Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 112   Go Down

Author Topic: Extreme weather  (Read 50360 times)

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3926
    • advantica blog
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #380 on: August 07, 2019, 06:45:55 am »

Once again, having a 3 acre one-gigawatt nuclear power plant operating 90% of the time located close to a city center is a much better option, by leaps and bounds, then a 1500 acre wind/solar farm only producing energy, at most, 30% of the time located miles outside that city center needing long range power lines.  We will eb much better off putting all of our effort into nuclear, and other clearly efficient energy solutions, then wasting our time on wind and solar. 

1500 acre requirement for a solar farm is indeed a huge cost, but if we'll start using the idle roof spaces for solar panels, that wouldn't require buying land. Roof tiles with integral solar collectors could be longer lasting than asphalt shingles and possibly also more suitable in regions with heavy snowfall.
 

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #381 on: August 07, 2019, 07:20:28 am »

Bart, please show me one country, anywhere, that increased their solar and wind use while also decreasing CO2 and energy prices. 

It certainly isn't Germany, and so far as I can tell, no other country has done it either. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #382 on: August 07, 2019, 07:23:25 am »

1500 acre requirement for a solar farm is indeed a huge cost, but if we'll start using the idle roof spaces for solar panels, that wouldn't require buying land. Roof tiles with integral solar collectors could be longer lasting than asphalt shingles and possibly also more suitable in regions with heavy snowfall.

Once again this ignores that fact that the world wide trend is people moving to cities with significantly less roof sqf per person.  Also, manufacturing uses a lot more energy then residences of which there is no where near the amount of roof space to generate the energy they need from wind or solar. 

Last, it is twice as expensive to get electricity from roof panels then from solar farms. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #383 on: August 07, 2019, 07:29:06 am »


Can you provide a source to support the claim that Germany has not reduced its CO2 emissions? This claim has been made here many times but I don't recall seeing any evidence for it.

Why Aren't Renewables Decreasing Germany's Carbon Emissions?

Looks like I have not been following the latest data though because:

German greenhouse gas emissions fall for first time in four years

Emissions decreased a whopping 4.2% from 2017 to 2018.  However most agree it had little to nothing to do with renewables and everything to do with warmer weather leading to less heating. 

But one year does not necessarily mean anything for the long term and their energy prices are still more than 2 times higher then France. 

Germany's Failed Climate Goals
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 09:21:33 am by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1887
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #384 on: August 07, 2019, 07:35:36 am »

Why Aren't Renewables Decreasing Germany's Carbon Emissions?

Looks like I have not been following the latest data though because:

German greenhouse gas emissions fall for first time in four years

But one year does not necessarily mean anything for the long term


Indeed - their CO2 emission has been falling generally since 1990, so, whatever the question of cost, it is not true to claim that Germany's CO2 emissions have not been cut, so I hope you and others will refrain from perpetuating this ... err .. terminological inexactitude.


« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 07:47:36 am by jeremyrh »
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #385 on: August 07, 2019, 07:50:39 am »

Yes. I do. I can see it. I cross it on a ferry. I swim in it.  I drink it.  I boat on it.  I eat fish from it. It's called a "natural resource".

 We are not foolish.  We use it quickly. It's stored for a few months.

  So, you'd rather we just let it run into the ocean?

 It's not "locked up".  It's stored briefly, then used.  Managed, in other words.


 I can't make sense of that statement, frankly.  The reservoir fills during spring runoff and is released throughout the year until it re-fills the next spring.  It's available for irrigation and other uses year round.

 Not true. There are many locations that are under-utilizing hydro power.  There are many others that are using it wisely.  Bhutan, for example has but one major export.  Hydro power. To India.  Run-of-the-river power solutions don't even require a reservoir.

 
So, I'm making up that "fairy tale?  That, in fact we don't sell power into the US?  Tell that to the residents of BC, Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland, all of whom earn substantial revenue from that "fairy tale". 

As for "loosing" energy in transport, line losses for high voltage AC power distribution average about 1%  Even less with HVDC.

