Some Good News on Climate Change Maybe

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

The quarry scenario where the processing plant is downhill is an extreme case where the eDumper will get all the energy it needs from regenerative braking.  I'm fully aware that in a more classical open pit mine where the truck is going up from the pit loaded and going down empty, regenerative braking could only save a smaller part of the energy needed. How much will really depend of the exact location of the dump site and processing plant. But if you plan to use these kind of electric vehicles you will probably take this factor into account when planning the mine layout and place the dump site or processing plant accordingly.

Haul trucks account for the major share of overall surface mining equipment costs. Fuel consumption is always the primary operating cost associated with trucks. Fundamental changes in fuel conservation, efficiency and reducing negative environmental impact related to CO2 emission are of crucial importance. A number of factors contribute to fuel consumption. These factors include truck load, speed, power, weight (empty and gross), accelerations, idle time, fuel quality, aerodynamics, road surface and tire quality, wheel alignment and tires’ inflation pressure, road grade, the operator’s driving style, outside temperature, weather and adequacy of a truck’s maintenance program.

(V. Kecojevic and D. Komljenovic, Haul truck fuel consumption and CO2 emission under various engine load conditions)

 

If you can find a way to reduce the fuel consumption of the haul trucks you can substantially improve the operating costs of the mine. And I'm pretty sure that in a not so distant future mining companies will start to consider replacing the diesel trucks with electric trucks if they can get a competitive advantage. This will happen first in underground mines where using electric vehicles will substantially reduce the ventilation cost then open pit mines will follow.

 

 

 

[Boat + 1,315]

On 3/5/2019 at 7:09 PM, Okie said:

Actually, many of these already exist, but mostly in Scandinavia.  Most of the battery electric ships are ferries.  The battery electric cranes, bulldozers and such are used in construction and are plugged in at night.  Peruvian, a new company, is already building battery electric trucks and SUVs in central Illinois, to be sold starting next year.

As for mowers, my riding and push mower both are already battery electric.  Actually, all my tools are.  See Ryobi tools.

Like it or not, batteries are the future.  The technology is advancing rapidly.  Not quite Moore's Law fast, but fast enough.  There are many types of batteries for many types of applications.  See the "battery university" website for more details.

Other websites, such as electrek.co frequently showcase new battery electric vehicles and tools, including some of the kind you say cannot exist.  The site's comment section is frequented by both Tesla fanboys and detractors.  But I have picked up good information there, because many of them are very knowledgeable about battery chemistry.

I have worked in the oil (mainly natural gas) industry in the past.  Oil will still be dominant for a few years, maybe even a decade.  But battery and "green" energy costs are dropping rapidly.  Combined with natural gas being so cheap (there is reportedly a 2000-year supply, if you count the methane ice at the bottom of lakes in Canada and the ocean floor), the time for crude oil and coal is about to be over.  It is just math.  You can either get board or get run over. 

As batteries combine with all forms of green energy: wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and river dams, the cost of oil and coal, counting their pollution costs, it will simply be cheaper to use "green energy."  There are some who argue it already is, if you count their lifetime cost.  Once you burn the oil, coal or other fossil fuels, they are effectively gone and pollution remains (coal ash, air smog, etc.).  Green energy materials can mostly be recycled (in particular, all metals can be recycled).

 

This is my first post.  I have been lurking here for a while.  I hope you guys (and gals) can be respectful.  A lot of you seem to make this stuff too political -- and personal.  Yes, personal fortunes will be made and lost betting on the "wrong horse."  And I could be wrong about where things are heading.  And political policies do affect market opportunities.  But I am pretty sure the market is clearly heading toward a change in energy policy long-term.

You have less than 6 years to go to get to 100% renewables and your pretty sure the market is headed toward a change in energy policy. Lol.

I think you need to reread Metidith Poor’s post at 9:31 to put my response Into context. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Okie + 83]

1 hour ago, Boat said:

You have less than 6 years to go to get to 100% renewables and your pretty sure the market is headed toward a change in energy policy. Lol.

I think you need to reread Metidith Poor’s post at 9:31 to put my response Into context. 

I don't know what you are talking about in this response to me.  I never said we had to be at 100% renewables within six years.  That must have been someone else.  I think I only remarked on where the trend is going.

1 hour ago, Boat said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

11 hours ago, NickW said:

 I gave an example of the Iron Ore mines in the Pilbara but I suspect there are many other examples around the world. 

Except your example is not true.  It is false.  Yes it drops a short bit of elevation.  That helps for a short distance.  Wind resistance over that short fall distance is greater. The haul out is long distance.  This is the equivalent of claiming a river barge can generate power going down river...

BTW: Just like ports who use electricity, a railroad should be able to go electric.  It is fixed infrastructure.  Good for all lines?  No.  Main routes?  Yes.  Of course that is an immense amount of copper required. But it is easily doable. 

And no, the sides of rail roads are not cleared via electric chainsaw.  The sides were cleared using ICE and kept mowed down with ICE as they are vastly faster due to power and lightweight compared to battery.  What you claim is clearing is not clearing, it is clean up for when a branch blocks the tracks and needs to be taken care of in an emergency. When an arborist starts using an electric chainsaw for anything other than pruning(been doing so for decades, but corded) let the world know.  Until then, stop the half lies.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 3/5/2019 at 6:54 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

Wastral and others, here is some ancient advice from the very beginnings of the intertubes...

Yet you are as guilty as the others in doing that, Tom. 

Rather poor form, all things considered.  Those trolls that you reference, who write arrogant, belittling, insolent and insulting posts are best ignored, until the Moderators yank the membership and kick them off the forum.  You do not ignore them; indeed, I get the impression you subtly encourage them.  Regards, Jan

Edited March 7, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 3/5/2019 at 8:09 PM, Okie said:

 

This is my first post.  I have been lurking here for a while.  I hope you guys (and gals) can be respectful.  A lot of you seem to make this stuff too political -- and personal.  Yes, personal fortunes will be made and lost betting on the "wrong horse."  And I could be wrong about where things are heading.  And political policies do affect market opportunities.  But I am pretty sure the market is clearly heading toward a change in energy policy long-term.

Hi, Fred, and good to read your post!  Please rest assured that I intend to be very respectful of your posts, and I look forward to reading them. 

Here is a thought for you:  the technology exists to convert waste organic material into gasoline by reacting with injected CO2 in a kettle with a catalyst, apparently at temperature.  Given the problems with expanding landfills, my guess is that one avenue for "where things are heading" is getting away from using oil, which is after all an inconvenient mineral slime, and instead taking waste organic materials that are being landfilled and converting that into liquid fuels.  I would be curious as to your thoughts on this.  Cheers.

[Okie + 83]

12 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Hi, Fred, and good to read your post!  Please rest assured that I intend to be very respectful of your posts, and I look forward to reading them. 

Here is a thought for you:  the technology exists to convert waste organic material into gasoline by reacting with injected CO2 in a kettle with a catalyst, apparently at temperature.  Given the problems with expanding landfills, my guess is that one avenue for "where things are heading" is getting away from using oil, which is after all an inconvenient mineral slime, and instead taking waste organic materials that are being landfilled and converting that into liquid fuels.  I would be curious as to your thoughts on this.  Cheers.

Anything to reduce waste in landfills and convert it to energy is probably a good thing.  However, I am not aware of the scale that is achievable.  But even if it contributed even 10%, that would match what is being done with corn.  What is its energy density; and can vehicles be adapted to it more or less easily? 

