Ron Wagner

How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

 

10 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, it is still below 1% of sales for the vehicle markets.

 

love the source Kelly Blue book....and your source for info????? babbling 24/7 is not a source.....

 

Please post your source that backs up your claim .......No, it is still below 1% of sales for the vehicle markets.????? 

 

otherwise you have nothing as usual

 

U.S. electric vehicle sales rose 76 percent in the first quarter, which was enough to double EVs’ share of the market to 5.2 percent, up from 2.5 percent in the first quarter of 2021, according to Kelley Blue Book

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

21 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

The so-called "climate goals" are based on an obsolete science. 

We need CO2 for our planet to remain green.

We don't need more CO2 than we had in pre- industrial periods. It is a very simple concept.

Edited by Jay McKinsey
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Looks like the EU would be trending in the opposite direction? Go figure that out!

Germany reactivates coal power plants amid Russian gas supply threats

Macron says France will build new nuclear energy reactors

Some EU members turn back to coal to cut reliance on Russian gas

Published on 15/03/2022, 10:53am

Czechia, Bulgaria, Romania, Italy and Germany have indicated they might burn more coal in the short term in response to Vladimir Putin’s war

Just one question, just where is this Green Energy in the EU?

 

 

has-bright-idea (1).jpeg

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2022 at 6:02 PM, Wombat One said:

I hate to tell you this Boat, but I have a graph that will make you shudder. Have a look at Graph 4 please? 

Is The Global Debt Bubble About To Burst? | OilPrice.com

Unfortunately, Ron Wagner is correct. We need to take an "all of the above" approach. The explosion in energy demand since about 1950 cannot possibly be met with renewables alone. Demand has grown, and is growing, so bloody fast that no matter how quickly we build wind and solar plus hydro and nuclear, there will still be growing demand for FF's as well. In short, the world is screwed unless we can crack fusion technology, preferably cold fusion. Maybe a breakthrough in wave power would help at the margins but would not change the fate of our species. I have been an optimist until now, but since discovering that we don't even have enough lithium on the planet to replace all current ICE cars with EV's, let alone the capacity to power them with zero-emission electricity, my hopes have seriously faded. We don't even have enough Uranium for a major shift in that direction. The situation is diabolical at this point in time. Before you call me crazy, the US congress is holding an inquiry into "Unexplained Aerial Phenomena". What used to be called UFO's. The Pentagon is focusing on what threat they may pose, but as far as I am concerned, they are also our only hope, if we are lucky. There is a US corporation that claims their power source is cold fusion, based on Muscovium, a super heavy element that is believed to exist in a "nearby" star. The physics does actually say it is possible, but our chances of mining another star without extraterrestrial help are slim to say the least. I am not religious but maybe it is time to pray?

 

On 5/23/2022 at 12:32 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

No, that is when you use batteries or green hydrogen.

If we are to meet our climate goals, and end our dependence on Russian fossil fuels, we must ramp up our ambition. That is why the European Commission, in its new plan, REPowerEU, has doubled the EU hydrogen targets for 2030 to ten million tons of renewable hydrogen produced annually in the EU by 2030. And another 10 million tons in annual imports. We must complete the construction of the European hydrogen economy so that we offer your industry the conditions to move faster.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_22_3185

But even without hydrogen the situation would be 50 weeks a year of green energy and two weeks a year of coal. That isn't much of a coal industry.

 

we could probably have a look at the highlights........ and realize

1. we ara extrapolating the demand ( of energy, of housing, of almost everything), as modern statistics or modelling software teaches us to

2. we know we do not have unlimited resources of raw meterial for the ideal changes ( e.g. all EVs, batteries, hydrogen power, nuclear power etc) we intended but we insist each of them is the only way...........

What if, there are alternatives e.g. the way we think, the way we find solution, the way we create and not follow blindly with trends............??

image.png.e5ca5b61af3a7efb6dd01249bed5db83.png

We know extrapolation with statistics and software posts a risky situation i.e. GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT. The baseline data, variable used, etc determine the outcomes. With method of  trial and error, we can possibly get all kinds of outcomes, from down to earth science to the way we want it to be known. We can CREATE scenes that make things seem very serious to be of concern........... to get attention and/or fund, yes? When we deviate from facts and common sense, change truth to suit our so called scientific calculations, we might be leading the crowd onto a path of fruitless pursue, worse, with much unwanted side problems................

This brings us to a reflection on new energy stations built after 1960s or 70s...... Could anyone recall how many newly added since then?

