Cont: Global warming discussion V

[wobs]

Nameplate capacity is not used to report the capacity of wind farms, the numbers they report are already scaled down by the capacity factor. If a wind farm installs 2500 8MW turbines running at 40% CF it reports it's capacity as 8GW, not 20GW. When you numbers for installed wind capacity it's NOT the peak capacity it's the typical output so you would never see that 4GW number

Remember I mentioned about the big freeze in 2010? There was very little wind for a prolonged period, and aside from the heaviest snow I have ever seen in Hull, temperatures were really low. Demand was at its highest obviously, and wind power capacity in 2010 was 5421MW.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2011/01/coal-takes-the-strainagain.shtml
https://assets.publishing.service.g...875384/Wind_powered_electricity_in_the_UK.pdf
The output on the 21st Dec 2010 from wind was 20MW (probably average over the 24hrs).

In reality, I don't believe that reported capacity accounts for the capacity factor, as the pdf above states capacity, but also generation. (see also the wiki below).

Its still looks bad though in 2010. Scaling that up, to 2023, where we have 28GW of installed capacity (this won't be factored, but total capacity). If we had those conditions today, it would theoretically produce about only 103MW, at a time when demand is highest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

We would need to import from Europe, and there is no guarantee they would be in any better condition.

Now imagine how much excess capacity you would need to meet peak demand in such conditions. It would have to be scaled up by hundreds times to meet demand. This extreme case shows why it would be so expensive.

 

[Hercules56]

Who is going to fund it?

Since it will save us all, we will all fund it. Obviously those nations that have more money to spend, will spend more.

Tidal power is unlimited & free. Solar power is unlimited & free. No reason why we cant spend a few trillion dollars to mass-produce machinery to harness this power, which will eventually pay for itself.

 

[wobs]

Since it will save us all, we will all fund it. Obviously those nations that have more money to spend, will spend more.

Tidal power is unlimited & free. Solar power is unlimited & free. No reason why we cant spend a few trillion dollars to mass-produce machinery to harness this power, which will eventually pay for itself.

They aren't free, they cost money to install, and maintain. Running cost are cheap, but not zero, but the capital cost is a lot.

With tidal, there is also the issue of habitat loss in many places, and limited locations where it is practical.

All are limited in one way or other.

We can install these things of course, but there are costs.

 

[Hercules56]

They aren't free, they cost money to install, and maintain. Running cost are cheap, but not zero, but the capital cost is a lot.

With tidal, there is also the issue of habitat loss in many places, and limited locations where it is practical.

All are limited in one way or other.

We can install these things of course, but there are costs.

The USA has unlimited funds. We could spend $10 trillion on this literally tomorrow. Other nations in the West are also very wealthy and could contribute very large amounts.

 

[wobs]

The USA has unlimited funds. We could spend $10 trillion on this literally tomorrow. Other nations in the West are also very wealthy and could contribute very large amounts.

Oh yes, we could but its always finite. And politicians want to get voted in next election.

 

[Hercules56]

Oh yes, we could but its always finite. And politicians want to get voted in next election.

In my hypothetical world where we know for a fact that catastrophe is coming in 30 years, the people will accept another $10 trillion in debt.

 

[lobosrul5]

In my hypothetical world where we know for a fact that catastrophe is coming in 30 years, the people will accept another $10 trillion in debt.

Who is we? How do we get a "majority" to accept the science?

In the USA a political majority includes 60 senators on board.

It could be 110 degrees F everyday for a month in Montgomery Alabama and their senators will still be denying it.

 

[Hercules56]

Who is we? How do we get a "majority" to accept the science?

In the USA a political majority includes 60 senators on board.

It could be 110 degrees F everyday for a month in Montgomery Alabama and their senators will still be denying it.

HYPOTHETICAL WORLD

There, I put it in bold for you.

My question is about solutions IF we all agreed that catastrophe was upon us.

 

[lobosrul5]

HYPOTHETICAL WORLD

There, I put it in bold for your.

My question is about solutions IF we all agreed that catastrophe was upon us.

