Kalifornistan, CO2, clueless politicians, climate hustle

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

5 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

You have bad information, that is all I can tell you. 

I now you will understand this https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-09-26/pg-e-will-cut-power-to-89-000-customers-in-northern-california-beginning-sunday-because-of-fire-conditions

I lived half my life in California and never had a blackout. I had one for a few days in a small rural town during an ice storm in my present state of Illinois. Here we have occasional momentary outages and maybe one a year lasting for about an hour or two. We have a lot of storms and downed trees. 

Your reference is to a fire safety blackout. This is not a rolling blackout. A rolling blackout is used when there is not enough generating capacity.  There was plenty of capacity on 2020-09-26. The damn blackout was to protect the electric utility from being sued into bankruptcy again if a wild fire was attributed to a power line causing a fire.

I moved to CA in 2014. My electrical service is not perfect, but it's more reliable (on average) than in the DC suburb I lived in for 35 years.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 minute ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Your reference is to a fire safety blackout. This is not a rolling blackout. A rolling blackout is used when there is not enough generating capacity.  There was plenty of capacity on 2020-09-26. The damn blackout was to protect the electric utility from being sued into bankruptcy again if a wild fire was attributed to a power line causing a fire.

I moved to CA in 2014. My electrical service is not perfect, but it's more reliable (on average) than in the DC suburb I lived in for 35 years.

To me an intentional blackout that is repetitive in nature is a rolling blackout. The fire blackouts are due to the lawsuits that have bankrupted PG&E rightly or wrongly. The true cause is just plain carelessness and ,in some cases, arson. Lightning causes a number of fires but without forestry principles being used California never has any hope of controlling forest fires. An ember can travel for a mile. People want to live close to nature. I lived in Auburn California , with a shingle roof. I was taking a chance but kept my half acre mowed. We had mostly scrub oaks which do not burn like pines. There was a large fire on a nearby hill a few miles away. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

13 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

To me an intentional blackout that is repetitive in nature is a rolling blackout. The fire blackouts are due to the lawsuits that have bankrupted PG&E rightly or wrongly. The true cause is just plain carelessness and ,in some cases, arson. Lightning causes a number of fires but without forestry principles being used California never has any hope of controlling forest fires. An ember can travel for a mile. People want to live close to nature. I lived in Auburn California , with a shingle roof. I was taking a chance but kept my half acre mowed. We had mostly scrub oaks which do not burn like pines. There was a large fire on a nearby hill a few miles away. 

The distinction between a fire-weather blackout and a demand-reduction blackout is critical to this thread. No amount of extra capacity (fossil or greenie) will prevent these stupid fire-weather blackouts. The fossils taunt the greenies that renewables cause blackouts, and this is simply not true for fire-weather blackouts. What the crazy fire-weather blackouts will do is cause more rich folks to install batteries, usually in conjunction with rooftop solar.

Incidentally, It is called "rolling" because the blackout is shifted from place to place so any particular customer only sees a short blackout. The grid does not much care who is shut off, it just needs a certain amount of load to go away.  By contrast, the stupid fire-weather blackouts affect a large area that is predicted to have high wind and dry heat. It does not "roll" from place to place. It's the area, not the load.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 9/25/2020 at 10:32 AM, Ward Smith said:

They are absolutely less expensive than an ICE vehicle annually, right up until you replace the batteries, which on an expense basis is equivalent to swapping out the engine and transmission on an ICE. At that point, given that those replacements are extremely rare in ICE vehicles, it's game over for the comparison. Call it $1000/yr maintenance (which in 50 years of vehicle ownership I've never spent) for 7 years average ownership, versus $15,000 minimum for battery replacement. 

That is the thing that most disappointed me with Tesla battery day. Was interested in the "million mile battery" more than anything else. Only then would I buy an EV, or a home battery for the solar system. Was hoping they would be a real solution for grid-scale storage too. Looks like we stuck with gas and hydro for a while. No wonder the world is starting to think H2.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 9/25/2020 at 9:09 PM, NickW said:

Actually some of us do.

If I divide all my investments* not including the house and pensions by the number of years (19) to my statutory retirement age it well exceeds my net income for the same period from my middle income job.

I drive a 12 year old Toyota Corolla 1.6L Hatch which was my late Fathers. 

* combo of working in oil for several years in the good times, good investment decisions, some inheritance and being a right  tight @rse😁

Well said Nick! My modus opperandi very similar.

[NickW + 2,714]

5 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I am the source and had to go without the electricity. It was in the Inland Empire and was very annoying. People there were used to it. 