For a small remote country with name unknown to many, if not most, western citizens of monolingual, there might have not been any new construction announced over the past 60 years despite heavy development increasing demand drastically over the decades. This country was aided to build them. Hence, other countries with more advanced engineering works might have done the same somewhere. Could this mean, due to the foresight of the pioneer generations, the old settings might have more than enough energy that could sustain the needs even decades later?

This brings us to a point to ponder:

What if, we could cut random massive construction projects that of low demand and may be overpriced? What if we control how many permit to be allocated so that the demand is always below the capacity of energy supply?

What if, population could be self regulated if we do not encourage random behaviour?

Not sure if the following image or info is correct, but if it is, you might know why controlling wanted and unwanted pregnancies of random sex don't always work...

image.png.4582daeab06054a6959eaeb5d0183893.png

 

 Someone mentioned in a feedback to a newsletter received that this world works by COPYing good models; duplicating successful acts of a person by others etc......... At the beginning, this method worked fine, executed with the right attitude by those mostly struggled in lives, but aided to prosper with the right person(s) or network. No one could succeed on one own........ yes?  When it turns out 99.9% of us are merely copycats,  we rarely find genuine solutions to problems faced. We rush into trends because free money is there and there is no responsibility required to the outcomes. If it works, fine. If it doesn't, nobody might care enough to ask or to know..........

What if, anything started with finite resources might not be a good idea is true? Then batteries, hydrogen, limited sunlight, dwindling wind etc could run out if we do not know how to regenerate or sustain the sources...... What would become the left over batteries, equipment etc that could no longer be reused, renewed or needed to be recycled?

What if, there could be other alternatives, genuine and functional, awaiting to be tested out? Why must we shut the doors to possibilities because the trends and money are in the few technologies created in the 50s and yet to be adopted by us 80 years later? What are we thinking and doing, diverging but focus seperately with closed minds? O.o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tesla battery research group unveils paper on new high-energy-density battery that could last 100 years

 

 

Single crystal Li[Ni0.5Mn0.3Co0.2]O2//graphite (NMC532) pouch cells with only sufficient graphite for operation to 3.80 V (rather than ≥4.2 V) were cycled with charging to either 3.65 V or 3.80 V to facilitate comparison with LiFePO4//graphite (LFP) pouch cells on the grounds of similar maximum charging potential and similar negative electrode utilization. The NMC532 cells, when constructed with only sufficient graphite to be charged to 3.80 V, have an energy density that exceeds that of the LFP cells and a cycle-life that greatly exceeds that of the LFP cells at 40 °C, 55 °C and 70 °C. Excellent lifetime at high temperature is demonstrated with electrolytes that contain lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) salt, well beyond those provided by conventional LiPF6 electrolytes.

Screen-Shot-2022-05-24-at-6.20.39-AM.jpg?quality=82&strip=all&w=1000

https://electrek.co/2022/05/24/tesla-battery-research-paper-high-energy-density-battery-last-100-years/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 5/13/2022 at 1:14 PM, Ron Wagner said:

Study Finds Sun—Not CO2—May Be Behind Global Warming

New peer-reviewed paper finds evidence of systemic bias in UN IPCC's data selection to support climate-change narrative

 

That was a literature review (not a study).  Their concern was that there is possibly some bias as the vast majority of scientists accept the anthropogenic climate change explanation.  

Good job posting a paper confirming most scientists disagree with you nutjobs. 

Read the actual paper - not the biased review of it with a wrong conclusion; you actually weakened your position.

Edited by TailingsPond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

That was a literature review (not a study).  Their concern was that there is possibly some bias as the vast majority of scientists accept the anthropogenic climate change explanation.  

Good job posting a paper confirming most scientists disagree with you nutjobs. 

Read the actual paper - not the biased review of it with a wrong conclusion; you actually weakened your position.

The author of that article (Alex Newman) has written some other interesting pieces:

https://libertysentinel.org/how-i-left-the-evolution-religion

https://libertysentinel.org/freedom-and-biblical-christianity-are-inseparable

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, notsonice said:

 

love the source Kelly Blue book....and your source for info????? babbling 24/7 is not a source.....

 

Please post your source that backs up your claim .......No, it is still below 1% of sales for the vehicle markets.????? 

 

otherwise you have nothing as usual

 

U.S. electric vehicle sales rose 76 percent in the first quarter, which was enough to double EVs’ share of the market to 5.2 percent, up from 2.5 percent in the first quarter of 2021, according to Kelley Blue Book

 

No, that is still below 1% of the total vehicle market. Do your own arithmetic, and stop relying on foolish propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

We don't need more CO2 than we had in pre- industrial periods. It is a very simple concept.