Yeah, I think if the world was willing to put 10% of its GDP into solutions then in 5 years we'd be doing great. Also, if everyone in the developed world was willing to make some modest cutbacks in the interim. Keep your house at 65 in the winter, 77 in the summer. Take public transport to work, or bike if you can. Those kinds of things.

ETA: and I mean everyone. Like Putin pulling out of Ukraine, and trying to push Russia into "going green"... Exxon stopping any new drilling project and focusing on offshore hydro power etc. Its an impossibility.

 

[Aber]

Nameplate capacity is not used to report the capacity of wind farms, the numbers they report are already scaled down by the capacity factor. If a wind farm installs 2500 8MW turbines running at 40% CF it reports it's capacity as 8GW, not 20GW. When you numbers for installed wind capacity it's NOT the peak capacity it's the typical output so you would never see that 4GW number

Not sure where you're getting this from.

In the UK nameplate capacity is definitely used for describing windfarms eg
https://www.sserenewables.com/offshore-wind/projects/dogger-bank/
95 x 12.6MW turbines for 1.2 GW.

A capacity factor depends on the actual winds for a particular year; there is no way of easily standardising it across projects.

 

[Glunn11]

We do not - The tech is there for a low carbon industrial civilization - political will is missing.

Are the rare-earth minerals, though? I think I'm almost to the point I can share links so I'll see if I can find it, but there was a research article that came out a few months ago that seemed to suggest that even if we got everyone onboard, there's not enough raw metals readily available to actually implement what's needed.

I do worry that these limitations, whatever they actually may be, are primarily just being used to brush aside any hope of a petroleum-free future, but I do understand that no matter what we do, we probably can't fly and drive as much as we currently do anyway.

Again, this is all currently off the top of my head, but it's something I'm interested in digging into.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[Roger Ramjets]

HYPOTHETICAL WORLD

There, I put it in bold for you.

My question is about solutions IF we all agreed that catastrophe was upon us.

Pointless. Why even have such a discussion when the conclusion is worthless? If it was something that doesn't matter then sure, but it does matter.

I am sick of people having theoretical arguments about things that need real-world solutions. It just shows that you aren't serious.

In my hypothetical world where we know for a fact that catastrophe is coming in 30 years, the people will accept another $10 trillion in debt.

We pretty much do know for a fact that catastrophe is coming in 30 years (actually sooner). We just don't know how bad it's going to be.

If we spend $10 trillion and it's not enough, that money was wasted. If it causes more pain than it cures, it was wasted. people over the age of 65 like myself don't care anyway - we'll be dead by then. People under the age of 65 don't care either - they need to survive now, and the future will just have to take its chances.

Some of us are willing take a little pain to make things better for everyone. But we would rather see solutions that don't require it. We have those solutions - the trick is to make people see that the changes needed don't have to be painful.

Buying an electric car isn't painful, they're wonderful to drive and cost less to own! OK maybe you need to change the way you think a bit, but that doesn't have to be painful. Maybe your house needs upgrading to improve heating efficiency, but that's not painful either because it will save money! Any short-term pain can be minimized with positive guidance and incentives, which is what governments around the World are already doing.

The problem we have isn't getting people to accept another $10 trillion in debt - it's getting them to not be afraid that the changes will be painful. Talking about $10 trillion debt is one of the things that will make them afraid. Instead we should be talking about what we can do to make the transition enjoyable, not painful.

Instead of wailing about the costs, talk about the savings.
Instead of scaring people with range anxiety, grid overload, and child labor (for mining stuff mostly used for other things) help them into an electric car.
Instead of worrying them with dire predictions of power cuts, help them make their homes more efficient - and put up solar panels.
Instead of threatening increased transportation costs to cut down traffic, make it easier to work from home.
etc. etc.

people won't fear change if we can show that it will be good for them. This thread is full of people doing the exact opposite. You are one of them because you insist we can only win by accepting a lot of pain - which isn't true.

 

[novaphile]

It's also worth remembering that going from Coal to Gas represents a 50% reduction in CO2 released for the same amount of electricity produced. Not all fossil fuels are equal by any means.


