Severe Drought in the West Will Greatly Reduce Electrical Production from Hydroelectric Turbines.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

12 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

It is done the Midwest to avoid flooding the fields in low lying spots. Arid areas need drip irrigation and plastic covering or hydroponics in large greenhouses.

There's also yield increases from well drained soil. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 7/15/2021 at 5:55 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

.... You have utterly lost it.  Desal happens at high pressure at a CONSTANT rate,  there is no pumped storage. Unless you are going to play pretend games where one has a 1000m delta height mountain to pump up salt water to... True, a couple places in the world this is true... vast majority this is not true. 

California is one of those places. There are lots of areas near or below sea level. Water can easily be pumped up small hills or gaps in the coastal range and down into the Central Valley into existing aqueducts or new ones. 

The more important point is to use the water wisely and to not waste it. I am in California right now. I have driven through all of the southern extreme drought territory. Almost all the areas were far more green than I expected. Beautiful wildflowers in August. This is because there have been well timed rainfall. Tuscon and Los Angeles are still using sprinklers everywhere to keep their lawns lush. IMHO that is crazy. They don't know what the next rainy and snow season will be like! The ground water is being used and that could destroy farming next year. Another year and it would cause severe problems for the cities. The leaders are just rolling the dice. There are not many farmers to vote. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 7/16/2021 at 5:19 PM, Piotr Berman said:

As a Mid-Atlantic denizen, should I expect less fruits and vegetables this year?   A lot of them Arizona and the states on the Pacific.

There is still groundwater to be pumped in some areas. Next year could be worse. The cities are wasting groundwater. Agriculture should have higher priority than grass. Water goes into the drains every morning. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 7/18/2021 at 3:54 PM, Strangelovesurfing said:

It’s environmentally friendly!

Switching to regenerative (no till) Ag would have a huge impact on emissions and has a better return per acre according to these guys.

https://www.michiganradio.org/post/no-till-farming-could-cut-greenhouse-gases-significantly

Netflix had an interesting movie on the subject, “Kiss the Ground”.

https://www.netflix.com/title/81321999

I don't see much till going on in the Midwest. Farmers are as stubborn as some engineers. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 7/19/2021 at 9:36 AM, RichieRich216 said:

Oh those decades old wind farms that they have no plan how to recycle after the blades must be replaced! You people jump before you think, know wonder have huge budget deficits and people fleeing the State! Bunch of yuppies and illegal pot growers! And if you’re not part of a gang you’re most likely going to get chopped up on the side of the road.

CA is nothing more then a Petri dish for failed experiments on Social engineering! Has the greatest gap of wealthy to non wealthy and you simply walk by the non wealthy trying not to step in their shit on the public side walks, UNLESS, UNLESS you’re an illegal then they will put up up in a hotel and pay you to watch cable and how to illegally file Federal Documents to screw every LEGAL people that entered the Country. It must be the WATER or LACK OF that have you people stupid! 
 

 

Drive through interstate 10 from Palm Springs to Banning and look at all the old turbines on oil type towers and some have two blades and one is still on the ground nearby. They just lie there! Many of the turbines are out of commission. This in a great area for wind development. Once the government money is paid it is apparently all over for some of these operations. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 8/5/2021 at 11:13 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Lets see, California population has nearly doubled in last 30 years... The rational camps have all called for more dams to be built holding back more water for when drought happens and which the envirowackos have all blocked for going on 3 decades now.  You know, holding back all that flood water from the last 5 years which just merrily gushed down to the sea which was enough water for 2 entire years of irrigation even without a single drop of rain. 

Can't play the reservoirs will displace logging as the envirowackos will not let them log, but rather watches the forests burn with glee instead. 

Its not a Conservative/Liberal thing.  It is rationality verses irrational envirowacknuts. 

You should know that the envirowackonuts are not Republicans. Republicans are more often the ones to be real conservationists with rational thinking. Some from both parties just want more profit from whatever they are doing and have little concern for the environment. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

The population of California is equal to the rest of the West combined. It also has the most fertile agricultural land and the best weather for growing crops. The Sierra Nevada and other mountains provide much of the water also. California was first to use the water for a good reason. Californians have escaped to neighboring states also but not enough to be as politically powerful. The Western States are all in extreme drought right now so we will here more about this. What is for sure is that we need to use every possible way to harness our precipitation for agricultural and municipal use. The Columbia River dumps much of it right into the ocean. My far left sister lives on the Columbia River.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 7/19/2021 at 10:22 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

Yep, the legislature did not want to ban wind: they even said so. They just want it to stay 3 miles offshore, to allow the lobstermen to work near shore. a better headline would have been "Maine requires wind turbines to stay 3 miles offshore".

Is that beyond the horizon from the coastal height? That is at least as important as lobsters. They should only be allowed beyond the horizon IMO. Tourism is a huge draw for Maine and most Mainers do not want to look at them either. I don't know why they have to be as tall as land based anyway. Also IMHO they should be dyed the color of the sky. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 7/19/2021 at 1:03 PM, RichieRich216 said:

POST NAMES, BAN PERSONAL CONSTRUCTION OF SWIMMING POOLS!!!! Your a fucking communist, Go ahead SUSPEND THE CONSTITUTION, BURN BOOKS, Your in dire need of mental help.

Aside from number 6, I agree with him. Few would agree with that one. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 7/29/2021 at 3:24 AM, NickW said:

This is interesting and already being developed in several locations including Australia, Abu Dhabi, and Oman. 

Seawater Greenhouse

This video link partially explains the process used to COOL the greenhouse and desalinate the water. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvV-iPdORLc

Thanks, I added it to my Water Conservation topic: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s6vxrBPC_8XYQgSNK7-UuNbqsdDKflhXPDeswYFKDt0/edit

Edited August 9, 2021 by ronwagn
add

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 7/29/2021 at 6:21 AM, Eric Gagen said:

Well my point there was that in the US there is a pre-existing large wind energy industry focused on land based installations.  They don’t need grants or ‘seed money’ they are commercial profitable organizations pulling in steady profits who are listed on major stock exchanges.  They site, plan and execute major wind projects on land on a routine basis. 
 

even if offshore wind is theoretically more capital efficient, at least in the US any organization which wanted to get into it would have to build up that knowledge and competency which the land based organizations already have.  Until they do their improved capital efficiency is in theory only because they will not in fact be more capital efficient.  It’s liable to take them 3-5 years or so of steady investment with sub par returns on capital to close the organizational gaps required to be efficient offshore wind energy organizations.  This is why only the largest of companies can do it - they need to have large and stable sources of cash flow to effectively subsidize their offshore wind segment until it is capital competitive on its own.  

Also the turnaround time on capital for  offshore projects tends to be longer than on land.  Until the project is up and running and cash flow positive the capital is tied up and unavailable for redeployment.  Only large companies with lots of capital/borrowing capability can afford to do projects of this nature. 

Eric, I bet you could write a great book on how to start and run a business. You are a great resource of business information.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 8/1/2021 at 11:03 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

Sorry that I was unclear. I was stating my personal preference, which is that the windmills and the oil platforms should be fairly far offshore. Since the reality is that the oil platforms are allowed to be near shore in some places, then the windmills should be allowed near shore in those same places. What irritates me is sanctimonious anti-windmill folks who are not also opposed to near-shore oil platforms. Specifically in regard to interference with commercial fishing, the two are effectively equivalent.

Most people have never seen an offshore oil platform. Everyone has seen a wind turbine. People that go the the Gulf have gotten used to them and some like to fish near them. They are an eyesore though. Windmills can be built beyond the horizon and don't need to be near oil. Oil platforms can, in my understanding be hauled to where the new oil finds are. A lot is up to NIMBY influence. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

7 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Eric, I bet you could write a great book on how to start and run a business. You are a great resource of business information.

Just an investor paying attention

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 8/1/2021 at 11:03 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

Sorry that I was unclear. I was stating my personal preference, which is that the windmills and the oil platforms should be fairly far offshore. Since the reality is that the oil platforms are allowed to be near shore in some places, then the windmills should be allowed near shore in those same places. What irritates me is sanctimonious anti-windmill folks who are not also opposed to near-shore oil platforms. Specifically in regard to interference with commercial fishing, the two are effectively equivalent.

Oil platforms NEED to be where the oil is. The wind is equal further out. If you want NIMBY support you need to go farther out. The cost would be similar in that area in the Gulf (my guess).

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 8/2/2021 at 10:08 AM, turbguy said:

Typically, it's just a real hassle and headache to empty full bunkers. 

Think front end loaders and dump trucks working in areas not designed to operate front end loaders and dump trucks.  It's a real mess!!  

Good coal is returned to the coal pile so it may not be "lost". 

Coal piles must be monitored (CO monitoring, or just your nose) and stirred up now and then to avoid potential fires.  At least coal piles are designed for heavy earth moving equipment.

I get to wonder how they avoid/react to fires when transporting coals in ships, never thought about that hazzard...

Typically the reason you are off-line exceeds the time required to empty a bunker.

The bunkers are typically constructed of mild steels, so some damage may occur, but it's typically localized to hot spots and cheap to repair (if required at all).'

And every now and them, a coal pulverizer tries to do it's "magic" to inadvertant debris (think a chunk of a crowbar,  a piece of railroad, or a dead racoon).

The issue is avoiding fires, not reacting to them.  Plant operators know what to do.  Sometimes fires just happen "anyhow".

Corn is now often stored in mounds covered by thick plastic sheeting. Possibly coal piles should be covered similarly. If a fire started it would burn up the available oxygen and could them only smoulder a little before discovery of the smoke. It would be important to use the best means to locate the source though. Coal piles are like steep hills, possibly they should be in rows instead, that would facilitate localizing the problem. 

[specinho + 467]

On 8/6/2021 at 12:51 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

The only retrospective change we could have made would be to reduce the amount of water allocated for irrigation. Water rights in California are a legal nightmare going back to the original Spanish land grants.

according to a deduction made some times ago......... rain- making helps to solve water right crisis if it drops from the sky right to the fields in need of irrigation. No one owns the sky yet, right?

Besides that, rain-making could help to reduce temperature differences between two areas and hence, the tendency to form damaging typhoon, hurricane and such?

The latest technology that draws charges seems to be fascinating. More so, after the technical issue is solved?

I wish i could supply clouds to California....... ' n '

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

34 minutes ago, specinho said:

according to a deduction made some times ago......... rain- making helps to solve water right crisis if it drops from the sky right to the fields in need of irrigation. No one owns the sky yet, right?

 

Rainmaking (if it works at all) is local. It causes clouds to rain in a different location. The moisture needs to be up there already. In CA, we don't have clouds during droughts: no water in the sky. We have clouds in the Winter. No amount of rainmaking will cause them to drop more water into the watershed, it just moves the rain around. If you want to look at a mega-engineering weather modification approach, you need to re-route the winter jet streams to bring more moisture-laden air from the Pacific  down over the California watersheds in the winter.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 8/2/2021 at 4:57 PM, turbguy said:

Wind, water, and wood has been around, and used, a whole lot longer.

Tech gave use coal, oil, and nat gas .

Now, tech can get us UN-addicted.

Than said, it will take a while....

A very long while.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 8/2/2021 at 9:39 PM, turbguy said:

'Nuff said, most of the burn something.

Even if it must be imported via an "extension cord".

How much does an installed wind turbine burn?

If mankind could capture all the energy expelled by ONE moderately-sized thunderstorm, we would have enough to power the electric requirements of the entire USA for several days.

 

There is an very large amount of power used in producing the materials for a wind turbine, the fuel used to transport and erect them, to get rid of the old blades and other old equipment etc. Then there are the new power lines that are needed to reach the spots where they can catch the wind. Natural gas plants are built near the users and their power lines. Natural gas pipes are usually nearby already. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 8/4/2021 at 1:25 PM, Dan Clemmensen said:

I'm interested in the relative hazards of "green" infrastructure versus "fossil" infrastructure. I know that industrial accidents happen in to both (and to all other industries). For instance, oil wells catch fire often enough that Red Adair's company is famous for putting the really big ones out, but there are smaller ones that don't make the national news, like this current one:

https://www.devilslakejournal.com/story/news/2021/08/03/state-and-local-agencies-provide-mckenzie-county-oil-well-fire-update/5402889001/

To make a rational, non-biased comparison, we would need to somehow quantify the costs of such incidents versus (say) the MWh the affected facility would have contributed to the world's energy supply.

The Megapack burned four four days. This particular oil well also burned for about four days. In addition to direct cost, osts include things like the inconvenience incurred when residents must evacuate due to smoke.

So, my question to the oil folks here: how often, and how severe, are oil well fires?

I think that flaring worldwide is the bigger issue by far. Flares run nonstop in oil country. It is a total waste of a valuable natural resource.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Rainmaking (if it works at all) is local. It causes clouds to rain in a different location. The moisture needs to be up there already. In CA, we don't have clouds during droughts: no water in the sky. We have clouds in the Winter. No amount of rainmaking will cause them to drop more water into the watershed, it just moves the rain around. If you want to look at a mega-engineering weather modification approach, you need to re-route the winter jet streams to bring more moisture-laden air from the Pacific  down over the California watersheds in the winter.

Rainmaking must work or they wouldn't have been doing it for the last few decades. In the Midwest you can see the contrails trying to seed the clouds whenever there is a dry spell. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 8/4/2021 at 7:28 PM, Dan Clemmensen said:

@RichieRich216, how would a "conservative" government have improved matters? The California water system is the largest single engineering work on the planet, and it has been built and maintained by all of the administrations of the last 60 years. This year's snowfall and rainfall were it smallest in the last 1000 years. the "Liberal Green Group" did not cause the lack of rain.

What is your reference for your 1,000 year record claim?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 8/5/2021 at 11:19 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

Thanks, I thought of another way to ask my question: roughly what percentage of wells eventually catch fire? ( one on a hundred? one in a thousand?) We can measure this against the percentage of Megapacks that eventually catch fire, Which appears to be running (rough order of magnitude) at one in a thousand. With Megapacks we won't really know until a lot of them have been running for 30 years.

Do you really think they will last that long? What reference do you have?

[NickW + 2,714]

9 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

What is your reference for your 1,000 year record claim?

Tree ring records probably

[ronwagn + 6,290]

I would want to see the analysis then.