independence from coal

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Edison was right after all!

Why do you hate elephants?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4ZeF2jhOW4

We are all engines of karma

[sfzombie13 324]

couple of things: first, i don't care about the weight of co2 in the atmosphere, i'm not an engineer.

second, i wasn't talking about transmission of power being dc, i was talking about the use. almost all of the electronices in the household uses dc, it just gets converted to dc before use. this will save a bunch of power or cost by not having to convert it to ac, then back to dc. i don't know the fiugres for conversion loss, but it can't be 0.

if any country in the world can convert to all renewable energy, then why can't we? i have heard (even checked this one out) that iceland gets 100% from renewables, and that germany gets 74% from them. if it is possible for them, it's possible for us. i don't recall any more wind or sunlight in germany than in the us, at least when i was there, it may have changed in 25 years.

and all of this attitude saying that it can't be done is a self fulfilling prophecy. with a little thought and cooperation, anything is possible. with a negative attitude, we are all doomed.

as far as being a specious idea (thanx for the enlargement of my vocabulary), that is the purpose of this discussion, which by the way is progressing nicely. would you spend a lot of time looking at costs, determining the best system, and drawing up plans before finding out if it was a viable idea? if i had more time or was actually being paid to do this, then i would do all of that. this is merely my attempt at solving a problem. i have seen so many people complaining and calling each other out with nothing more than that in mind. i love to complain, but i will come up with alternatives. it works with politicians also. by allowing them an escape route, you can actually get things done. complaints without solutions are a waste of time.

and i reiterate, if iceland and germany can do it, why not us? it is because as a nation, we are not willing to do what it takes (i was a little unclear about it, thanx billvon for taking action). and as far as what the people wanting not mattering, you have to realize there is a point where one person's inaction affects others. and being too late, well none of us really know that, do we? i would rather assume the worst and be surprised than the opposite. we have two choices: 100% renewable enregy or destruction of the planet. i kind of like it here, i am willing to come up with ideas to save the planet. thanx to all of you for helping out.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[kallend 2,146]

Iago

You are correct. Most household things DO run on DC power. But 100 years ago when the whole AC/DC war was going on they didn't have the supporting tech we do now. DC power needed HUGE wires to transmit over a distance without the transforming capability. That's why we went with AC.

I think it's pretty amusing that we're supposed to light our houses with $40 LED bulbs. They're $40 because they have an AC/DC converter in the base with a big ceramic heat sink.

You must go to the wrong store. I just bought 2 for $17 in Menards.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,111]

>second, i wasn't talking about transmission of power being dc, i was talking about
>the use. almost all of the electronices in the household uses dc, it just gets
>converted to dc before use. this will save a bunch of power or cost by not having
>to convert it to ac, then back to dc. i don't know the fiugres for conversion loss,
>but it can't be 0.

It's pretty close to zero. No one is proposing distribution of voltages like 5 or 12 or 16 volts (what your phone or stereo runs on) because resistive losses become too high. They are proposing distribution of 400 volts. This significantly improves the loss issue.

However you still have to downconvert the power to 5 or 12 volts to use it in electronic devices. Nowadays every power supply out there uses a switching power supply to do this; that won't change so losses will be the same. You will be able to remove a single component (the bridge rectifier) but that will give you an increase of efficiency of about .25% - almost unnoticeable.

>if any country in the world can convert to all renewable energy, then why can't we?

1) We don't have enough hydro or storage, and no one wants to spend the night in the dark. So we will need baseline generation for quite a while.

2) It's expensive.

That being said, we are already the #3 country in the world in terms of renewable energy production (primarily large hydro plants) and are slowly getting better all the time.

>have heard (even checked this one out) that iceland gets 100% from renewables

85%, and most of that comes from geothermal (which we don't have much of.) The balance is petroleum.

>and that germany gets 74% from them.

21%

>you have to realize there is a point where one person's inaction affects others.
>and being too late, well none of us really know that, do we?