 
How many of your Nucs would be required to generate 50,000 gigawatt hours of power? BC alone does this continuously, silently and with zero emissions of any kind. And that's just from one little area. The eastern Canada hydro projects dwarf ours.

I said nothing about wind.  I referenced solar and hydro, since I'm familiar with those systems.  For wind-based fairy tales, I suggest you instruct the people of Washington State, Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma et al on their stupidity.  They have invested hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars in wind farms. There are hundreds of new wind turbines in Oregon alone, all of which appear to be working quite well, thank you.

And, again to short circuit the inevitable cheap shots: they no longer kill many birds.  The birds learned.

Peter, your missing the whole point.  Storing water even for a couple of months would still have an effect on crops and farm animals.  Although it may rain a lot where you are, this is not the case in many other places of the world.  What is Mexico City going to do? 

Furthermore, your comment asking how many nuclear plants we would need to generate 50,000 GW while bring up a damn that you have ignores some pretty important items.  First, we are nearly maxed out in the developed world with locations to build damns.  Although there may be places in the 3rd world, we literally have no more places to build damns. 

So, in order to keep up with our energy production, we will need to build more plants, regardless of the type.  Now the international standard is to build plants that can produce 1 GW of electricity.  So, for your example of 50,000 GW, we would need 50,000 plants, either nuclear or wind/solar farms.  A typical 1 GW nuclear plants takes up 3 acres, so we would need 150,000 acres to fill the need.  Best case, from real life data, shows a 1 GW wind/solar farm takes up 1500 acres. 

So to fill the 50,000 GW need with wind/solar farms would require 75,000,000 acres.  To put that in perspective, that is 117187.5 square miles or a square that has sides of 342 miles.  That is more then double the size of NY state!   

Regardless of the type of power, the land needs to be clear cut.  Would you rather destroy 150K acres (about half of NYC) or 75M acres (two entire NY states)? 

Good luck getting the public to adopt the latter.  It always amazes me when so called environmentalists want to pick an energy source (wind/solar) that would completely destroy extremely large areas of natural habitats. 

Insofar as your comment on those states using wind/solar, all, with the exception of TX, have seen their energy prices rise along with emissions.  The only reason TX saw a decrease is because TX is the epicenter for natural gas fracking and natural gas is cheaper there then anywhere else.  So the extreme decrease in the price of gas offset the increases that would have been seen from wind/solar.

Finally, your comment on less birds dying because they smarter really gave me a good laugh.  These wind mills kill large birds, many of which are threatened species.  The reason we see less of them dying is not because they are getting smarter, but because there are less of them around due to being killed.  LOL  It would be like me saying that the Passenger Pigeon wasn't actually hunted to extinction, they just got better at hiding, and that is why we don't see them anymore. 
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 10:42:14 am by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #386 on: August 07, 2019, 07:51:44 am »

Indeed - their CO2 emission has been falling generally since 1990, so, whatever the question of cost, it is not true to claim that Germany's CO2 emissions have not been cut, so I hope you and others will refrain from perpetuating this ... err .. terminological inexactitude.



Yes, but the green revolution has only be happening for the last 10 years.  Citing data going back to 1990 (30 years) does nothing to support the need for more wind/solar.  Only the data over the period of time during the wind/solar up tick is important, and over that time the emissions have not gone down. 

You also missed the part of the articles that stated in no uncertain terms that Germany will miss it's target.  So providing a graph that also shows targets as if they will happen is meaningless as well. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1887
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #387 on: August 07, 2019, 07:56:39 am »

Yes, but the green revolution has only be happening for the last 10 years.  Citing data going back to 1990 (30 years) does nothing to support the need for more wind/solar. 

You also missed the part of the articles that stated in no uncertain terms that Germany will miss it's target.  So providing a graph that also shows targets as if they will happen is meaningless as well.

No, I didn't "miss" anything. What I said is that the claim made here, by you and others, that Germany's CO2 emissions have not been falling is false, as this graph clearly shows. Hopefully we won't see it repeated.
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #388 on: August 07, 2019, 08:01:28 am »

No, I didn't "miss" anything. What I said is that the claim made here, by you and others, that Germany's CO2 emissions have not been falling is false, as this graph clearly shows. Hopefully we won't see it repeated.

Are we going to go back the height of industrial revolution too? 

Over the period in time of Germany going full in on wind/solar, which has only been the last 10 years, the emissions have not decreased.  It makes no sense to go further back like you are doing if we are talking about decreases due to adoption of wind/solar.  This is especially true considering the majority of the graph you supplied is over a period of time where wind/solar was less of a concern.
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1887
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #389 on: August 07, 2019, 08:05:34 am »

Over the period in time of Germany going full in on wind/solar, which has only been the last 10 years,

Another false claim

Logged

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2404
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #390 on: August 07, 2019, 08:26:28 am »

Jeremyrh, JoeKitchen is asserting what we in the US refer to "alternate facts". Thank you Kellyanne Conway.

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #391 on: August 07, 2019, 08:29:00 am »

Another false claim



You're new graph clearly shows that the increase in wind/solar did not start until 2004/2005, so lat 15 years.  Sorry for stating 10 instead of 15. 

However, the majority in the decrease of CO2 your first graph showed happened between 1990 and 2005, outside the time period of wind/solar being ramped up.  So, point in fact, the first 15 years in the CO2 decrease graph means nothing to this conversation. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #392 on: August 07, 2019, 08:29:32 am »

Jeremyrh, JoeKitchen is asserting "alternate facts".

Thanks for the well thought post showing absolutely no data whatsoever to back up your claims. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1887
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #393 on: August 07, 2019, 08:42:02 am »

You're new graph clearly shows that the increase in wind/solar did not start until 2004/2005, so lat 15 years.  Sorry for stating 10 instead of 15. 

However, the majority in the decrease of CO2 your first graph showed happened between 1990 and 2005, outside the time period of wind/solar being ramped up.  So, point in fact, the first 15 years in the CO2 decrease graph means nothing to this conversation.

The graph clearly shows that the increase began in 2002 (from 2.9% to 3.2%). If we are down to a situation where people are just making mistakes about figures that are right in from of their eyes, then there is no point in trying to have a more profound or nuanced discussion. (Bart - this illustrates why I am not bothering any more with this forum.)

In any case, whatever the overall CO2 emission figures, obviously they would have been higher if there had been no substitution of coal by renewables, so that is an irrelevance.
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #394 on: August 07, 2019, 08:46:07 am »

Lets, for the sake of argument assume that increasing wind/solar may decrease emissions.  In theory, I will agree this is the case, although in reality it has not been shown yet. 

Lets just think about the total land mass needed for Germany's power needs if produced from wind/solar.  Germany uses about 556,500 GWH of electricity per year.  Total electricity consumption in Germany largely stable in 2018  The article gives it is KwH, which I converted to GWH, mainly because we are talking in GWH and the KWH figure is much too large. 

The best case calculation from real life data shows it takes 1500 acres of wind/solar to produce 1 GWH.  I know that some pro-renewable articles say ~ 2.9 acres per GW, but this assumes the best conditions 24/7.  Real life date is much less promising.  Areas of industrial wind facilities  A quick glance of this data shows that in reality the average is 75 acres to produce one MW and there are 1000 MW in one GW.  So the 1500 acres per GW is still a pretty hopeful stat.  Even at the current best wind farm, the Braes of Doune, Scotland, only needing 14 acres to produce 1 MW, my 1500 acres per one GW is still pretty pie in the sky.  But this is the number many on the left use, so lets stick with it. 

Now if we multiple Germany's electricity usage by 1500, we get about 835M acres that would be needed for total electricity production from wind/solar.  That is a wicked amount of land.  Sure, much of these farms in Germany are in the sea, decreasing the actual land used, but this still adds in the extra cost of maintaining metal parts in a corrosive environment. 

