Australian power prices go insane

[RichieRich216 + 454]

On 7/13/2022 at 1:16 PM, Eyes Wide Open said:

What green energy implementation has done across this world has become readily apparent. It is time for the conversation to turn to.

Who authorized such malfeasance?

Who implemented such malfeasance?

Until such matters are addressed this chaos will continue. 

A group of the FEW wants to dictate for the MASSES!

[TailingsPond + 473]

34 minutes ago, RichieRich216 said:

A group of the FEW wants to dictate for the MASSES!

Is this some new revelation for you?

Hate to break it to you but leadership has been around for a long time.

[notsonice + 1,069]

47 minutes ago, RichieRich216 said:

A group of the FEW wants to dictate for the MASSES!

Thank God we do not let your group of few dictate what the masses want........You are in the minority when it comes to renewable energy....

The survey of 10,237 US adults was conducted weeks before Russia invaded Ukraine, which has increased energy costs around the world and raised concerns over energy security and reliance on fossil fuels.

The results show 69% of American adults favor developing alternative energy, including wind and solar, over increasing production of fossil fuels like oil, coal and natural gas. It also found 69% of Americans want the US to take steps to become carbon neutral by 2050 -- as President Joe Biden is seeking to do.

 

Even before Ukraine crisis, majority of Americans wanted country to prioritize renewable energy development, poll shows

By Ella Nilsen, CNN

 

Updated 12:20 PM ET, Tue March 1, 2022

 

Solar panels are installed on a roof in Florida. A new poll shows the majority of Americans say the US should prioritize the development of renewable energy.

(CNN)A large majority of Americans say the US should prioritize developing renewable energy, but remain wary of transitioning off fossil fuels entirely, according to new polling from Pew Research Center.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That being said, most Americans don't support phasing out fossil fuels completely, and the polling shows a partisan split on the issue. Just 31% of Americans want the US to completely phase out fossil fuel use, while 67% say the country should use a mix of renewable energy and fossil fuels.

Pew researchers found that while there's some concern that a renewable energy transition would lead to higher costs for everyday goods, 59% of respondents said they thought the prices they paid to heat and cool their homes would either improve or stay the same, compared to 39% who thought it would get worse.

The poll didn't directly ask whether respondents would be willing to pay more for renewable energy.

Enter your email to sign up for the Wonder Theory newsletter.

close dialog

 

"There's particular concern around prices," Alec Tyson, a lead author on the poll, told CNN. "Slightly more [respondents] think the impact of this shift would make prices of everyday goods worse, not better."

People participated in the poll via a self-administered web survey. If participants didn't have access to internet, a tablet with wireless access was provided. The margin of error on the poll was plus or minus 1.5 percentage points.

The poll comes a day after the release of a major UN-backed climate report that found that the impacts of burning fossil fuels for energy were larger than previously thought, and humans and ecosystems are running out of ways to adapt to the climate crisis. The report's authors said the impacts are happening much faster and are more disruptive and widespread than scientists expected 20 years ago.

 

 

The poll found 72% of respondents said a clean energy transition would not happen quickly enough to prevent "severe problems from climate change." Pew found majorities from both parties -- 85% of Democrats and Democratic leaners as well as 58% of Republicans and Republican leaners -- believed the energy transition wouldn't happen fast enough.

In this State of the Union address on Tuesday, Biden "will call on Congress to deliver on a legislative agenda for clean energy and climate action that has overwhelming support from the American people -- Republicans, Democrats and independents," a senior administration official said.

More specifically, he is expected to ask for for renewed investment in and tax credits for domestic energy manufacturing and deployments, steps the administration says could save Americans an average of $500 a year in energy costs. He will also address the crisis in Ukraine, which has driven up the price of oil and gasoline.

Pew researchers say that partisan affiliation "remains the dominant divide" for US adults in their views of climate and energy issues. Very large majorities of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents want the US to prioritize renewable development, while Republicans and Republican-leaning independents tend to favor expanding fossil fuel production. However, the GOP is not monolithic when it comes to energy issues.

Pew researchers found disagreement in the party when it came to the question of the US becoming carbon neutral: 66% of self-described moderate and liberal Republicans favor taking steps toward carbon neutrality, while 64% of conservative Republicans opposed it. Pew found a similar divide when asking Republicans whether the US should prioritize renewables over fossil fuel development: 64% of moderate and liberal Republicans said the country should be developing alternative sources like wind and solar, while 67% of conservative Republicans favored expanding fossil fuel production.

