drip loop? Thats like the last course of action. If you're supposed to be hermetically sealed you don't need a drip loop.

Nothing is hermetically sealed. There are just different leak rates. Everything leaks. Heck, even medical implants, made of welded titanium, leak. That's why things have to be designed to work with some amount of moisture. Even nuclear reactors. For proof, I offer that the DC supply (battery backed) worked for

That's not because things are more fragile, it's because the consequences of screwing something up are more dire. Im not sure why you would think otherwise.

Things are LESS fragile, and the consequences of screwing up are more dire. The switchgear didn't fail because a drop of water got into it - it failed because hundreds of thousands of gallons of seawater did.

 

[billvon]

We have parks in Canada bigger than Sweeden, UK and Switzerland put together. And lakes.

Yay!

So hows that fair? How do you tax the carbon emissions on the mining, ore and smleting to process the steel they use to make watches Switzerland?

By taxing the fuel used to generate the energy to do all that.

Is the UK paying a carbon tax on all the planes that land in the UK and generate their economy?

Nope. The UK pays a carbon tax on the fuel they pump into those planes.

Should Canada pay a carbon tax on the trees they cut down for lumber in the UK?

No. It's not released into the atmosphere.

Or do we get the credit for growing them?

Sure, as long as you don't mind penalties for then cutting them down. However, it would be simpler to just tax fossil fuels and ignore lumber, since in the mid term (a decade or so) it's net zero.

 

[Hillhater]

A little light relief, and a reminder/update as to why Wind and Solar ( + the worlds biggest battery !)...
....are useless without 100% backup from fossil fuels..
South Australia yesterday..

 

[Cephalotus]

...
So hows that fair? How do you tax the carbon emissions on the mining, ore and smleting to process the steel they use to make watches Switzerland?

Is the UK paying a carbon tax on all the planes that land in the UK and generate their economy?

Should Canada pay a carbon tax on the trees they cut down for lumber in the UK? Or do we get the credit for growing them? Arent the associated emssions completely dependent in the end user? How do you pay the fair amount of tax if you need to track how the tree was grown, how long it lived, hownit was processed, transported, delivered and even used.

It's just another ineffective tax that kills economies and doesnt do anything besides create bureaucracy...

Why think so complicated. Natural gas, raw oil, hard coal and lignite have a certain amount of C per kg of product and if you burn it this is realeased as CO2 to the atmopshere.

tax the amount of carbon in those fuels and you have already made an excellent(!) start.

Ideally this happens worldwide, if not just tax the products based on assumed CO2 footprint.

There are 18 countries that already have carbon taxes and they are very efficient in reducing CO2 output and don't harm the economies. Sweden just starts its first projects for making steel with green hydrogen instead of using coal.
This is the technology for the 21st century, while others still believe that 19th century technology of burning coal is the future of their economies...

 

[Cephalotus]

Fukishima II followed proper guidelines and didn't meltdown.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/243904-fukushimas-reactor-2-far-radioactive-previously-realized-no-sign-containment-breach