That doesn't mean it was a rolling blackout caused by renewables . As Dan points out Wildfires effect power supplies irrespective of source. Even devine  Natural Gas is vulnerable to these effects. Likewise with high winds or when a Nuke trips. 

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

On 9/23/2020 at 6:27 PM, Ward Smith said:

With all the problems Kalifornistan has right now, this makes perfect sense… Not

Gruesome Newsom's new ploy to distract voters from the swirling cesspool that is Kalifornistan should make the idiocracy happy and the cognesceti sad, just like he planned. Given that it's an executive order, it can (and should) be overturned by the first adult to take the governor mansion. Given that we're talking about Kalifornistan, that might never happen. In a functional democracy, the courts would shoot this down, but again Kalifornistan…  

Just how bad an impact on the grid will this create, given they can't even keep the lights on now? Asking for a friend 

 

The California blackouts must be one of the most obvious things in the planet, Electricity consumption is california is highly encouraged but producing it is usually illegal

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

On 9/23/2020 at 10:15 PM, ronwagn said:

If California's leaders had any sense they would be promoting natural gas trucks. They could demand biogas if they want. There is plenty of feedstock in California. California is already a leader in natural gas fueling but they are not adequately promoted. 

https://cngvc.org/

https://cngvc.org/news/fueling-stations/

The problem of natural gas trucks is that is a very shitty fuel, a truck running on natural gas has much less power and way less torque, and you need power to keep speed uphill and not causing accidents, if you care about reducing oil and pollution in the freight transport it would be more practical to make synthetic fuel with the STG+ Process, if you care about reducing Co2 emissions it may be slightly practical, today with Stage-V/EPA-T4F diesel engines have the same pollution emissions as natural gas

Natural gas cars have been in argentina since the late 80s but trucks with natural gas have never taken off, and likely they never will, Diesel fuel is still the gold standard for heavy duty engines, and will be for a long time, hybridization is way better than natural gas, or electrification.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Sebastian Meana

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

9 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

The California blackouts must be one of the most obvious things in the planet, Electricity consumption is california is highly encouraged but producing it is usually illegal

Some decade ago or more there was this big blackout in California and the factories there were crying for generators, as they were out of business with no hope on the horizon.  I had a surplus gen-set of 335 KW driven by a CAT engine so I looked for a buyer out there.  I found out that there are two types of gen-sets:  those of the 49 States that are built to one exhaust standard, and a 50th version sold only in California that is built to meet CARB  [Cali Air Resources Board] standard.  The 49-Stateversion cannot be installed in Cali, not then, not now, not ever. 

I really don't have any sympathy for California.  Those people have installed a govt bureaucracy that dictates to them even what they cannot do in an emergency.  You need power - even emergency power, when the govt utility cannot deliver any?  Too bad, so sad - you go without, unless your gen-set meets their special requirements.  Don't even think about buying a used but pristine gen-set in the used-machinery market, you cannot bring it into the State, the unseen, unannounced, unelected bureaucrats won't let you make your own.  Better for you to go bankrupt, close the doors, put the workforce on the dole, than to run your own gen-set for a week.   What a lovely place.  California: it seriously sucks. 

Cali needs to go through a sustained period of extreme hardship.  It needs to internally collapse.  It should never get a bailout from the Fed Govt from Mr. Biden  [although I predict it will].  The place needs to look long and hard in the mirror to realize the monster they have wrought. Only then, will it fire the ideologues and expel the crazy Leftists from that government. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

It should never get a bailout from the Fed Govt

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

 If anyone deserves bailouts it is Cali, they are like Alberta, always paying out and getting little respect for it from the rest.

 

[RichieRich216 + 454]

Best that could happen to CA is it all burns to the ground and start over, The liberal idiots have destroyed the State 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

14 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

The problem of natural gas trucks is that is a very shitty fuel, a truck running on natural gas has much less power and way less torque, and you need power to keep speed uphill and not causing accidents, if you care about reducing oil and pollution in the freight transport it would be more practical to make synthetic fuel with the STG+ Process, if you care about reducing Co2 emissions it may be slightly practical, today with Stage-V/EPA-T4F diesel engines have the same pollution emissions as natural gas

Natural gas cars have been in argentina since the late 80s but trucks with natural gas have never taken off, and likely they never will, Diesel fuel is still the gold standard for heavy duty engines, and will be for a long time, hybridization is way better than natural gas, or electrification.