So take action! Local action is the best way to make change happen.

[DanG 1]

Every time I go the hardware store I take a stroll down the lightbulb isle. If they have a sale going on for bulbs I use, I buy some. They are usually less than $10 each, often less than $7. I'm slowly converting everything in the house to LED, and spreading the cost out over many months.

- Dan G

[billvon 3,111]

>I think it's pretty amusing that we're supposed to light our houses with $40 LED bulbs.

$5.97 for a 40 watt equivalent at Home Depot.

[JerryBaumchen 1,466]

Hi bill,

Quote

$5.97 for a 40 watt equivalent at Home Depot.

Yea, but they won't give us veterans a discount.



JerryBaumchen

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

first, i don't care about the weight of co2 in the atmosphere, i'm not an engineer.

I figured that out...

Quote

this will save a bunch of power or cost by not having to convert it to ac, then back to dc. i don't know the fiugres for conversion loss, but it can't be 0.

But, you're not an engineer. Nor do you know how to calculate those costs. Are you trying to be taken seriously here?

Quote

if any country in the world can convert to all renewable energy, then why can't we?

What country would that be? Are you talking about France? They are ~80% nuclear. If they can do it, why can't we?

Quote

i have heard (even checked this one out) that iceland gets 100% from renewables, and that germany gets 74% from them. if it is possible for them, it's possible for us.

So, you checked this out? Links are good. Sounds like we could all learn something here. Why don't you share those links with us?

Quote

with a little thought and cooperation, anything is possible. with a negative attitude, we are all doomed.

Do you have Kool-Aid stains on your teeth? You should spend a little effort, and find out what the mass fraction of CO2 is in the atmosphere. That might drive your energy/activism in another direction.

Answer the CO2 weight fraction question for me, if you want to continue to engage me in this thread.

We are all engines of karma

[billeisele 130]

hate that I'm late to this convo, what fun, a non-techie saving the world by dreaming about what is possible

yes, it is possible, anything is possible if you throw enough money at it

economics is a (or possibly THE) major driver of change

BillVon has added plenty of good info

it always interesting when I meet people that want to GO renewable and get rid of the big bad coal or utility monopolies, when I ask them what they are willing to pay for power or what they are willing to go without - want to pay less than what they pay now and don't want to turn anything off

well it just doesn't work that way

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[billeisele 130]

so what is the cost to close coal plants, here are some real numbers

we're closing 5 coal plants and replacing them with 2 nuclear plants, $10 billion and a 37% rate increase

this isn't exactly apples to apples, our share of the 2 nukes is about 1600 MW, the closed coal generation is about 710 MW, so rough math and the cost to replace the coal with nuke is about $4.5 billion and a 17% rate hike, the balance of the generation is for load growth

economic development is booming and these young dreamers have to have all their electronic wiz bang stuff so they can blog about how to save the world while they are heating it with their apple stuff

less coal generation and more nuclear generation, cleaner, newer, non-emitting source, lower fuel costs, once they go in operation the prediction is a 1-2% rate decrease, then rates will be steady for years

for us, nuclear is the least cost option, all other forms of generation are more expensive, energy efficiency is less costly and we are doing a bunch of that but it is unreliable

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[billeisele 130]

if you want to talk about energy independence go read up on natural gas, a few things you will find is that we have a butt load of natural gas but insufficient pipe to get it to where it can be used, and that certain pipes that historically flowed one direction are being converted to flow the other direction, and that LNG import terminals are being converted to liquefaction export terminals and more interesting stuff

in 2-3 years there is a good likelihood that the US could be a net exporter of energy fuels, amazing, no more dependence on foreign oil

fracking was originally aimed at natural gas, what it has also done is unleashed oil, in some areas natural gas is a byproduct and is flared, in some areas of Texas it looks like daytime 24 hours a day

does the term "game changer" come to mind

as BV has said, when we solve the storage issue the whole energy marketplace will be converted

Mr Dreamer, the energy marketplace is extremely complex and larger than banking, trucking and telecom combined, the US needs to be careful how it is manipulated or some bad economic stuff will happen

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[jgoose71 0]

I personally like the idea of Nuclear power. The only thing that gets me is the U.S.'s refusal to recycle spent fissile material (by spent, that means it's still 95% uranium).