I'm not sure what the viability is in the UK but offering subsidies for ground source heat pumps can go a long way towards reducing natural gas used for heating. The problem for the homeowner is that they ususllay still need a backup heat source so they can't just replace the gas furnace, they need both.

Once again we see the technology is mostly there already, all that's required is the political will to make it happen on a large scale.

And if the gas plants are 'peaking plants' that rapidly come online as needed, like we do here, then their overall output is lower again.

Our biggest problem with renewables in my state, is that they're often turned off because the interstate inter connectors can't handle the amount of power needed by the Eastern States that can be shipped from my state.

This is being addressed by building a new inter connector in the North of my state.

 

[novaphile]

Question. We discover that if we don't start some serious, extreme reductions in GHG emissions within the next 25 years, the Earth will become mostly inhabitable to humans. 6 month long heat waves, new ice age, etc etc.

What can we do about it, short of destroying society and rebuilding from scratch? Or is that the only viable option?

Switch to renewable power over fossil fuels, and continue to ignore the nuclear shills.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Are the rare-earth minerals, though? I think I'm almost to the point I can share links so I'll see if I can find it, but there was a research article that came out a few months ago that seemed to suggest that even if we got everyone onboard, there's not enough raw metals readily available to actually implement what's needed.

It's just fearmongering.

Nobody was concerned about not having enough rare-earth minerals for all the other stuff we use them for. The invisible hand was working fine before the naysayers started bleating about it, and it will continue to work fine. Battery manufacturers are already producing cells with no cobalt (or lithium) in them, motors are using Ferrite magnets etc. These things are happening as the industry finds ways to make stuff cheaper - just like they always did - it's not our problem!

Recently the production of electric cars was limited by one of the most abundant elements on Earth - Silicon. Due to China's Covid lockdowns, semiconductor factories closed down and microchips weren't being made. But there was no shortage of the raw material.

People were bleating about not having enough known reserves of lithium and cobalt etc., but that was just because nobody was looking for it. Now they are, and what do you know - there's tons of it just sitting around waiting to be mined. Meanwhile manufacturers have found ways to cut down or even eliminate the need for rare earth metals in their products. Who would have thunk it!

I do worry that these limitations, whatever they actually may be, are primarily just being used to brush aside any hope of a petroleum-free future, but I do understand that no matter what we do, we probably can't fly and drive as much as we currently do anyway.

That's part of it, a part that needs to stop.

Commodities are of great interest to manufacturers, producers and speculators - but not the general public. Except for oil, eggs and toilet paper it's really not something we should be worried about. But of course the news media loves stirring up fear, and the deniers will grasp onto anything that furthers their agenda.

We probably shouldn't fly and drive as much we do, but there's no reason to cut back dramatically - we just need to make it cleaner. And 'cutting back' isn't the right phrase anyway. 'Finding better alternatives' is better sounding and more accurate.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

The USA has unlimited funds. We could spend $10 trillion on this literally tomorrow. Other nations in the West are also very wealthy and could contribute very large amounts.

Yes but if we spent $10 Trillion tomorrow a loaf of bread would cost $130K and a dozen eggs a cool half million. Try that on $18/hour wage.

 

[dann]

Now consider that new solar panels are being produced that are twice as efficient and half the cost, and sodium batteries will also be half the cost with no use of heavy metals, and in 10 years time those nuclear plants being built now will have a hard time competing.

New technology:

Energy storing building materials could make on-demand power from renewables affordable worldwide

Tesla’s Powerwall, a boxy, wall-mounted, lithium-ion battery, can power your home for half a day or so. But what if your home was the battery?

Researchers have come up with a new way to store electricity in cement, using cheap and abundant materials. If scaled up, the cement could hold enough energy in a home’s concrete foundation to fulfill its daily power needs. Scaled up further, electrified roadways could power electric cars as they drive. And if (!!!) scientists can find a way to do this all cheaply the advance might offer a nearly limitless capacity for storing energy from intermittent renewable sources, such as solar and wind.

So far, the cement devices are small, only big enough to power a few LED lightbulbs. But efforts are already underway to scale them up. “It would be a very attractive technology if (!!!) they can achieve that at a larger scale,” says Sang Nguyen, a mechanical engineer at Imperial College London who was not involved with the work.
Electrified cement could turn houses and roads into nearly limitless batteries (Science.org, July 31, 2023)

(I hate getting electric shocks when touching doorknobs! )

 

[dann]

They aren't free, they cost money to install, and maintain. Running cost are cheap, but not zero, but the capital cost is a lot.
With tidal, there is also the issue of habitat loss in many places, and limited locations where it is practical.
All are limited in one way or other.
We can install these things of course, but there are costs.

The USA has unlimited funds. We could spend $10 trillion on this literally tomorrow. Other nations in the West are also very wealthy and could contribute very large amounts.

Oh yes, we could but its always finite. And politicians want to get voted in next election.

Yes but if we spent $10 Trillion tomorrow a loaf of bread would cost $130K and a dozen eggs a cool half million. Try that on $18/hour wage.

This is Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology, not Economics, Business and Finance, and yet people keep repeating that, 'Well, unfortunately, while it may be technologically feasible, capitalism and our system of government won't allow it! And if capitalism won't allow it, we might as well consider it to be a law of nature.'
While I appreciate this excellent argument against capitalism and bourgeois democracy, i.e. that they prevent any and all effective measures against the destruction of the atmosphere, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology.


Alien archeologist I: Sorry but I don't get this. You say they did have the technology. They had known about it for more than a century, and they had been certain about it for decades. So why didn't they do anything to stop Terra from turning into Venus?!
Alien archeologists II:It wasn't cost effective to save humanity. It wouldn't get them elected.
Alien archeologist I: But that's ******* insane!
Alien archeologist II: I know. One of their scientists, Pris, said it best:

 

[Glunn11]

It's just fearmongering.



Nobody was concerned about not having enough rare-earth minerals for all the other stuff we use them for. The invisible hand was working fine before the naysayers started bleating about it, and it will continue to work fine. Battery manufacturers are already producing cells with no cobalt (or lithium) in them, motors are using Ferrite magnets etc. These things are happening as the industry finds ways to make stuff cheaper - just like they always did - it's not our problem!



Recently the production of electric cars was limited by one of the most abundant elements on Earth - Silicon. Due to China's Covid lockdowns, semiconductor factories closed down and microchips weren't being made. But there was no shortage of the raw material.



People were bleating about not having enough known reserves of lithium and cobalt etc., but that was just because nobody was looking for it. Now they are, and what do you know - there's tons of it just sitting around waiting to be mined. Meanwhile manufacturers have found ways to cut down or even eliminate the need for rare earth metals in their products. Who would have thunk it!



That's part of it, a part that needs to stop.



Commodities are of great interest to manufacturers, producers and speculators - but not the general public. Except for oil, eggs and toilet paper it's really not something we should be worried about. But of course the news media loves stirring up fear, and the deniers will grasp onto anything that furthers their agenda.



We probably shouldn't fly and drive as much we do, but there's no reason to cut back dramatically - we just need to make it cleaner. And 'cutting back' isn't the right phrase anyway. 'Finding better alternatives' is better sounding and more accurate.

I appreciate the well thought-out response here Mr. Ramjets. I'll have to dig a little more after work, but it's good to know offhand that it was probably just an oil PR piece.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[dann]

We probably shouldn't fly and drive as much we do, but there's no reason to cut back dramatically

It depends on what you mean, exactly. There is every reason to cut out the use of fossil fuels entirely, which is pretty dramatic.

- we just need to make it cleaner[/hilite].

We need to make it clean - not merely cleaner, i.e. no CO₂ emissions at all, which isn't something that is 'just' done. However, any stuff that can be run on electricity is fine as long as that electrical power comes from renewable sources. (That it also has to be affordable for poor people goes without saying - except that this is never a given in capitalism.

And 'cutting back' isn't the right phrase anyway. 'Finding better alternatives' is better sounding and more accurate.

Unfortunately, 'better alternatives' is open to interpretation. The alternatives need to be actually good alternatives = no CO₂ emission. CO₂ emission cut in half may be a better alternative, but it's no longer viable.