Wind and solar development are particularly popular; 72% of US adults said the federal government should encourage wind and solar production, compared to 51% who said the government should encourage the use of electric vehicles, 35% who said it should encourage nuclear power, 33% who said it should encourage oil and gas drilling. Less than 20% said the federal government should encourage coal mining.

[RichieRich216 + 454]

1 hour ago, TailingsPond said:

Is this some new revelation for you?

Hate to break it to you but leadership has been around for a long time.

Ironically history shows this Behavior dates back BC! 

[RichieRich216 + 454]

58 minutes ago, notsonice said:

Thank God we do not let your group of few dictate what the masses want........You are in the minority when it comes to renewable energy....

The survey of 10,237 US adults was conducted weeks before Russia invaded Ukraine, which has increased energy costs around the world and raised concerns over energy security and reliance on fossil fuels.

The results show 69% of American adults favor developing alternative energy, including wind and solar, over increasing production of fossil fuels like oil, coal and natural gas. It also found 69% of Americans want the US to take steps to become carbon neutral by 2050 -- as President Joe Biden is seeking to do.

 

Even before Ukraine crisis, majority of Americans wanted country to prioritize renewable energy development, poll shows

By Ella Nilsen, CNN

 

Updated 12:20 PM ET, Tue March 1, 2022

 

Solar panels are installed on a roof in Florida. A new poll shows the majority of Americans say the US should prioritize the development of renewable energy.

(CNN)A large majority of Americans say the US should prioritize developing renewable energy, but remain wary of transitioning off fossil fuels entirely, according to new polling from Pew Research Center.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That being said, most Americans don't support phasing out fossil fuels completely, and the polling shows a partisan split on the issue. Just 31% of Americans want the US to completely phase out fossil fuel use, while 67% say the country should use a mix of renewable energy and fossil fuels.

Pew researchers found that while there's some concern that a renewable energy transition would lead to higher costs for everyday goods, 59% of respondents said they thought the prices they paid to heat and cool their homes would either improve or stay the same, compared to 39% who thought it would get worse.

The poll didn't directly ask whether respondents would be willing to pay more for renewable energy.

Enter your email to sign up for the Wonder Theory newsletter.

close dialog

 

"There's particular concern around prices," Alec Tyson, a lead author on the poll, told CNN. "Slightly more [respondents] think the impact of this shift would make prices of everyday goods worse, not better."

People participated in the poll via a self-administered web survey. If participants didn't have access to internet, a tablet with wireless access was provided. The margin of error on the poll was plus or minus 1.5 percentage points.

The poll comes a day after the release of a major UN-backed climate report that found that the impacts of burning fossil fuels for energy were larger than previously thought, and humans and ecosystems are running out of ways to adapt to the climate crisis. The report's authors said the impacts are happening much faster and are more disruptive and widespread than scientists expected 20 years ago.

 

 

The poll found 72% of respondents said a clean energy transition would not happen quickly enough to prevent "severe problems from climate change." Pew found majorities from both parties -- 85% of Democrats and Democratic leaners as well as 58% of Republicans and Republican leaners -- believed the energy transition wouldn't happen fast enough.

In this State of the Union address on Tuesday, Biden "will call on Congress to deliver on a legislative agenda for clean energy and climate action that has overwhelming support from the American people -- Republicans, Democrats and independents," a senior administration official said.

More specifically, he is expected to ask for for renewed investment in and tax credits for domestic energy manufacturing and deployments, steps the administration says could save Americans an average of $500 a year in energy costs. He will also address the crisis in Ukraine, which has driven up the price of oil and gasoline.

Pew researchers say that partisan affiliation "remains the dominant divide" for US adults in their views of climate and energy issues. Very large majorities of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents want the US to prioritize renewable development, while Republicans and Republican-leaning independents tend to favor expanding fossil fuel production. However, the GOP is not monolithic when it comes to energy issues.

Pew researchers found disagreement in the party when it came to the question of the US becoming carbon neutral: 66% of self-described moderate and liberal Republicans favor taking steps toward carbon neutrality, while 64% of conservative Republicans opposed it. Pew found a similar divide when asking Republicans whether the US should prioritize renewables over fossil fuel development: 64% of moderate and liberal Republicans said the country should be developing alternative sources like wind and solar, while 67% of conservative Republicans favored expanding fossil fuel production.