By some estimates (posted in other threads in this forum) we have buried enough fissile material to power the U.S. for 50 years.

Only when it come to nuclear waste recycling is bad. The "A" answer is to encase it in cement and bury it next to a water table or something...

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billeisele 130]

about waste management - any customer of a utility with a nuke plant has been paying into the Yucca Mountain project for years, there is a small surcharge in the bill

many states are sueing to get their money back

the utilities store it onsite in concrete casks, stored above ground, they are bomb & airplane proof

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[Amazon 7]

billeisele

about waste management - any customer of a utility with a nuke plant has been paying into the Yucca Mountain project for years, there is a small surcharge in the bill

many states are sueing to get their money back

the utilities store it onsite in concrete casks, stored above ground, they are bomb & airplane proof

How do you feel about the waste management that Duke Energy has brought to people of the Dan River region??

[billvon 3,111]

>The only thing that gets me is the U.S.'s refusal to recycle spent fissile material
>(by spent, that means it's still 95% uranium).

Well, it's always mostly uranium. I think you meant that the fissile fraction of the uranium (U-235) isn't used up. It mostly is, though - you start with ~5% enriched fuel and end up with ~2% enriched fuel. At that point it's not useful in regular BWR or PWR reactors, although it can still be used in CANDU reactors at that point.

Re-enrichment isn't generally a good idea for proliferation and economic reasons (you can only get about 20% of the original U235 out of the fuel and the process is WAY more dangerous) but reprocessing to MOX (using degraded weapons cores) is easier, is pretty common in other parts of the world and works OK. Works better in fast reactors than in the thermal reactors we use here, but it still works.

There are no very clean answers to the problems in the nuclear fuel -> nuclear waste cycle but there are some partial solutions.

[billeisele 130]

Amazon

***about waste management - any customer of a utility with a nuke plant has been paying into the Yucca Mountain project for years, there is a small surcharge in the bill

many states are sueing to get their money back

the utilities store it onsite in concrete casks, stored above ground, they are bomb & airplane proof

How do you feel about the waste management that Duke Energy has brought to people of the Dan River region??

Wow - what a conversation shift, from nuclear waste management to a failure of an ash pond dam, ash is a known issue that in this case certainly wasn't managed properly, there are a few hundred ash ponds out there, we have about 7, I'm aware of two in the US that have had dam problems, and yes the industry needs to get on top of this problem, luckily nuclear waste is scrutinized much more carefully

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[Amazon 7]

billeisele

******about waste management - any customer of a utility with a nuke plant has been paying into the Yucca Mountain project for years, there is a small surcharge in the bill

many states are sueing to get their money back

the utilities store it onsite in concrete casks, stored above ground, they are bomb & airplane proof

How do you feel about the waste management that Duke Energy has brought to people of the Dan River region??

Wow - what a conversation shift, from nuclear waste management to a failure of an ash pond dam, ash is a known issue that in this case certainly wasn't managed properly, there are a few hundred ash ponds out there, we have about 7, I'm aware of two in the US that have had dam problems, and yes the industry needs to get on top of this problem, luckily nuclear waste is scrutinized much more carefully

My point was how a company manages one type of waste, might just be an indicator of how they or their parent company manages other even more toxic waste. Coal ash is not as benign as some in the industry would have us believe. Other forms of energy have their waste mangement issues that affect peoples lives as well. The black dusty crap from refining tar sands oil that is blowing over Detroit and other midwestern cities comes to mind. Hopefully they will do a the long term job of storing the crap from reactors better than what they have done with ash and petcoke, but I tend to doubt it. The stuff coming out of those will need to be sequestered from all life for THOUSANDS of years after all those companies have made the quick profits and declare bankruptcy and are now out of business with the cleanup left to "We the People" to deal with.