We need much more CO2 to increase agricultural productivity to supply food for the extra mouths which now exist, and more CO2 to increase the supply of oxygen for the new mouths to breathe in.

Without food and without oxygen, you would not have the strength to babble on with your usual nonsense, Jay.

What would happen to the planet without your pearls of wisdom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Tesla battery research group unveils paper on new high-energy-density battery that could last 100 years

 

 

Single crystal Li[Ni0.5Mn0.3Co0.2]O2//graphite (NMC532) pouch cells with only sufficient graphite for operation to 3.80 V (rather than ≥4.2 V) were cycled with charging to either 3.65 V or 3.80 V to facilitate comparison with LiFePO4//graphite (LFP) pouch cells on the grounds of similar maximum charging potential and similar negative electrode utilization. The NMC532 cells, when constructed with only sufficient graphite to be charged to 3.80 V, have an energy density that exceeds that of the LFP cells and a cycle-life that greatly exceeds that of the LFP cells at 40 °C, 55 °C and 70 °C. Excellent lifetime at high temperature is demonstrated with electrolytes that contain lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) salt, well beyond those provided by conventional LiPF6 electrolytes.

Screen-Shot-2022-05-24-at-6.20.39-AM.jpg?quality=82&strip=all&w=1000

https://electrek.co/2022/05/24/tesla-battery-research-paper-high-energy-density-battery-last-100-years/

Research "paper"?

Read the fine print, Jay, something which you never do in your gloss-over blurbs.

"The paper describes a nickel-based battery chemistry meant to compete with LFP battery cells on longevity while retaining the properties that people like in nickel-based batteries, like higher energy density, which enables longer range with fewer batteries for electric vehicles."

This is nothing but some "chemistry" in the lab, nothing in tangible or finished form. It is so far just some basic initial lab work, no new batteries or vehicles. Practical problems have not been addressed or studied. 

Back to the drawing board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Research "paper"?

Read the fine print, Jay, something which you never do in your gloss-over blurbs.

"The paper describes a nickel-based battery chemistry meant to compete with LFP battery cells on longevity while retaining the properties that people like in nickel-based batteries, like higher energy density, which enables longer range with fewer batteries for electric vehicles."

This is nothing but some "chemistry" in the lab, nothing in tangible or finished form. It is so far just some basic initial lab work, no new batteries or vehicles. Practical problems have not been addressed or studied. 

Back to the drawing board.

Yes, it is a research paper that shows their lab findings.

The practical problems that you worry about have been solved with LFP. This research takes  it a step further.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

We need much more CO2 to increase agricultural productivity to supply food for the extra mouths which now exist, and more CO2 to increase the supply of oxygen for the new mouths to breathe in.

Without food and without oxygen, you would not have the strength to babble on with your usual nonsense, Jay.

What would happen to the planet without your pearls of wisdom?

The extra mouths that exist are already being fed and they can be fed on much less CO2. Population is peaking now but of course you have no knowledge of reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Population is peaking now

Actually no it isnt!

Most studies predict a peak of between 9.7 - 9.9 Billion by 2050-2064 depending on which predictions you believe.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2020/07/17/world-population-expected-to-peak-in-just-44-years-as-fertility-rates-sink/?sh=28e31ea2372a

https://sdg.iisd.org/news/world-population-to-reach-9-9-billion-by-2050/

Currently its 7.9 billion, so another 2 billion or so to go! That a lot of extra mouths Jay that dont already exist!

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Actually no it isnt!

Most studies predict a peak of between 9.7 - 9.9 Billion by 2050-2064 depending on which predictions you believe.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2020/07/17/world-population-expected-to-peak-in-just-44-years-as-fertility-rates-sink/?sh=28e31ea2372a

https://sdg.iisd.org/news/world-population-to-reach-9-9-billion-by-2050/

Currently its 7.9 billion, so another 2 billion or so to go! That a lot of extra mouths Jay that dont already exist!

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

And then the population will start declining. The plan is to just stop carbon increases by 2050-2060. Increasing CO2 concentrations do not infinitely increase plant growth:

But the IPCC adds that the CO2 effect has a greater impact on wheat and rice, than on corn and sugarcane.

Photosynthesis in wheat and rice relies more on CO2 in the atmosphere, while corn and sugarcane rely more on “internal cycling” during photosynthesis, Jerry Hatfield, the director of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Laboratory for Agriculture and The Environment, explained to us over the phone.

In other words, increased CO2 doesn’t boost crop yield equally across the board.

