America Could Go Fully Electric Right Now

[Dave Williams 0]

On 8/26/2020 at 9:57 AM, Dan Warnick said:

Is it even a powerplant?  It's just a mine, isn't it?

This power plant ceased burning coal in 2015 and they have been relocating all of their old ash wastes away from the river.  I suspect that this is in fact a pile of the relocated ash and sealed with soil.  Common practice is to line the disposal impoundment to prevent migration of water but I do not know if that is being done at this plant.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

5 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Anti-science Ward.

Nothing outside of pure math is ever proven.

Unfortunately I clicked on the "new posts" button and of course I see it is my favorite shadow, haunting my posts even though you're on ignore. But I'll make it easy for you. My degree is Math and Computer Science. Indeed, back in my day there were no computer science majors by themselves. Hence I have more respect for proof than the rest of the STEM majors. Too many times, too many other sciences wave their arms and give up on proving something. In comparison, how much time and effort went into solving Fermat's last theorem? In another "science" would everyone just take a vote? Asking for a friend.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

. Therefore to raise the hysteria and increase the funding, they added forcing, which has never been demonstrated, even though it's a fairly trivial experimental setup.

Ward loves education by YouTube.  Try this at home!  If the science gets over your head feel free to ask for help.

 

 

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

12 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Unfortunately I clicked on the "new posts" button and of course I see it is my favorite shadow, haunting my posts even though you're on ignore. But I'll make it easy for you. My degree is Math and Computer Science. Indeed, back in my day there were no computer science majors by themselves. Hence I have more respect for proof than the rest of the STEM majors. Too many times, too many other sciences wave their arms and give up on proving something. In comparison, how much time and effort went into solving Fermat's last theorem? In another "science" would everyone just take a vote? Asking for a friend.

Fake news.  I've decided you have no degree.  See how easy making false claims is?  I'm learning from you and trump!

 

We were not discussing math so proofs are impossible to provide.  Brush up on the scientific method.

 

 

Edited October 8, 2020 by Enthalpic

[NickW + 2,714]

58 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

CO2 is theorised to act as a force multiplier. That theory has never been proven! All the self serving climate scientists in the world can have a consensus that emperor has no clothes, but undressed he remains. Now you know why I am a skeptic! 

As for nutrients, I obviously know what Liebig published, perhaps better than you. Pretending that mother earth doesn't know how plants grow doesn't bolster the AGW argument. In places where conditions are good, plants will grow great. That includes my backyard and the forest beyond. Even California's forests have been growing fuel exceptionally well, even during droughts. 

You could probably demonstrate this in a lab with the right set up. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

36 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Ward loves education by YouTube.  Try this at home!  If the science gets over your head feel free to ask for help.

 

 

 

Sigh, clicked on new, and see more stupidity from you. 

Let's review, shall we? I did not dispute that CO2 traps some infrared frequencies. In fact, dipstick, I've invented tech that takes advantage of this. However, that wasn't my point! Read again, moving your lips and try to understand what happens at the adult table.  I'm not at all surprised that you posted a video meant for children, given that you're such a child yourself. Did your videos discuss water vapor forcing? Why no, no they didn't. Fail. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

3 hours ago, NickW said:

You could probably demonstrate this in a lab with the right set up. 

Exactly my point. Such a trivial test, but no one has published on it. Why? Perhaps because A) they couldn't get funding, or more likely B) it has been done, and the results don't jibe with the claims. 

@Enthalpic is furiously searching for a scientific paper written in crayon so he can understand it as we speak. Good luck to him. 

Edited October 9, 2020 by Ward Smith

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Thank you for further demonstrating you have NO CLUE what the HELL you are talking about. 

Good day. 

I assume in Footsie world variable speed motors and alternators don't exist?

Here is a practical example of variable rate battery charging. My friends yacht has an alternator which charges the batteries. Depending on the amount of throttle the charge amperage changes. More amps, the quicker the battery charges. Voltage remains the same at around 12v. Ok Dc system I appreciate the complexities of AC systems greater but the principle is effectively the same. 

Ok so lets say feathering the charge rate is a bit too complex. How about something a bit more simple with the charger unit. A step down / up charge rate linked to grid frequency. 

So for example:

Frequency above 50 Hz Charge rate = 13 amp / 3.1 Kw

Frequency drops below 50 Hz charge rate drops to 10 amp / 2.4KW

Frequency drops below 49.75 Hz Charge rate drops to 5 amp / 1.2KW

Frequency drops below 49.5 Hz Charging stops. 

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

7 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Sigh, clicked on new, and see more stupidity from you. 