[JerryBaumchen 1,466]

Hi Jeanne,

Quote

. . . how a company manages one type of waste . . . manages other even more toxic waste

'A Civil Action' is both a good book & a good movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action

It's all about the quick buck.

JerryBaumchen

[StreetScooby 5]

Some more detail on the Lennart Bengtsson "witch hunt"...

A Heated Debate: Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?

I didn't realize this was such a respected guy...

Quote

News that Lennart Bengtsson, the respected former director of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, had joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), sent shockwaves through the climate research community. GWPF is most notable for its skepticism about climate change...

The "science" is not settled... Draconian costs and government impositions cannot be justified with the current understanding of climate science. Especially considering that those costs and impositions currently being advocated will not make any difference what so ever....

Quote

Bengtsson said in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE that he wanted to open up the climate change debate by joining GWPF. He said that in view of large gaps in knowledge, the pressure to reach a consensus in climate research "does not make sense".

His interview here is an interesting read, also:

Climate Change Debate: A Famous Scientist Becomes a Skeptic

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,111]

> Draconian costs and government impositions cannot be justified with the current
>understanding of climate science. Especially considering that those costs and
>impositions currently being advocated will not make any difference what so ever....

You're confusing two things here, I think - the science and the political/economic decisions that result from the science. They are not the same.

For example, imagine a tobacco company came out with the following: "We demand that laws concerning age limits for smoking are repealed. There is NO hard evidence that proves that smoking will definitely give you lung cancer; the science just isn't settled, and you can't justify draconian and industry-destroying laws with it."

You might (rightly) say "woah, those are two different things. One is the relative health risks of smoking, and the second is what laws we pass as a result." The argument that scientific conclusions should be changed because they are expensive, inconvenient or troublesome is exactly backwards.

A lot of people conflate these things, which leads to a lot of the denialism out there today. "I don't want to pay more for electricity so I will oppose climate change science." That is again backwards, but unfortunately common. A better solution (IMO) is to do impartial science, THEN decide what to do with the results it provides.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

You're confusing two things here, I think - the science and the political/economic decisions that result from the science. They are not the same.

I understand the difference.

Quote

A better solution (IMO) is to do impartial science, THEN decide what to do with the results it provides.

Agreed, fully.

Quote

"I don't want to pay more for electricity so I will oppose climate change science."

I know this is not in the order of your reply... My point here is the magnitude of the changes being "advertised" by "alarmists" is far from certain.

Do I think that the amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by humans is causing change, and will continue to cause change? Yes, I do.

Do I think we're going to reach a tipping point on this path, from which there will be no return, anytime soon? No, I don't. The magnitudes being touted by "alarmists" simply don't add up. They are ridiculous, IMO.

Do I think that "solutions" being advocated by our government or "alarmists" is going to make any difference in our current path? Absolutely not. It will be a tremendous mis-allocation of resources we simply do not have.

If the concerns were real, we would going full blown nuclear as we speak, and bringing the entire world with us. What this is really about, is a massive power grab and wealth transfer, IMO. The more I read, the more that opinion firms.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,111]

>Do I think we're going to reach a tipping point on this path, from which there will
>be no return, anytime soon? No, I don't.

I think that's fairly likely due to clathrate and tundra methane/CO2 releases.

>The magnitudes being touted by "alarmists" simply don't add up. They are
>ridiculous, IMO.

Agreed there, if by "alarmists" you mean people who are predicting coastal flooding within a few decades.

>Do I think that "solutions" being advocated by our government or "alarmists" is
>going to make any difference in our current path? Absolutely not.

They would certainly make a difference in the long term. If you believe the above (that our CO2 emission are causing change and will continue to do so) that's an unavoidable conclusion. The question is - are they worth the savings? That's a political, not a scientific, question.