Wind and solar development are particularly popular; 72% of US adults said the federal government should encourage wind and solar production, compared to 51% who said the government should encourage the use of electric vehicles, 35% who said it should encourage nuclear power, 33% who said it should encourage oil and gas drilling. Less than 20% said the federal government should encourage coal mining.

This article, along with the polling, is BULLSHIT; if you're stupid enough to believe in any polls, either this or political, then you really are stupid! 

At the end of the day what is used to produce, ship and installation of renewable energy, Wait for it........

FOSSIL FUELS, you greenies are entirely ignorant to the real world, just little kids in the rooms screaming at the top of your voices! You Will be dead before the end of  fossil fuels is discontinued! 

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

A cost that is less than fossil. 

The numbers have to be included to calculate total social cost.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

Here is the bottom line for the misbegotten war against fossil fuels....a drastic reduction in the standard of living for all those unfortunate citizens living under a climate panic government.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/EU-Members-Urge-Citizens-To-Reduce-Energy-Consumption.html

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

42 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

The numbers have to be included to calculate total social cost.

Go right ahead and show some numbers.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,539]

8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

A cost that is less than fossil. 

And your proof of concept? I would accept as many others I am sure..One working model of Green Energy that is self sustaining a city of let's say 100,000 people.

Not riding on the back of fossil fuels nor hydro power...No parasites allowed so to speak. In addition you take pleasure in adding the time proven method of hydro power into the Green portfolio keep it clean no hydro....Imagine that.

Edited July 28, 2022 by Eyes Wide Open

[Rob Plant + 2,616]

10 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

And your proof of concept? I would accept as many others I am sure..One working model of Green Energy that is self sustaining a city of let's say 100,000 people.

Not riding on the back of fossil fuels nor hydro power...No parasites allowed so to speak. In addition you take pleasure in adding the time proven method of hydro power into the Green portfolio keep it clean no hydro....Imagine that.

EWO have you seen Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's concept of a green city that he is proposing to build that will house 9M people and cost $500b? It will all run on 100% renewable energy sources if its ever built, and thats a big IF in my book.

I dont think he'd seriously waste that amount of money though if he didnt believe they wouldnt have enough power. Even he isnt that stupid.

Interesting concept though.

https://www.neom.com/en-us/regions/theline

[Ron Wagner + 643]

On 7/28/2022 at 1:51 AM, Boat said:

Kansas is getting a 4 billion battery plant for Tesla. Samsung is the battery builder. We’ll wait and see but that may end up being the biggest yet. 

I am setting up an energy security system for myself. I will have minimal solar to run the electricity we need. $2,300. An old  generator. Next will be a dual fuel large generator that will run on gasoline or propane. A moderate sized propane tank for my dual fuel gas heating stove. Increased gasoline storage, and miscellaneous cables etc. 

Lithium batteries are far too expensive at this time. Someday I will add a power bank of lithium batteries to my system and more solar panels. 

Most of the equipment I have is made in China. I appreciate the hard working Chinese labor but surely we can automate solar cell assembly and make them here at competitive prices. Maybe Tesla can get its prices down. Lithium is not at all scarce we just need the will to mine it safely, as planned at the Salton Sea and, I assume by Tesla. 

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 7/28/2022 at 5:55 AM, Ron Wagner said:

I used to use a corn stove in a large old drafty house. I was just trying to reduce the natural gas bill. Corn was less than two dollars a bushel when I  started out but then natural gas became cheaper and corn higher. Corn was cheaper than wood pellets! That was about 17 years ago. I used to agitate the pellet stove forum members by telling them that. 

Bushels? Dollars? What are these? Only the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(unit) is true to the Founding Father's original intent!

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

On 7/28/2022 at 1:08 AM, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Infinity - constant value = Infinity (if your infinity is a countable variety. Otherwise, some kind of NaN (Not-a-Number)) This means that you produced some kind of hypothesis that is

I am not religious about delta t. You could be working the delta P without temperature change. Get your body parts out of that chimney and see how that does? I think you might be blocking it.

 

Maybe you and tailingspond can figure out what the efficiency of burning NG is for heating water with an effectively infinite heat exchanger...

I'll wait and laugh at your stupidity.  This will be interesting.

HINT: Same efficiency as burning ANYTHING else for heat...Near 100% 

[TailingsPond + 473]

On 7/30/2022 at 12:52 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Maybe you and tailingspond can figure out what the efficiency of burning NG is for heating water with an effectively infinite heat exchanger...

