ML

Australian power prices go insane

Recommended Posts

(edited)

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

🙄🤣🤡

We aren't doing work... We are absorbing heat in an effectively infinite heat exchanger.  And no delta T is NOT king. 

My bad, not a socialist, a communist.

The volume of waste gas is much greater than the volume of wood.  Since the pressure remains constant at around one atmosphere there is work being done by the system (you have to push away the atmosphere.)

W=P delta V

Edited by TailingsPond
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

The volume of waste gas is much greater than the volume of wood.  Since the pressure remains constant at around one atmosphere there is work being done by the system (you have to push away the atmosphere.)

W=P delta V

There is no atmosphere. Foot is running the setup with his body parts blocking the chimney, as he's been describing it.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

🙄🤣🤡

We aren't doing work... We are absorbing heat in an effectively infinite heat exchanger.  And no delta T is NOT king. 

My bad, not a socialist, a communist.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong (cannot be falsified)

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.

Communism is a utopia that has never been implemented yet in our reality. This property it does share with your so-called "liberal democracy" Post-scarcity society is eventually inevitable. This is what communism was about, way ahead of its time, perhaps. You are welcome to suggest some other form of free lunch. For example, the Free Software Foundation, which is often mistaken for Communist, but is really a party bankrolled by the interests of US military. Do you know how marginal value works? And no, I am not communist either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2022 at 11:34 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Australia 'on track' to generate half its electricity from renewable sources by 2025, report finds

 
Posted Mon 11 Jul 2022 at 12:57pmMonday 11 Jul 2022 at 12:57pm, updated Mon 11 Jul 2022 at 5:41pmMonday 11 Jul 2022 at 5:41pm
Aerial view of rows of solar panels on red soil from directly above.
Solar is seen as the leading contender to decarbonise global energy systems.(ABC News: Michael Franchi)

Australia is on track to generate half its electricity needs from renewable sources within three years, according to a report highlighting the extraordinary pace of change underway in the country's energy system.

Key points:

  • The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering says the country's renewable energy share will rise to 69 per cent by 2030
  • The academy is calling for changes to help guide and coordinate massive investments needed to transition away from fossil fuels
  • It comes as amid upheaval in the eastern states' power and gas industries, which have been hit hard by soaring prices and fears of supply shortages
 

In what it described as a snapshot of the industry, the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (AATSE) found renewable energy adoption was galloping ahead as wind and solar power became cheaper.

The group, which is comprised of technical experts, said renewable energy was "tracking towards" 50 per cent of Australia's electricity generation in 2025, a share that was expected to rise to 69 per cent by 2030.

It also suggested Australia's electricity networks would be capable of running on 100 per cent green energy for periods at a time by the middle of the decade.

At what cost? Energy investments require money. That all has to be factored into the comparison.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

At what cost? Energy investments require money. That all has to be factored into the comparison.

A cost that is less than fossil. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

CNN Expansion DC - November 2021, Shoot ID: 1089822 ,  11/16/2021, Ella Nilsen

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.
 
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.
 
"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

CNN Expansion DC - November 2021, Shoot ID: 1089822 ,  11/16/2021, Ella Nilsen

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.
 
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.
 
"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! 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

A cost that is less than fossil. 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

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

Go right ahead and show some numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

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 by Eyes Wide Open
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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% 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

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 by TailingsPond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

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 by KeyboardWarrior
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

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 by TailingsPond

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.