>It will be a tremendous mis-allocation of resources we simply do not have.

?? Given that one of our biggest societal problems now is obesity, and given the amounts we spend on alcohol, tobacco and pot, it would be hard to argue that we "simply do not have" any extra resources. Again, the question is what we direct those extra resources towards - and that's a political, not a scientific, decision.

>If the concerns were real, we would going full blown nuclear as we speak

That's not a long term solution since we don't have the uranium, although it could definitely be part of a mid-term solution.

>What this is really about, is a massive power grab and wealth transfer, IMO. The
>more I read, the more that opinion firms.

Did you think the science over tobacco health risks were a "massive power grab and wealth transfer?" Because during the 1960's and 1970's, the tobacco companies saw it that way.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

There's a great documentary on Netflix "Pandora's Promise."

Watched this documentary today. I thought it was well done. Thanks for posting it.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

I think that's fairly likely due to clathrate and tundra methane/CO2 releases.

Thanks for this reply. Yet another thing I've learned from billvon, which going forward I'm going to condense into my best unix-like acronym YABV

A very quick google query on "how much co2 is in the tundra" gave two Scientific American articles within three months of each other that could be viewed as contradictory. I don't view it that way, at all, but rather see it as an evolving scientific understanding:

Melting Tundra Releases Carbon Dioxide Quickly

Thawing Tundra May Produce Less CO2

From the last article:

Quote

While climate change is warming the soil and spurring microorganisms to decompose leaves -- which releases carbon into the air -- the growth of more shrubbery in the tundra is soaking up that carbon and redistributing it back into the ground.

Having been professionally involved in large scale, highly nonlinear, math modelling of real world phenomenon I can say from experience that real world systems are very complex. Rational climate scientists (no, I'm not talking about Jim Hansen...) I have read consistently point out that there is still a lot we don't know about the climate system on the earth. These guys inspire a lot of confidence in me. I'm thankful they are actively working on this problem. They drive my evolving opinion that global warming is not going to be as disastrous as "alarmists" are claiming. The lower bound on the "climate sensitivity" being published by the IPCC continues to decrease with each report.

There are far more important things that our politicians need to solve now, before squandering scarce resources on this issue.

Quote

They would certainly make a difference in the long term. If you believe the above (that our CO2 emission are causing change and will continue to do so) that's an unavoidable conclusion. The question is - are they worth the savings? That's a political, not a scientific, question.

I watched Pandora's Promise this morning, and thought it was well done. What do you think of IFR technology, and why did Congress kill it?

Quote

?? Given that one of our biggest societal problems now is obesity, and given the amounts we spend on alcohol, tobacco and pot, it would be hard to argue that we "simply do not have" any extra resources. Again, the question is what we direct those extra resources towards - and that's a political, not a scientific, decision.

Did you think the science over tobacco health risks were a "massive power grab and wealth transfer?" Because during the 1960's and 1970's, the tobacco companies saw it that way.

Are you equating the costs that this adminstration's radical EPA is trying to impose on our society with this? I don't see the comparison as being valid.

The common refrain from Democrats these days that the "science is settled", "they don't understand science", etc., are simply specious assertions in this argument, IMO. Their continuing insistence on producing citizens that are not prepared to function as responsible participants in a civilized society, that can take care of themselves and their family, is a huge concern of mine. This will break our society long before global warming will, IMO.

We are all engines of karma

[sfzombie13 324]

well, whether you like it or not, whether you believe this theory or that one, the damage is being done. is it irrepairable? no. can it be safely ignored? no. something has to be done. i am doing something. i am coming up with ideas and trying them out. i am using all of you as a sounding board to see what is viable and what needs to be scrapped. i need to do a little more work to this one. i think it is viable, maybe not as is, but with a few enhancements.

i have a new one also, i would just append it to this one, but i want to be able to keep track. thanx for all the input, it helped work out several bugs. if i get any further in the next few weeks, i may post it back here.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes