Ron Wagner

How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

This Eminent Scientist Says Climate Activists Need to Get Real

That I don’t know, but aren’t there credible pathways to decarbonizing the grid? Mark Jacobson at Stanford has said we have most of the technology we need to produce America’s power renewably and keep the grid secure and stable by 2035. Or what about the example of countries like Norway or Namibia that are producing a vast majority of their energy from renewables? Check the China statistics. The country is adding, every year, gigawatts of new coal-fired power. Have you noticed that the whole world is now trying to get hands on as much natural gas as possible? This world is not yet done with fossil fuels.

 

Germany, after nearly half a trillion dollars, in 20 years they went from getting 84 percent of their primary energy from fossil fuels to 

 Can you tell me how you’d go from 76 percent fossil to zero by 2030, 2035? I’m sorry, the reality is what it is.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/25/magazine/vaclav-smil-interview.html

It may be suprising but 1/2 a trillion spent on any energy isn’t much. Go get the big number that takes into account all energy. 1/2 a trillion may not last long as a subsidy.  Add $200,000 to 1/2 trillion and you have the US military budget for one year. That dosent include nuke subs, super funds for energy cleanup. That goes in the other energy cost pile. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Europe has spent 1/2 a trillion they be peeing in a cup. Get a pot and pee 2 trillion per year for 5 years and get-er-done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Boat said:

It may be suprising but 1/2 a trillion spent on any energy isn’t much. Go get the big number that takes into account all energy

Ahh my awoken child you do bring up a rather poignant moment. The "BIG NUMBER". 

  • Your mission, Boat should you choose/decide to accept it, ...would be to do a critical analysis of the Energy infrastructure the EU abandoned/decommissioned or destroyed during the past 15 yrs. This analysis is to include both Coal and Nuclear power plants. One sum total is all that is needed.
  •  
  • As always, should you or any of your IM Force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This tape/disc will self-destruct in five/ten seconds. Good luck, Boat.

Mission: Impossible

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Boat said:

If Europe has spent 1/2 a trillion they be peeing in a cup. Get a pot and pee 2 trillion per year for 5 years and get-er-done. 

$500bn will buy 220-250GW of offshore wind. 

That would generate about 770 Twh which is more than double the UK's annual consumption. 

Would also pretty much displace all russian gas imports (based on that all being used in CCGT). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, NickW said:

$500bn will buy 220-250GW of offshore wind. 

That would generate about 770 Twh which is more than double the UK's annual consumption. 

Would also pretty much displace all russian gas imports (based on that all being used in CCGT). 

Lets assume $500B gets what you say it does[{It doesn't as the price you quoted is for onshore cost or nearly so by the time you add in all the additional power lines etc}].  Capacity factor ~0.45 for offshore(*its actually 0.5) of ~8900h/year = ~4000hours but I like even numbers.

4k*250GW = 1E6 *1E9 = 1E15Wh = 1000TWh

Double?  No, as energy consumed in UK is many times higher than its current electrical energy consumption.  If UK is like USA(it is), Electrical energy consumed is only ~15%-->20% of energy used. 

+ Energy storage in various forms for when wind does not blow to meet 100% of capacity or close since still going to keep nuclear as one needs that for medical purposes and to maintain nuclear weapons.   So, maybe with double that amount of money one could start on the energy transition. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Lets assume $500B gets what you say it does[{It doesn't as the price you quoted is for onshore cost or nearly so by the time you add in all the additional power lines etc}].  Capacity factor ~0.45 for offshore(*its actually 0.5) of ~8900h/year = ~4000hours but I like even numbers.

4k*250GW = 1E6 *1E9 = 1E15Wh = 1000TWh

Double?  No, as energy consumed in UK is many times higher than its current electrical energy consumption.  If UK is like USA(it is), Electrical energy consumed is only ~15%-->20% of energy used. 

+ Energy storage in various forms for when wind does not blow to meet 100% of capacity or close since still going to keep nuclear as one needs that for medical purposes and to maintain nuclear weapons.   So, maybe with double that amount of money one could start on the energy transition. 

This gives a CAPEX cost for £2.37m / MW (so basically $2.9m/ MW) including links to grid  so at those prices $500bn would buy 170GW

At 50% capacity factor thats 745TWh. At 40% 596 TWh 

 

Wind farm costs – Guide to an offshore wind farm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

 

Double?  No, as energy consumed in UK is many times higher than its current electrical energy consumption.  If UK is like USA(it is), Electrical energy consumed is only ~15%-->20% of energy used. 

 

No, two thirds of the fossil fuel energy consumed is lost as waste heat and provides no work. 

Energy_2021_United-States_0.png

 

ENERGY 2017 UNITEDKINGDOM

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2022 at 10:11 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

 

Then pay attention to the other reports that all found the same thing. No one cares about your silliness.

The scientific consensus on human-caused global warming has been a topic of intense interest in recent decades. This is in part due to the important role of public perception of expert consensus, which has downstream impacts on public opinion and support for mitigation policies. Numerous studies, using diverse methodologies and measures of climate expertise, have quantified the scientific consensus, finding between 90% and 100% agreement on human-caused global warming with multiple studies converging on 97% agreement. This study revisits the consensus among geoscientists ten years after an initial survey of experts, while exploring different ways to define expertise and the level of agreement among these groups. We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses. In addition to analyzing the raw survey results, we independently quantify how many publications self-identified climate experts published in the field of climate change research and compare that to their survey response on questions about climate change. As well as a binary approach classifying someone as 'expert' or 'non-expert', we also look at expertise as a scale. We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774/meta

 

Once upon a time, there was a document began like this:

"At the beginning of earth….

the atmosphere was filled with carbon dioxide ................"

image.png.a7c035c79dafd64750ce76710ca3a7e9.png

Blue green algae, the latest suggestive bioweapon by one of the members in this forum,  to let any possible invisible unfriendly on Mars to go extinct with, might be the culprit....

image.png.8130650af07ee0a9a3bc46294144b415.png

with multicellularity and the evolution of those, mankind started to emerge..............

Might need to include natural events like volcanic eruptions, natural forests fire, and of course human activities......... deforestation, development, large scale agricultural activities, large scale open burning etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 5/6/2022 at 12:23 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

I know you never studied the English language. There are many other studies that found the same thing. 

The scientific consensus on human-caused global warming has been a topic of intense interest in recent decades. This is in part due to the important role of public perception of expert consensus, which has downstream impacts on public opinion and support for mitigation policies. Numerous studies, using diverse methodologies and measures of climate expertise, have quantified the scientific consensus, finding between 90% and 100% agreement on human-caused global warming with multiple studies converging on 97% agreement. This study revisits the consensus among geoscientists ten years after an initial survey of experts, while exploring different ways to define expertise and the level of agreement among these groups. We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses. In addition to analyzing the raw survey results, we independently quantify how many publications self-identified climate experts published in the field of climate change research and compare that to their survey response on questions about climate change. As well as a binary approach classifying someone as 'expert' or 'non-expert', we also look at expertise as a scale. We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774/meta

You did not respond to the point, Jay. This is a pre-selected survey, not a random sample, of "climate scientists", defined in a set way. That already biases the sample beyond repair.

Further, less than 1/3 of the invitations were responded to, and most likely those who did not accept anthropogenic caused warming as the predominant cause would not respond, thus irretrievably biasing the sample.

No conclusions can be drawn from this PR exercise planned by a PR organization, other than the desperation of the global warming cause.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2022 at 12:21 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

The SDO data does not show an increase in irradiance that correlates with the increase global temperature. It shows a decrease since 2014.

image.thumb.png.2759a0eabf5148c0d44e3fc93d4a6cb0.png

https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/sdo_eve_ssi_1nm_l3/

Temperature from 2010 to 2022

image.png.3a249776c8b5eca9ae9c47e5dbbad5a2.png

You missed the point again, you have it backwards, Jay. The cosmic ray data is used as a replacement for the direct measurements data you were linking to earlier, so it is a different set of data with different results. It gives more precise results. 

And the recent years in your own data above would support the thesis of a cooling phase beginning in 2020. Thanks for the supporting data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

You did not respond to the point, Jay. This is a pre-selected survey, not a random sample, of "climate scientists", defined in a set way. That already biases the sample beyond repair.

Further, less than 1/3 of the invitations were responded to, and most likely those who did not accept anthropogenic caused warming as the predominant cause would not respond, thus irretrievably biasing the sample.

No conclusions can be drawn from this PR exercise planned by a PR organization, other than the desperation of the global warming cause.

So you think a random sample of people on the street would give you useful information?

"We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

So you think a random sample of people on the street would give you useful information?

"We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses."

Selecting a particular group of scientists as "climate scientists", which would include social scientists, is not a precise classification. It selects those more likely to support anthropogenic climate change.

So less than one third of the invitations were responded to, and those opposed to the Green dream would be less likely to respond. That biases the sample far beyond the useful point.

Jay, you never studied statistical theory?

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Ecocharger said:

You missed the point again, you have it backwards, Jay. The cosmic ray data is used as a replacement for the direct measurements data you were linking to earlier, so it is a different set of data with different results. It gives more precise results. 

And the recent years in your own data above would support the thesis of a cooling phase beginning in 2020. Thanks for the supporting data.

No cosmic ray data does not give more precise results. You completely misunderstand what that paper is saying.

 Nothing in the temperature data suggests a cooling phase. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Selecting a particular group of scientists as "climate scientists", which would include social scientists, is not a precise classification. It selects those more likely to support anthropogenic climate change.

So less than one third of the invitations were responded to, and those opposed to the Green dream would be less likely to respond. That biases the sample far beyond the useful point.

Jay, you never studied statistical theory?

You clearly never studied the English language because they are listed as geoscientists not climate scientists. There is no reason to believe that those opposed would not vigorously respond. It is far more likely that most thought it is so well established that 97% of scientists agree that it wasn't worth their time to answer the question yet again. I would expect those who disagree to be the ones to speak up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No cosmic ray data does not give more precise results. You completely misunderstand what that paper is saying.

 Nothing in the temperature data suggests a cooling phase. 

Your own graph suggests a cooling phase in line with the recent solar cycle research. Thanks, Jay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You clearly never studied the English language because they are listed as geoscientists not climate scientists. There is no reason to believe that those opposed would not vigorously respond. It is far more likely that most thought it is so well established that 97% of scientists agree that it wasn't worth their time to answer the question yet again. I would expect those who disagree to be the ones to speak up.

No, it would be the dissenters who would opt out of the survey.

That biases the survey results beyond any useful inference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28% of the charging stations in Bay Area don't work. These are needed by apartment dwellers. EV.s cannot grow very fast without charging stations.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2022 at 8:53 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

 Numerous studies, using diverse methodologies and measures of climate expertise, have quantified the scientific consensus, finding between 90% and 100% agreement on human-caused global warming with multiple studies converging on 97% agreement. 

These are the same figures as those scientists who believed that black people were sub human missing links before the civil war. Why do you believe that black people were subhuman before the Civil War and properly traded as property?

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Michael Sanches said:

These are the same figures as those scientists who believed that black people were sub human missing links before the civil war. Why do you believe that black people were subhuman before the Civil War and properly traded as property?

The results are taken  from two  different samples with no common members so your results and conclusions are garbage. Did you fail set theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 4/25/2022 at 9:23 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

It is far worse than that.  There is no "agreement" to come to.  With the sharing, the size capacity of the cable is economized and SHRUNK compared to a single home.  A single apartment will have a main ~70 amp service at most.  A single EV car is going to demand, at slow charging rate, a dedicated 30 amp connection and many of them are going to DUAL 30amp or 40 amp chargers and if you have 2 cars?  God forbid one goes on vacation all at the same day and comes home on the same day and everyones neighbors charges at night at the same time... Nothing happens like that at say.... CHRISTMAS or any other holiday now does it?  Oh yea, and the greenies wish to eliminate the natural gas heating everyone uses too.  That by itself is another dedicated 40amps for heat.  Not done yet, NG water heater has to be converted and that is going to be another 30amp dedicated circuit.   Now in an apartment complex, they might go with zone distributed heating instead and could lower total electrical load. 

End result: 100% of every condo/apartment electrical main distribution etc must be replaced wholesale for EV's even before we talk about elimination of NG.  This is a gargantuan cost as this infrastructure went in first underground.  It also means all the power lines TO the apartment are too small as well along with the transformer etc.  I'll let you figure out that bill.  Ah, do not forget the tax and permit fees. 

And that is why home charging is a fallacy. In (European) cities with lots of housing without drives, everyone already uses dedicated charging points, either somewhere in the street, or at a charging station nearby. Some charge at 22kW, others go as high as 350kW. A 350kW charger recharges your car in minutes. Just enough time to go to the loo.

Edited by Jeroen Goudswaard
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

And that is why home charging is a fallacy. In (European) cities with lots of housing without drives, everyone already uses dedicated charging points, either somewhere in the street, or at a charging station nearby. Some charge at 22kW, others go as high as 350kW. A 350kW charger recharges your car in minutes. Just enough time to go to the loo.

It isn't a fallacy in the US. Here there are oceans of single family homes with garages.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

It isn't a fallacy in the US. Here there are oceans of single family homes with garages.

I know you’re right on this Jay, but I looked it up - 81% of all US housing stock is detached single family homes, so basically anything but ‘charge your car at your house’ is a special case for the US market.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

And that is why home charging is a fallacy....or at a charging station nearby. Some charge at 22kW, others go as high as 350kW. A 350kW charger recharges your car in minutes. Just enough time to go to the loo.

Actually your statement is a fallacy even at 350kW.  Why?

1) Charging at high C rate hurts the batteries.  Maybe some new type of battery will come about where this high C rate increases their life expectancy(Toyota claims a solid state battery but with unknown characteristics).  Any battery type using Cobalt/Nickel will be eliminated as there literally is not enough of said material to meet demand in any meaningful manner in the world.  Supposedly graphene lithium battery will also solve this problem, but no one knows how to mass produce graphene reliably and cheaply.  If graphene mass manufacturing is solved the world will change as literally everything can become a battery with structural properties.

2) Range Capacity will increase per vehicle because manufacturers know that humans are LAZY and do not want to charge often.  Humans are naturally lazy.  They will not plug in and charge vehicle every day.  Humans will wait until car battery range capacity gets low.  Thus, amount required to charge is HIGH, not low, extending vehicle times between charges and extending charge times at a centralized charger. 

3) Closest battery type meeting above requirements is LiFePo with its slower charging C rate and will dominate the next decade.  It also has a longer life expectancy than NMC.  It also does not like being charged to 100% capacity.   No patents on this battery type either so EVERYONE can make them making this a MASSIVE solution for Honda/VW/Toyota/GM/BMW etc who have ZERO home grown battery tech other than Toyota. This battery type will completely dominate due to its CHEAP reliable characteristics, but it also charges slower.  This will extend charging times further. 

End result: Your charging stations for mass public are a joke even before we talk about grid stability of everyone charging at the same time or wanting to during/after a holiday. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2022 at 11:03 PM, nsdp said:

The results are taken  from two  different samples with no common members so your results and conclusions are garbage. Did you fail set theory?

I was responding to the false idea that whoever has the most scientists on their side is correct. That is not how science works. Science is based on reproducible results.

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Sanches said:

I was responding to the false idea that whoever has the most scientists on their side is correct. That is not how science works. Science is based on reproducible results.

Hey now, do not bring up the scientific method.  That is Misogynistic surely...  How dare you hold the climate "scientists" accountable to their own predictions which were not even close for the origin of global warming.  Warming over the tropics in the troposphere.  Currently the rate is negative due to data manipulation where the ground temp computer models, which pretend to be data, are rising faster than the air temps in the troposphere..... and heat rises... Oh yea... brilliant.  What is hilarious is they even admitted over 20 years ago this would negate their entire premise.... now they blatantly publish this idiocy in the IPCC reports and do not even blink. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.