Hatfield, who was also part of the IPCC process that received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize and who currently serves on an IPCC special committee, also explained to us that the positive impacts of CO2 may “reach a point of diminishing return,” or “saturation,” in the future. What does that mean?

Right now, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is just over 400 parts per million, according to NASA. (For comparison, before 1950, the level of CO2 hadn’t surpassed 300 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years.)

Hatfield told us that plants would reach CO2 saturation at around 550 to 600 ppm, at which point more gas “won’t be as beneficial.”

In an email, Frances Moore, an assistant professor studying climate change’s impact on agriculture at the University of California, Davis, put it this way: “My research does show that higher CO2 concentrations are beneficial to crops, but this effect quickly declines at higher and higher concentrations because plant growth becomes limited by other nutrients.”

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/co2-friend-foe-agriculture/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

50 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

And then the population will start declining.

So you now agree with me that population hasnt peaked and that will be 30-40 years away, thanks.

Regarding Co2 levels (which I made no comment on) yes they have been circa 300ppm for hundreds of thousands of years but prior to that were 6 or 7 times the magnitude of todays levels. Complex life still evolved and flourished, the earth didnt become a dried up wasteland and it wasnt Armageddon as the climate change brigade would have you believe we are 10 years away from. Havent you noticed its always 10 years away?

A Graphical History of Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over Time | Earth.Org - Past  | Present | Future

Edited by Rob Plant
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

So you now agree with me that population hasnt peaked and that will be 30-40 years away, thanks.

Regarding Co2 levels (which I made no comment on) yes they have been circa 300ppm for hundreds of thousands of years but prior to that were 6 or 7 times the magnitude of todays levels. Complex life still evolved and flourished, the earth didnt become a dried up wasteland and it wasnt Armageddon as the climate change brigade would have you believe we are 10 years away from. Havent you noticed its always 10 years away?

A Graphical History of Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over Time | Earth.Org - Past  | Present | Future

Yeah the dinosaurs loved it. But we aren't dinosaurs. Humans evolved with it less than 400ppm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yeah the dinosaurs loved it. But we aren't dinosaurs. Humans evolved with it less than 400ppm.

True but it doesnt mean humans wouldnt have evolved regardless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

True but it doesnt mean humans wouldnt have evolved regardless

It very well could mean that humans would not have evolved:

 "it appears that high level cognitive domains like decision-making and planning are especially susceptible to increasing CO2 concentrations."

In fact, at 1400 ppm, CO2 concentrations may cut our basic decision-making ability by 25 percent, and complex strategic thinking by around 50 percent, the authors found." 

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200421/Atmospheric-CO2-levels-can-cause-cognitive-impairment.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

It very well could mean that humans would not have evolved:

 "it appears that high level cognitive domains like decision-making and planning are especially susceptible to increasing CO2 concentrations."

In fact, at 1400 ppm, CO2 concentrations may cut our basic decision-making ability by 25 percent, and complex strategic thinking by around 50 percent, the authors found." 

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200421/Atmospheric-CO2-levels-can-cause-cognitive-impairment.aspx

We'll never know Jay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

We'll never know Jay

But we do know that humans aren't likely to do well with those CO2 levels that you are saying won't be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yeah the dinosaurs loved it. But we aren't dinosaurs. Humans evolved with it less than 400ppm.

And the correlation between higher CO2 and earth temperature was negative. In other words, the usual nonsense about CO2 causing global warming is disproved by earth history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

But we do know that humans aren't likely to do well with those CO2 levels that you are saying won't be a problem.

No, higher populations of humans require more rice and wheat, the crops which benefit most from higher CO2 levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

14 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

It very well could mean that humans would not have evolved:

 "it appears that high level cognitive domains like decision-making and planning are especially susceptible to increasing CO2 concentrations."

In fact, at 1400 ppm, CO2 concentrations may cut our basic decision-making ability by 25 percent, and complex strategic thinking by around 50 percent, the authors found." 

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200421/Atmospheric-CO2-levels-can-cause-cognitive-impairment.aspx

That is at least four times higher than the alleged current levels, which are not specified as to location.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2022 at 11:41 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Yes, it is a research paper that shows their lab findings.

The practical problems that you worry about have been solved with LFP. This research takes  it a step further.

 

Still just chemical work, nothing concrete for transportation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

36 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Still just chemical work, nothing concrete for transportation. 

Well LFP batteries that last over half a million miles are certainly concrete. Half of all new Teslas already use them.

The average US person drives 14K miles per year so that is on average 35 years of life.

Edited by Jay McKinsey

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.