Additionally, I think more should be done to reduce other pollution in landfills, such as recycling plastics.  Think of the young Dutch man, Boyan Slat, who has invented a way to collect and recycle plastic from the oceans into its original form.  See https://www.theoceancleanup.com/

All metals can be recycled as well.  Recycling these two materials in landfills should reduce their size.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, Okie said:

  Think of the young Dutch man, Boyan Slat, who has invented a way to collect and recycle plastic from the oceans into its original form.  See https://www.theoceancleanup.com/

 

"Project Ocean Cleanup" is, while well-intentioned, not the unalloyed great idea it is being presented as.  First, it is consuming a lot of cash for the amount collected.  You would get much larger results by positioning those nets at the mouths of rivers that flow through urban areas. That is especially true in third-world countries, places such as Indonesia and India. 

Second, the floating driftnets have this subtle destruction of floating growths of primitive organisms just under the water surface.  Ironically, those algal growths produce a lot of fish food, and you wreck that with the mesh net. The Great Pacific Gyre is not what you might think: a vast floating field of plastic trash, bottles, whatever.  It is not like that.  You could sail straight through the Gyre and not see one single piece of plastic.  The stuff is widely dispersed.  Yes, the concentration is higher than in the open areas of the ocean, and yes, the disintegration of plastics into micro-pieces is a very serious problem, but it remains unclear if the damage done by the collecting nets to the ecosystem is greater than the collected rubbish.  

[Okie + 83]

Actually, Jan, I was trying to point out his ability to recycle plastic into its original form.  Obviously, it would be more efficient to prevent it from reaching the ocean to begin with.

[Red + 252]

On 3/6/2019 at 10:40 PM, Wastral said:

Quote one.... We will be waiting till the heat death of the universe while you search...

I would have replied but was sent to one of Tom's gulags for noting how some of these forums are awash with rubbish from posters who make claims without substance or logic, and really reflected comedy rather than informed comment.

I can and do link to science when showing others do not understand climate science.  I also link to other sources to back my statements, as you will see below.

At other sites during my absence here I have posted on renewables in the mining industry.  Several of the  posts above mimicked my content. 

Anyhow, this  link puts into perspective how the mining sector can completely move from using fossil fuels in their operations and at the same time significantly reduce operating costs.

 

[rossjonnes 0]

 

Which is the best product among those listed in this site?

https://onlychainsaw.com/best-electric-chainsaw/

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

On 5/20/2019 at 8:51 AM, Red said:

I would have replied but was sent to one of Tom's gulags for noting how some of these forums are awash with rubbish from posters who make claims without substance or logic, and really reflected comedy rather than informed comment.

Special this week, buy one gulag, get another one free.

Food and other amenities available at extra cost.

 

[NickW + 2,714]

On 3/7/2019 at 9:16 AM, Wastral said:

Except your example is not true.  It is false.  Yes it drops a short bit of elevation.  That helps for a short distance.  Wind resistance over that short fall distance is greater. The haul out is long distance.  This is the equivalent of claiming a river barge can generate power going down river...

BTW: Just like ports who use electricity, a railroad should be able to go electric.  It is fixed infrastructure.  Good for all lines?  No.  Main routes?  Yes.  Of course that is an immense amount of copper required. But it is easily doable. 

And no, the sides of rail roads are not cleared via electric chainsaw.  The sides were cleared using ICE and kept mowed down with ICE as they are vastly faster due to power and lightweight compared to battery.  What you claim is clearing is not clearing, it is clean up for when a branch blocks the tracks and needs to be taken care of in an emergency. When an arborist starts using an electric chainsaw for anything other than pruning(been doing so for decades, but corded) let the world know.  Until then, stop the half lies.

Regenerative braking is still going to work recovering a proportion of the energy expended - millions of trains and cars are out there in the real world to prove this. 

As regards the use of electric chain saws I shall post my comment again and put in bold the key points for the hard of thinking. 

 

RE Chainsaws. As I said 75-80% of the work is done using electric. A heavier petrol unit is used for larger jobs. This makes sense - why burden workers with heavier, noisier, polluting equipment when a safer alternative will do 4/5th's of the work in the same time

Its generally a good idea not to let 'Giant Redwoods' reach maturity on rail verges hence the tree stock have diameters upto about 150 mm which the electric chainsaws cope quite well with. Anything bigger - get the petrol out.