You seem to be talking about technologies that have never really been implemented in large numbers. I think that your statements on natural gas trucks are probably based on inferior natural gas technologies. Keep in mind that many of these trucks are available with dual fuel diesel and natural gas so you can switch to diesel if desired. Natural gas can run engines far larger than truck engines and do just fine. Marine engines are far larger than truck engines or even locomotive engines. 

I would like any references to actual trucks you say are clean and better than natural gas. 

https://www.cleanenergyfuels.com/customer-solutions/heavy-duty-trucks

https://www.wartsila.com/docs/default-source/Power-Plants-documents/technology/combustion-engines/introducing-the-world's-largest-gas-engine.pdf

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

16 hours ago, NickW said:

That doesn't mean it was a rolling blackout caused by renewables . As Dan points out Wildfires effect power supplies irrespective of source. Even devine  Natural Gas is vulnerable to these effects. Likewise with high winds or when a Nuke trips. 

I have never heard of one large outage related to natural gas in California or elsewhere. I live near a large pumping station and pipeline in central Illinois. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

17 hours ago, Wombat said:

That is the thing that most disappointed me with Tesla battery day. Was interested in the "million mile battery" more than anything else. Only then would I buy an EV, or a home battery for the solar system. Was hoping they would be a real solution for grid-scale storage too. Looks like we stuck with gas and hydro for a while. No wonder the world is starting to think H2.

Why do you think H2 would be a good choice? Do you have any idea how much more it would cost than natural gas. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

21 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

The distinction between a fire-weather blackout and a demand-reduction blackout is critical to this thread. No amount of extra capacity (fossil or greenie) will prevent these stupid fire-weather blackouts. The fossils taunt the greenies that renewables cause blackouts, and this is simply not true for fire-weather blackouts. What the crazy fire-weather blackouts will do is cause more rich folks to install batteries, usually in conjunction with rooftop solar.

Incidentally, It is called "rolling" because the blackout is shifted from place to place so any particular customer only sees a short blackout. The grid does not much care who is shut off, it just needs a certain amount of load to go away.  By contrast, the stupid fire-weather blackouts affect a large area that is predicted to have high wind and dry heat. It does not "roll" from place to place. It's the area, not the load.

Sure, that is obvious, but I do not think that rolling blackouts are a viable solution. Thus you need natural gas until you can come up with something better at the same cost or close. California doesn't have it and can't afford it thus I think it is very stupid to rush to pay for backup power from more expensive technology. Do it in a slow way to make it economical. 

You will also be facing competition from Gates and Buffet who together with their investors, have a lot of clout. They are promoting small scale nuclear reactors all over the country, and probably the world. That is anathema to me. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Some decade ago or more there was this big blackout in California and the factories there were crying for generators, as they were out of business with no hope on the horizon.  I had a surplus gen-set of 335 KW driven by a CAT engine so I looked for a buyer out there.  I found out that there are two types of gen-sets:  those of the 49 States that are built to one exhaust standard, and a 50th version sold only in California that is built to meet CARB  [Cali Air Resources Board] standard.  The 49-Stateversion cannot be installed in Cali, not then, not now, not ever. 

I really don't have any sympathy for California.  Those people have installed a govt bureaucracy that dictates to them even what they cannot do in an emergency.  You need power - even emergency power, when the govt utility cannot deliver any?  Too bad, so sad - you go without, unless your gen-set meets their special requirements.  Don't even think about buying a used but pristine gen-set in the used-machinery market, you cannot bring it into the State, the unseen, unannounced, unelected bureaucrats won't let you make your own.  Better for you to go bankrupt, close the doors, put the workforce on the dole, than to run your own gen-set for a week.   What a lovely place.  California: it seriously sucks. 

Cali needs to go through a sustained period of extreme hardship.  It needs to internally collapse.  It should never get a bailout from the Fed Govt from Mr. Biden  [although I predict it will].  The place needs to look long and hard in the mirror to realize the monster they have wrought. Only then, will it fire the ideologues and expel the crazy Leftists from that government. 

Jan, don't you realize that Biden/Harris and the rest of the Demoncrats would make the rest of the United States just like California and it won't take long. Look at New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Washington, Oregon and all the states that are close to turning blue. We are at a true tipping point. Do you think that Biden/Harris would be good for America? This is a battle between good and evil. You once said you thought royalty was the best form of government. Well, royalty is basically just totalitarianism and that is what we would have. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, RichieRich216 said:

Best that could happen to CA is it all burns to the ground and start over, The liberal idiots have destroyed the State 

Except if it burns to the ground, they will say it proves their point(s).  In fact, IMHO, it might be just what they need.  I say that with an eye to the differences between India and China over the last 50 years.  Similar populations with similar challenges.  One was razed and they had no choice but to start from scratch; one introduces change after change, but essentially not much does.  One has largely succeeded, putting aside where they may go from here; one has remained largely the same as they were 50 years ago.

[Wombat + 1,028]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Why do you think H2 would be a good choice? Do you have any idea how much more it would cost than natural gas. 

Ron, there is a big difference in price between NG in the USA and NG in Asia, or even Europe for that matter. H2 may not make sense in US, but is likely to become competitive with LNG in Asia, and perhaps Europe eventually.

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

You seem to be talking about technologies that have never really been implemented in large numbers. I think that your statements on natural gas trucks are probably based on inferior natural gas technologies. Keep in mind that many of these trucks are available with dual fuel diesel and natural gas so you can switch to diesel if desired. Natural gas can run engines far larger than truck engines and do just fine. Marine engines are far larger than truck engines or even locomotive engines. 

I would like any references to actual trucks you say are clean and better than natural gas. 

https://www.cleanenergyfuels.com/customer-solutions/heavy-duty-trucks

https://www.wartsila.com/docs/default-source/Power-Plants-documents/technology/combustion-engines/introducing-the-world's-largest-gas-engine.pdf

 

https://publications.tno.nl/publication/34633965/pl7KqC/TNO-2019-R10193.pdf

Modern Diesel engines with Selective catalytic reduction, very lean combustion, and particulate filters have less emissions than methane engines,on the otherhand you don't use wartsila engines in trucks, but engines made by cummins, scania, fiat, volvo, caterpillar with generally less than 20 liters in displacement

scania sells their 16.5 liter V8 engine in two versions, the OC16 which is spark ignited, and the DC16 which is diesel, the OC16 has 650horsepower and 2600NM of torque while the DC16 got 1150 horsepower and 4200NM of torque, Liebherr sells their 12 liter in gs and diesel versions too the diesel has 2560NM of torque and 530HP and the Gas 1560NM and 380 horsepower, DAF is making hybrid trucks and caterpillar sells the C18 in a hybrid version with 1250HP from the engine and another 600HP from the electric motors, which would come handy as a retarder, to drive in cities, mantaining a safe speed and to overtake, they have less power because otherwise the fuel would knock up while being compressed in the cylinder, and thats bad, in  diesel you inject fuel after being compressed so it doesn't matter, and you can put as much fuel and air as you please, unlike spark ignited engines.

On the otherhand you need more torque in a truck across a wide range of RPM ,because power is only a ficticious number that you get by multiplying RPM x Torque, and because in a truck you never surpass the 2000 RPM because the engine needs to last 1.5 to 2 million KM, so the best is to always getting the highest torque under 2000RPM

Edited September 28, 2020 by Sebastian Meana

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

15 minutes ago, Sebastian Meana said:

https://publications.tno.nl/publication/34633965/pl7KqC/TNO-2019-R10193.pdf

Modern Diesel engines with Selective catalytic reduction, very lean combustion, and particulate filters have less emissions than methane engines,on the otherhand you don't use wartsila engines in trucks, but engines made by cummins, scania, fiat, volvo, caterpillar with generally less than 20 liters in displacement

scania sells their 16.5 liter V8 engine in two versions, the OC16 which is spark ignited, and the DC16 which is diesel, the OC16 has 650horsepower and 2600NM of torque while the DC16 got 1150 horsepower and 4200NM of torque, Liebherr sells their 12 liter in gs and diesel versions too the diesel has 2560NM of torque and 530HP and the Gas 1560NM and 380 horsepower, DAF is making hybrid trucks and caterpillar sells the C18 in a hybrid version with 1250HP from the engine and another 600HP from the electric motors, which would come handy as a retarder, to drive in cities, mantaining a safe speed and to overtake, they have less power because otherwise the fuel would knock up while being compressed in the cylinder, and thats bad, in  diesel you inject fuel after being compressed so it doesn't matter, and you can put as much fuel and air as you please, unlike spark ignited engines.

On the otherhand you need more torque in a truck across a wide range of RPM ,because power is only a ficticious number that you get by multiplying RPM x Torque, and because in a truck you never surpass the 2000 RPM because the engine needs to last 1.5 to 2 million KM, so the best is to always getting the highest torque under 2000RPM

Propane will never compete with diesel, as of to date I know of no propane designed engines. 

To that point there design would extremely basic and cost effective. And if done dino engines would become passe 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

57 minutes ago, Sebastian Meana said:

https://publications.tno.nl/publication/34633965/pl7KqC/TNO-2019-R10193.pdf

Modern Diesel engines with Selective catalytic reduction, very lean combustion, and particulate filters have less emissions than methane engines,on the otherhand you don't use wartsila engines in trucks, but engines made by cummins, scania, fiat, volvo, caterpillar with generally less than 20 liters in displacement

scania sells their 16.5 liter V8 engine in two versions, the OC16 which is spark ignited, and the DC16 which is diesel, the OC16 has 650horsepower and 2600NM of torque while the DC16 got 1150 horsepower and 4200NM of torque, Liebherr sells their 12 liter in gs and diesel versions too the diesel has 2560NM of torque and 530HP and the Gas 1560NM and 380 horsepower, DAF is making hybrid trucks and caterpillar sells the C18 in a hybrid version with 1250HP from the engine and another 600HP from the electric motors, which would come handy as a retarder, to drive in cities, mantaining a safe speed and to overtake, they have less power because otherwise the fuel would knock up while being compressed in the cylinder, and thats bad, in  diesel you inject fuel after being compressed so it doesn't matter, and you can put as much fuel and air as you please, unlike spark ignited engines.

On the otherhand you need more torque in a truck across a wide range of RPM ,because power is only a ficticious number that you get by multiplying RPM x Torque, and because in a truck you never surpass the 2000 RPM because the engine needs to last 1.5 to 2 million KM, so the best is to always getting the highest torque under 2000RPM

Thanks for the explanation. I hope you saw the video, it says the Grapevine was no problem for a heavily loaded natural gas truck. If diesel stays cheap there is no real reason to spend money to switch to natural gas unless government demands it. I do not favor that if the diesel burns clean. Benzene is a carcinogen though and is , to my understanding, a diesel emission. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Wombat said:

Ron, there is a big difference in price between NG in the USA and NG in Asia, or even Europe for that matter. H2 may not make sense in US, but is likely to become competitive with LNG in Asia, and perhaps Europe eventually.

I think eventually is a long time and natural gas will fall in price for Asia. Europe has plenty of sources. Italy is a leader in natural gas vehicles. There are finds in many areas of the world. Most hydrogen is presently made from natural gas. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

I've got a Tri fuel standby generator. It's rated at 12kw with gasoline, 10kw with propane and 8.8kw using natural gas. Natural gas runs fine, is very clean but doesn't have the oomph that gasoline or diesel have. Tri fuel is good because in an extended disaster, you don't know which fuel will be available. Plumbed natural gas is great, but the pumps that pressurise the system might not themselves have standby backup as our local hospital found out after an ice storm saw people without power for up to three weeks. If my system was quad fuel, the diesel would be good for at least 15kw, probably 18. Diesel is just that power dense. Long chain molecules

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

3 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Sure, that is obvious, but I do not think that rolling blackouts are a viable solution. Thus you need natural gas until you can come up with something better at the same cost or close. California doesn't have it and can't afford it thus I think it is very stupid to rush to pay for backup power from more expensive technology. Do it in a slow way to make it economical. 

You will also be facing competition from Gates and Buffet who together with their investors, have a lot of clout. They are promoting small scale nuclear reactors all over the country, and probably the world. That is anathema to me. 

There have been two rolling blackouts in the last 15 years. they occurred in 14 and 15 August of this year. They are not a "viable solution". The occurred during an unprecedented weather event (record-breaking heat). In that same month, there were blackouts caused by exceptional weather in Texas and Louisiana due to weather events (Hurricanes).  You say that there is never a blackout attributable to Natural gas. However, the 14 August event would not have happened if a particular NG peaker had come on line when it was called upon to do so. It failed: That was the straw that broke the camel's back, of course. We really should have sufficient capacity to carry us through the failure of any one plant. Our new battery at Moss landing is about to come online. Had it been online on 14 August, we would not have needed the rolling blackout.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

5 hours ago, RichieRich216 said:

Best that could happen to CA is it all burns to the ground and start over, The liberal idiots have destroyed the State 

California is home to  39 million inhabitants. That's about 12% of the US population. The state generates more than 20% of the US GDP. Do you seriously wish for the state to burn down? I live here, and so do my children and grandchildren. Please assure me that you do not really want the state to be burned down.  Wherever you live, I wish you the best.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Dan Clemmensen