I'll wait and laugh at your stupidity.  This will be interesting.

HINT: Same efficiency as burning ANYTHING else for heat...Near 100% 

Efficiency defined as to this circumstance?

Can someone burn anything in a fancy calorimeter and capture near all of its heat? Yes, of course. Your home is not a calorimeter.

Can you explain why acetylene burns hotter than ethane despite having lower energy density? 

Hint: your exhaust contains a lot of energy.

2nd hint: Hess law

Edited July 31, 2022 by TailingsPond

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 7/27/2022 at 10:44 PM, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Low heat = low efficiency. In the world of Carnots, delta t is king. The best hot water tank is a Dewar.

Low heat does not equate to low delta T. It depends on the substance in question. You might want to examine a different cycle for the wood scenario. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 7/31/2022 at 5:42 PM, TailingsPond said:

Can someone burn anything in a fancy calorimeter and capture near all of its heat? Yes, of course. Your home is not a calorimeter.

Why don't you do an exergy balance and tell us exactly how much heat enters the house?

Also, Hess's law has very little to do with this. Hess's law only speaks about heats of formation, not thermodynamic pathways. 

Edited August 3, 2022 by KeyboardWarrior

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 7/28/2022 at 3:45 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Go right ahead and show some numbers.

You need to be continuously reminded that low cost of production does not equate to good rate of return. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 7/30/2022 at 1:52 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

HINT: Same efficiency as burning ANYTHING else for heat...Near 100% 

I think that wood would yield greater exergy, since other fuels (disregarding coal) have a higher hydrogen content. This means more H2O leaving the stack and taking energy with it. 

[TailingsPond + 473]

4 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

 

Also, Hess's law has very little to do with this. Hess's law only speaks about heats of formation, not thermodynamic pathways. 

At what temp are the products formed?

[TailingsPond + 473]

4 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

 a higher hydrogen content. This means more H2O leaving the stack and taking energy with it. 

*ding ding * That water had to be boiled to the temp of the flame

Hess

Edited August 3, 2022 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 473]

Hints are not answers for a reason...

learning

Edited August 3, 2022 by TailingsPond

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

8 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Low heat does not equate to low delta T. It depends on the substance in question. You might want to examine a different cycle for the wood scenario. 

Burning wood pellets rivals burning anthracite. Not at all low heat.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

14 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

At what temp are the products formed?

That's not Hess's law. Hess's law is about summing enthalpies from reaction steps to calculate an enthalpy of formation that's particularly difficult to measure. A great example is carbonic acid. 

For the sake of this argument, what needs to be known are the specific heats of the products (which, by the way, aren't constants. you need to integrate), and the heat released from combustion. We don't need to be summing separate equations for this. 

"Hess's Law of Constant Heat Summation (or just Hess's Law) states that regardless of the multiple stages or steps of a reaction, the total enthalpy change for the reaction is the sum of all changes. This law is a manifestation that enthalpy is a state function."

 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 7/28/2022 at 1:51 AM, Boat said:

Kansas is getting a 4 billion battery plant for Tesla. Samsung is the battery builder. We’ll wait and see but that may end up being the biggest yet. 

What's the rate of return on batteries this year? 

[TailingsPond + 473]

2 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

That's not Hess's law. Hess's law is about summing enthalpies from reaction steps to calculate an enthalpy of formation that's particularly difficult to measure. A great example is carbonic acid. 

For the sake of this argument, what needs to be known are the specific heats of the products (which, by the way, aren't constants. you need to integrate), and the heat released from combustion. We don't need to be summing separate equations for this. 

"Hess's Law of Constant Heat Summation (or just Hess's Law) states that regardless of the multiple stages or steps of a reaction, the total enthalpy change for the reaction is the sum of all changes. This law is a manifestation that enthalpy is a state function."

 

Recognize that the products are formed at STP.  Hence the water product has to be heated, boiled, and the steam heated up to the temp of the flame.   Hess law is absolutely relevant when discussing combustion. Heat of vaporization, heat capacity etc. are handled essentially the same way as heat of formation.

You were correct that the energy is leaving the system as steam. This is why acetylene burns hotter with technically less energy than the 2-carbon homolog ethane. 

I'm better than the average Joe at chemistry.  I've done advanced bomb calorimetry in the lab...(20atm O2, benzoic acid, pellet press, etc.).

Edited August 3, 2022 by TailingsPond