Let's review, shall we? I did not dispute that CO2 traps some infrared frequencies. In fact, dipstick, I've invented tech that takes advantage of this. However, that wasn't my point! Read again, moving your lips and try to understand what happens at the adult table.  I'm not at all surprised that you posted a video meant for children, given that you're such a child yourself. Did your videos discuss water vapor forcing? Why no, no they didn't. Fail. 

Water was present in the bottles....

So you accept that CO2 absorbs some frequencies  That adds heat. .  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational–vibrational_spectroscopy

Heat increases evaporation of water... simple.  No need to confuse yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_pressure_of_water

 

Edited October 8, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Exactly my point. Such all trivial test, but no one has published on it. Why? Perhaps because A) they couldn't get funding, or more likely B) it has been done, and the results don't jibe with the claims. 

@Enthalpic is furiously searching for a scientific paper written in crayon so he can understand it as we speak. Good luck to him. 

No, I already found evidence that meets your standards and educational level.

A paper for scientists would go over your head.  Speak to your audience and all that.

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

2 hours ago, NickW said:

I assume in Footsie world variable speed motors and alternators don't exist?

Here is a practical example of variable rate battery charging. My friends yacht has an alternator which charges the batteries. Depending on the amount of throttle the charge amperage changes. More amps, the quicker the battery charges. Voltage remains the same at around 12v. Ok Dc system I appreciate the complexities of AC systems greater but the principle is effectively the same. 

Ok so lets say feathering the charge rate is a bit too complex. How about something a bit more simple with the charger unit. A step down / up charge rate linked to grid frequency.

Not how power factor works.  Likewise the ALTERNATOR is tied to the throttle.  There is NO THROTTLE on a power line.  None If you want variable current you are into expensive electronics(semi conductors stacked) of several hundred dollars plus the built in "computer" or simple fixed "chip" which gives it a step function for current for when on/off for different voltages from Hal effect sensor which would be close enough. Or via calculating power factor itself via lag/lead. 

So, your Demand are expensive variable current regulator able to withstand several KW... A computer, a hall effect probe, a couple voltage sensors, installation inside the panel which is jammed packed from which you have to get the leads out, a permit to cover this installation which before required NO permit, and all the extra labor costs.  Uh huh.  And run the lines underground to the parking lot and said parking lot must have designated parking and must have a universal electrical plug for charging cars.  There is no true universal standard currently, but I do expect a new one to come down the line as no one will put up with separate charging networks in the long term.  Some nation who has mandated EV 100% everything will get fed up with the baloney and mandate all manufacturers sit down and hammer out a standard.  1st movers generally speaking get first crack at said standard, but if you make your standard inclusive, you will lose.  So, the real question is WILL TESLA loosen its iron fisted grip on its supercharger network or not?  If not, rest of the world will pass them by and make a uniform standard and stop demanding I/O ports which talk to a centralized office(theirs and no one elses)

You do not get to just wave your hand as if this stuff is easy.  As an engineer, we can do ANYTHING.  Doing ANYTHING is not the question in engineering and never will be.  Rather the question is COST and for said COST is it the best solution?  Why chargers for the vast majority of apartments will not exist, but rather these people will have to charge elsewhere just as they buy gas/diesel today.  It is not the end of the world. 

[NickW + 2,714]

10 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Not how power factor works.  Likewise the ALTERNATOR is tied to the throttle.  There is NO THROTTLE on a power line.  None If you want variable current you are into expensive electronics(semi conductors stacked) of several hundred dollars plus the built in "computer" or simple fixed "chip" which gives it a step function for current for when on/off for different voltages from Hal effect sensor which would be close enough. Or via calculating power factor itself via lag/lead. 

So, your Demand are expensive variable current regulator able to withstand several KW... A computer, a hall effect probe, a couple voltage sensors, installation inside the panel which is jammed packed from which you have to get the leads out, a permit to cover this installation which before required NO permit, and all the extra labor costs.  Uh huh.  And run the lines underground to the parking lot and said parking lot must have designated parking and must have a universal electrical plug for charging cars.  There is no true universal standard currently, but I do expect a new one to come down the line as no one will put up with separate charging networks in the long term.  Some nation who has mandated EV 100% everything will get fed up with the baloney and mandate all manufacturers sit down and hammer out a standard.  1st movers generally speaking get first crack at said standard, but if you make your standard inclusive, you will lose.  So, the real question is WILL TESLA loosen its iron fisted grip on its supercharger network or not?  If not, rest of the world will pass them by and make a uniform standard and stop demanding I/O ports which talk to a centralized office(theirs and no one elses)

You do not get to just wave your hand as if this stuff is easy.  As an engineer, we can do ANYTHING.  Doing ANYTHING is not the question in engineering and never will be.  Rather the question is COST and for said COST is it the best solution?  Why chargers for the vast majority of apartments will not exist, but rather these people will have to charge elsewhere just as they buy gas/diesel today.  It is not the end of the world. 