Just due to the shear amount of land needed, there is no way to make wind/solar work without completely destroying the environment along the way. 
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 10:48:19 am by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #395 on: August 07, 2019, 08:52:59 am »

The graph clearly shows that the increase began in 2002 (from 2.9% to 3.2%). If we are down to a situation where people are just making mistakes about figures that are right in from of their eyes, then there is no point in trying to have a more profound or nuanced discussion. (Bart - this illustrates why I am not bothering any more with this forum.)

In any case, whatever the overall CO2 emission figures, obviously they would have been higher if there had been no substitution of coal by renewables, so that is an irrelevance.

Come on now, seriously, 2.9 to 3.3 is a minuscule increase.  No real progress starts until 2004/2005. 

Yes, I agree on the 2nd part of your statement.  I am not taking away from the positive of having less CO2 emitted.  It is just all of the real life data, not the projected data, simply shows wind/solar is a considerably more expensive type of energy that will never be a base load source due to the intermittency.  So, some type of base load power source will always be needed to supply energy the 70% to 90% of the time the farms do not produce energy. 

The data also shows nuclear is considerably less expensive, has even less CO2 emissions and is a base load power source. 

It is a waste of time and money to fool around with wind/solar when they will never be base line sources and we will eventually be utilizing nuclear after fossil fuels run out. 

I would much rather us adopt nuclear sooner to help with climate change then for us to fumble around with wind/solar, all the while using coal/gas for base line plants only to eventually adopt nuclear when we run out of coal/gas.  The former would be much better for the environment, especially since real life data shows that the latter is what we get when we invest in wind/solar. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1887
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #396 on: August 07, 2019, 08:54:49 am »

Lets, for the sake of argument assume that increasing wind/solar may decrease emissions.  In theory, I will agree this is the case, although in reality it has not been shown yet.

Think about what it would take to show that. What sort of controlled experiment would you ask for?

Quote
Lets just think about the total land mass needed for Germany's power needs if produced from wind/solar. 

I don't have any dog in that fight. Maybe there is no solution, maybe offshore wind, tides, whatever. My point here is just to ask that people stop inventing "facts" to support their case, and I'm sorry that you were the one that strolled into the propellers, as you are one of the more thoughtful forum participants.
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1887
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #397 on: August 07, 2019, 08:57:02 am »

Come on now, seriously, 2.9 to 3.3 is a minuscule increase.  No real progress starts until 2004/2005. 

Take a look at the red bars on the first graph (energy industries) - there is a peak at 2004 and a 20% decline thereafter.
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #398 on: August 07, 2019, 09:00:27 am »

Think about what it would take to show that. What sort of controlled experiment would you ask for?

I don't have any dog in that fight. Maybe there is no solution, maybe offshore wind, tides, whatever. My point here is just to ask that people stop inventing "facts" to support their case, and I'm sorry that you were the one that strolled into the propellers, as you are one of the more thoughtful forum participants.

I'll take that as a compliment and thank you for provide the data on wind/solar increase in Germany. 

Insofar as your first statement, I am not asking for a controlled experiment.  Just data that shows an actual decrease in CO2 over a period of time when wind/solar was increased by a decent amount that can not be clearly attributed to something else, like a very mild winter. 

A decrease in energy prices would be good too, since that is the only way you will get the overall public to adopt the technology (regardless of what it is).  Wind and solar sounds good, but people really vote with their wallets.  Even if wind and solar decrease CO2, if the price goes up too much it will never be adopted. 
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 09:03:39 am by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #399 on: August 07, 2019, 09:02:09 am »

Take a look at the red bars on the first graph (energy industries) - there is a peak at 2004 and a 20% decline thereafter.

I would assume the majority of that decrease is due to what caused the decreases from 1990 to 2008/2009.  More then likely this would be an increase in energy efficiencies of buildings, machinery and appliances. 

Remember, architecture started going big on LEED building design in the 90s, which really help on decreasing energy consumption.  The USGBC was created in 1993 and LEED certification was introduced in 1998 and formalized in 2007.  However, even prior to this, the trend was towards better building and appliance design. 

Certainly a good thing, but nothing to do with wind and solar.  The data that matters for this conversation are during the years of the largest increase in wind/solar production, which show a stagnation. 
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 09:17:13 am by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 112   Go Up