Yet I have a £150 device that takes surplus power (in AC) from my solar panels and then sends it to the hot water immersion. The amperage is constantly changing as the voltage remains constant. Forget that level of technicality - what about the step up and down option I proposed. That must be fairly simple to build the electronics for? . 

Anyway you are probably right on external charging. Here is the current map of public chargers across the UK. 

https://www.zap-map.com/live/

[Wombat + 1,028]

17 hours ago, NickW said:

So CO2 acts as a force multiplier. You have just articulated a very good sentence explaining one aspect of  AGW to counter the deniers & sceptics with. 😀

Agree. There are many positive feedback loops in AGW. Unfortunately, the Earth does not have nearly as many negative feedback loops. Only significant one is the giant cloud of smog that stretches from China to the USA, and covers half the Pacific. Not nearly enough to offset the effects of melting tundra. Add in deforestation, there goes your second largest carbon sink. Climate change is not rocket science, but until now, accurately predicting its exact path has been. So far, most models have UNDER-estimated the pace of change, which is a real worry. Shame the greenies don't believe in nuclear, we are screwed without it. I am all for renewables, but we need nuclear too, and we need it fast.

[Wombat + 1,028]

16 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

CO2 is theorised to act as a force multiplier. That theory has never been proven! All the self serving climate scientists in the world can have a consensus that emperor has no clothes, but undressed he remains. Now you know why I am a skeptic! 

As for nutrients, I obviously know what Liebig published, perhaps better than you. Pretending that mother earth doesn't know how plants grow doesn't bolster the AGW argument. In places where conditions are good, plants will grow great. That includes my backyard and the forest beyond. Even California's forests have been growing fuel exceptionally well, even during droughts. 

OK Ward, time you give us your theory as to why winters are getting shorter, ice-caps are melting, corals are bleaching, hurricanes growing in intensity, droughts and floods getting more severe etc etc?

 

[NickW + 2,714]

54 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Agree. There are many positive feedback loops in AGW. Unfortunately, the Earth does not have nearly as many negative feedback loops. Only significant one is the giant cloud of smog that stretches from China to the USA, and covers half the Pacific. Not nearly enough to offset the effects of melting tundra. Add in deforestation, there goes your second largest carbon sink. Climate change is not rocket science, but until now, accurately predicting its exact path has been. So far, most models have UNDER-estimated the pace of change, which is a real worry. Shame the greenies don't believe in nuclear, we are screwed without it. I am all for renewables, but we need nuclear too, and we need it fast.

The Uk Government have provided Rolls Royce with £2bn of support to develop their modular reactors. I really hope this gets off the ground as it will get us (UK) of the Chinese hook we have jumped on and also offer Countries like Oz the option of a small Nuc reactor which would work well in a relatively small grid and built to western safety standards. Not some Chinese shyte or South korean compromised design ( APR1400 with no Core catcher) 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

3 hours ago, Wombat said:

OK Ward, time you give us your theory as to why winters are getting shorter, ice-caps are melting, corals are bleaching, hurricanes growing in intensity, droughts and floods getting more severe etc etc?

 

Well what's not been said is added  clouds and rain fall Dehumidify and Cool. That directly fights added heat and co2/humidity in atmosphere.  And the earth changes we can all agree on that. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

3 hours ago, Wombat said:

OK Ward, time you give us your theory as to why winters are getting shorter, ice-caps are melting, corals are bleaching, hurricanes growing in intensity, droughts and floods getting more severe etc etc?

 

Might want to read science publications/newspapers from the early 20th century as they were all saying the exact same thing... Gosh golly gee, last I checked CO2 was not a problem then, what happened... Oh right, little ice age and the temp swing was far greater than anything even close to the last half of the 20th century or beginning of 21st and yet we are made to believe it is CO2 driving this even when THEIR PREDICTION of much higher CO2 in upper atmosphere around equator causing warming forcing heat to the poles... came up near a goosegg in reality... And yet, even after that egg on the face, "global warming due to CO2" baloney only got larger.  So much for "science", now it is nothing but a religious dogma where they are actively changing the temperature record and have been caught doing so multiple times and science be damned movement.  Your selective paranoia is incredible. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

5 hours ago, NickW said:

Yet I have a £150 device that takes surplus power (in AC) from my solar panels and then sends it to the hot water immersion. The amperage is constantly changing as the voltage remains constant. Forget that level of technicality - what about the step up and down option I proposed. That must be fairly simple to build the electronics for? . 

Anyway you are probably right on external charging. Here is the current map of public chargers across the UK. 

https://www.zap-map.com/live/

You are taking a surplus load and switching it between dumps with a TEMPERATURE feedback(voltage) combined with a Voltage DC(solar feedback).  Where is this feedback loop on whole house CURRENT limiting... after all voltage remains constant?  Does not exist.

Current is extremely difficult to measure accurately and manipulate and therefore very expensive and when done is done in step functions and is not variable, but rather on/off and why breakers/fuses work.  Voltage is easy as it is tied easily and cheaply directly to resistance/impedance.  Go for it, try to find a variable CURRENT anything.  Good luck.  Variable Voltage is easy

Edited October 9, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

4 hours ago, Wombat said:

OK Ward, time you give us your theory as to why winters are getting shorter, ice-caps are melting, corals are bleaching, hurricanes growing in intensity, droughts and floods getting more severe etc etc?

Geologists tell us what? Climate has changed tens of thousands of times in the past. Where I live used to be under almost 2 kilometers of ice, while CO2 levels were much higher than today. These facts are all well known. We can theorise all we want, but it's a complex system with lots of inputs and variations. You should look up the Lorenz attractor. Even with simple inputs, over enough cycles things appear chaotic. 

My guess? Our climate change is most highly correlated to that big yellow object in the sky. We've only just begun to study its output properly so don't have sufficient data to back  correlate to known events, such as ice ages and epochs of climate much warmer than today. If I dig down deep enough, I'll find fossils of tropical ferns, a bit deeper and I'll find fossils of wooly mammoths. Same place, totally different climate. Why is that? 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

The "Bible" on all of this was written in three sections by John McPhee. It is called Annals of the Former World. 

John McPhee--a king among scholars--made several trips from New Jersey to Sacramento via I-80. He quizzed them, studied rocks with them, examined terminal moraines and kinderhorns, all the while writing about geologic formations and climate epochs. 

It is--I guarantee--the best comprehensive book ever written on this subject. 

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

Well what's not been said is added  clouds and rain fall Dehumidify and Cool. That directly fights added heat and co2/humidity in atmosphere.  And the earth changes we can all agree on that. 

It doesn't make the extra energy disappear though - to do that it needs to be reflected back into space. 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

Geologists tell us what? Climate has changed tens of thousands of times in the past. Where I live used to be under almost 2 kilometers of ice, while CO2 levels were much higher than today. These facts are all well known. We can theorise all we want, but it's a complex system with lots of inputs and variations. You should look up the Lorenz attractor. Even with simple inputs, over enough cycles things appear chaotic. 

My guess? Our climate change is most highly correlated to that big yellow object in the sky. We've only just begun to study its output properly so don't have sufficient data to back  correlate to known events, such as ice ages and epochs of climate much warmer than today. If I dig down deep enough, I'll find fossils of tropical ferns, a bit deeper and I'll find fossils of wooly mammoths. Same place, totally different climate. Why is that? 

Throughout the Quaternary ice age eras CO2 levels have been between 180 and 280ppm whereas today CO2 is at about 412ppm so I don't where you get the idea that ice ages occurred in atmospheres with much higher CO2. Global warming gases are only one part of why ice ages occur and were not a significant factor in the last sequence. 

If you are referring to ice ages billions / 100's of millions of years ago in high CO2 climates you need to factor in the much lower output of the sun. The Sun increases solar output by approx 30% every billion years. So no significant difference now compared to 1 million  years ago but quite different if we role the clock back 2 billion years. 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

It doesn't make the extra energy disappear though - to do that it needs to be reflected back into space. 

Well it brings down humidity ( being 85% according to Google of the greenhouse gases. ) so reducing the biggest percentage of greenhouse gases.  So total heat allowed to leave in areas is fluctuating and temperature differences increase the rate of transmission. Also dont forget the centre of the earth is a heat source and as the sun grows hotter and larger the mass decreases and gravity squeezing the earth causing heat changes.... theres no way they have all this factored. Seems to me the laws are equal and opposite reactions to all things. "Fossil fuels" are just a battery for energy.  Everything puts off carbon and heat so equal and opposite reaction once again.

[Michael Sanches + 187]

On 10/5/2020 at 6:49 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Can you please provide a link to this applewood flavored coal that you use?

Applewood comes from Apple trees. You burn the wood and it gives a great taste. Google "Apple" if you have never heard of apple trees (they grow on trees made of wood, not made in factories. Surprise!)

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 minute ago, Michael Sanches said:

Applewood comes from Apple trees. You burn the wood and it gives a great taste. Google "Apple" if you have never heard of apple trees (they grow on trees made of wood, not made in factories. Surprise!)

He said coal not charcoal.